I'm looking forward to seeing polls (of registered and likely voters)within a week of the election.

Everyone here (including myself) is very political.

The majority of the voting public are not. They've just received their mail in ballots and will start thinking seriously about candidates and issues. In states that don't do "mail in", the decision making process can be even closer to the polling date.

Remember, aside from Trolls like me, most Republicans don't demonstrate in the street, throw public tantrums, or plaster their cars with bumper stickers. (note to some of you: time to remove your Kerry/Edwards stickers, you lost, it's over).

You will be shocked at how many conservatives vote in order to support 43. The turnout will be enormous.

I'm largely in agreement with what you've said here, Jeff. However I think that your framing towards the end is perhaps a bit myopic. It seems to me that older voters in particular remember when solid Democratic majorities in Congress thwarted President Carter, which helped in part to set the stage for the Reagan presidency which helped in part to set the stage for the later Republican Revolution in the House, to which you refer in your framing of the current political situation. Although in all fairness Jimmy Carter himself helped set up both by being the first to seriously court the Evangelical vote... which showed Reagan a path to power.

I guess what I'm saying is that those who want to see the "radical centrists" rise are not going to be any more pleased with progressive litmus tests then they have been with conservative litmus tests... and they largely blame both extremes for the current mess. I say that based on several years as a semi-regular commenter over at The Centrist Coalition's blog, Center Field

This post seems to pre-suppose that Dems will carry Congress in the election. I hope you are right, but my mother taught me not to count my chickens until they are hatched. At this moment there are tens of millions of big "C" Christians being ordered by "Pastor Dave" to march to the polls and vote a straight Republican ticket. The Dems have no counterweapon that I am aware of.

If the Dems do get control, I have no doubt that they will immediately fragment into the usual factions. Union Rights, Women's Rights, Minority Rights, Gay Rights, Environmental Rights, Poverty Rights, Pro-War, Anti-War, etc. etc. etc. Everybody has been outside the power structure for so long, they will all want their moment in the sun in case the Republicans get power back in 2008.

So, here's to an interesting election season!

Jeff writes that "Democrats could simultaneously shore up policy problems without making exaggerated nativist attacks on Latino immigrants."

Why then is Kulongoski getting sucked into this trap? Last week, the DPO sent out a Kulongoski mailer describing how tough Ted has been on immigrants: sending National Guard troops to the border, cracking down on suspicious driver's licenses, and increasing employer sanctions. The mailing even describes people as "illegals."

Kulongoski got wedged. If Saxton weren't so bad, I might have to vote for Keating.

Any Dem's want to defend this terrible choice?

I liked the sound of the independent voters favoring dems 2-1 in this article from today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102300766.html

Had my parents not sold their cars a few years ago and replaced them (an 89 and an 83 respectively) our cars would still have the Clinton/Gore '92 (not even 96) sticker on them. Thankfully, its actually possible to remove those things now as I took off the Kerry sticker and replaced it wih a TK one.

Democrats could accomplish a great deal in the next two years without ever having to play a partisan card or punish the GOP in the way they have punished Democrats over the past 15 years.

If the Dems take the House do you really think there will be anything on the table other than investigation of the Bush administration with the goal of impeachment? The hard-core wing of the party won’t have it any other way and will make sure they get a like minded speaker of the house in place (so much for Pelosi as speaker).

It’ll be gloves off time in Washington with little else of the people’s business getting done. Should make for interesting political theater, provided the Dems pull it off on election day.

Hey, I think that was me talking about the readership of Blue Oregon. The numbers surprised me a bit - that's all. I am not sour in the least.

Who knows what will happen in this next election. All I do know is that if the Dems don't get BOTH the senate and the house they will cry voter fraud and refuse to admit defeat.

I agree with the statement about Republican arrogance but have to to ask, "how is expanding higher ed support a direct short term solution?"

My own conclusion is that one thing remains certain...when America moves too far out of balance...or as I prefer to view it...too far from those fundamental values that have sustained our system of government and guaranteed our commitment to faithfully uphold it...there is a will and a spirit that methodically emerges with quiet certainty to right the course.

I find it ironic that our leaders have chosen to offer two phrases to define this election..."stay the course"...or "cut and run". I believe that on November 7th Americans will reject both in favor of a much more meaningful concept..."return and restore". If American history is correct, that's as close as one can come to a sure thing.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

In the face of what appears to be an imminent, violent slap of rejection from voters, Republicans have been predicting that Dems will seize power like a club.

Chicken. Eggs. Hatch.

Will the New Democratic Majority govern from the center?

I find that very difficult to believe. The core of the Democratic Party is considerably more liberal to left than the nation as a whole, and you fellows know it.

There are some issues you refuse to discuss...

"If Nancy Pelosi looks radical to you, it's because Tom DeLay doesn't."

Frankly, both appear pretty radical to me, just at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Sure as hell wouldnt accuse either of being moderate, anyway.

"Yup, you're right, carbon copies of each other."

I believe I suggested they're polar opposites, a fact neither would dispute. Of course I was referring to political ideaology, not drawing an ethical comparison between Pelosi & DeLay. Yes Jeff, Tom has earned a reputation as a less than savory congressman. We know.

Choosing between Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi is like taking someone to Baskin Robbins and telling them their choices are chocolate or vanilla (or maybe strawberry). There are all sorts of choices available.

To those who believe anyone who doesn't share DeLay's ideology is a follower of Pelosi, I would suggest reading this column about centrists:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301034.html

There ARE those who divide not by ideological poles but between ideologues and problem solvers.

For Joe and Simone--I grew up in a Republican family. Very few members of my family are still registered that way--the party we once knew no longer exists.

Now, if Oregon could see more Republicans like Frank Morse in the State Senate and if nationally we could see more Republicans like Sens. Snowe, Hagel, Collins and others in the US Senate, the GOP might start appealing to those who are not ideologues.

But then, I see Ben Westlund as the closest 21st century resemblance to Tom McCall. What does that make me?

LT,

If you're asking me, I'd say that puts you somewhere near the middle of the road, which aint a bad place to be IMO. Being a good partisan seems to require getting in lock step with a narrow agenda and checking ones objectivity at the door. I prefer to hang onto mine, thanks. Must be doing something right, as I'm accused of being liberal almost as often as being branded a conservative. Just don't call me a Neocon and we'll get along fine.

What LT said... Ditto!

Being a good partisan seems to require getting in lock step with a narrow agenda and checking ones objectivity at the door.

Joe, maybe you are explaining why so many Oregonians refuse to choose a major party when they register to vote.

I have been NAV when I got fed up with both parties, but then I have also been a member of Dem. State Central Comm., a Dem. National Convention delegate, someone who twice campaigned for 3rd party candidates but refused to support Nader to the disgust of some Naderite friends, and grew up a Republican.

I think if both parties don't change from the inside out (Democrats are the better party in 2006 but far from perfect) then the NAV and 3rd party numbers are going to keep climbing.

But I don't see the Pelosi and DeLay are polar opposites comparison because I don't know anything constructive DeLay has ever done. Maybe they are polar opposites in that Pelosi is more interested in solving problems while DeLay was a power hungry ideologue. But that is probably not what you meant.

To show how Republicans have lost support mindlessly over the years, let me tell you that I was a "SF Democrat"---and wrote Barry Goldwater a letter after he said "Those SF Democrats never even mentioned the word veteran" when I got my Official Proceedings of the 1984 Convention book in the mail with the text of all the speeches and all the votes.

Not only did Bob Kerrey (Cong. Medal of Honor Vietnam disabled vet) speak at that convention, but so did others. I copied the pages of their speeches and used a yellow highlighter on the word veteran which was said at least 30 times. Gee, I wonder why no one from Goldwater's office wrote back after I sent that!

I mention this because so many who had been to multiple conventions said that SF was the best organized convention they had ever seen. That was notable because most of the organizers were women, and I seem to recall Pelosi was one of them.

So if someone wants to complain that the member of Congress from SF is representing the views of a particular part of N. California (rather than Texas) and that a former Congressman from Texas does not have the political views of voters in the city of San Francisco, I don't think that makes them "polar opposites". I think they represented the views of those who elected them, and to say otherwise is just geographical stereotyping.

Please Jeff. Had you understood the thrust of my original comment you would clearly see that I made no such assertion. I made a simple observation about your Tom DeLay vs. Pelosi line, an accurate one at that. Surely you're not suggesting that Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. If so, you need only take a gander at her lengthy voting record to debunk that notion. Calibrating your political spectrometer might also be helpful. Therefore, DeLay is to right of center as Pelosi is to _ of center. That one's a gimme.

Again, defending Tom DeLay or bashing Pelosi was never the point. Not mine, anyway

<hr/>