A competitive primary helps us beat Gordon Smith
Kari Chisholm
It's been just seven days since Earl Blumenauer closed the door on running against Gordon Smith. He was the last of Oregon's four Democrats in Congress to make his decision known.
Which leaves the question on everyone's lips: What now?
To be sure, Steve Novick is in the race. By all accounts, he's running hard, raising money, and assembling a team. He's already raised over $40,000 from over 200 donors via ActBlue, and surely there's more coming in by check. Novick's on a roll.
So, does that mean that it's time to close ranks behind Steve and stop encouraging other possible candidates?
I don't think so.
For starters, more candidates is better. A vibrant and robust primary election will be good for Oregon, good for Democrats, and good for the candidates themselves. And very bad for Gordon Smith.
That's right: A competitive primary election, while expensive, will make it more likely that we'll beat Gordon Smith.
Either one of two things will happen: Either somebody will have out-communicated and out-debated Steve Novick (a tall order)... or Steve Novick will have beat that somebody else. Either way, we'll get a better candidate, a better campaign organization, and buckets of earned media. Oregonians will spend months exploring the question "Who should replace Gordon Smith?"
And exploring that question starts with a critical assumption - that Gordon Smith should be replaced. There's nothing more important than inserting that assumption into the collective consciousness of this state.
With a competitive primary, Democrats on all sides will be forced to build a strong campaign, connect with the grassroots, and sharpen their messages. We'll be put through our paces, training for the '08 Finals against Gordon Smith.
OK, you're asking, who should we be looking at? And what are they waiting for?
In Oregon, it's fairly typical for legislative leaders to run for statewide office. Gordon Smith, for example, was Senate President when he ran for the US Senate. John Kitzhaber was Senate President, too, when he ran for Governor.
There are surely plenty of legislators thinking now about running against Gordon Smith, and not just Senator Alan Bates. But the legislature is still in session, and they've got a job to do. The Lege will end its work sometime near the end of June. It's definitely premature to expect an announcement from a legislator before the end of session. (Same for a statewide elected official. They're busy with the Lege, too.)
One thing I've learned: Running for higher office is an intensely personal decision. The hacks and flacks can pore over poll numbers and fundraising plans and opposition research all day long, but in the end, it'll come down to a basic decision: Do I want a new job? Win or lose, am I willing to give up my current job? And, am I willing to put myself and my family through the meat grinder to get there?
Those are tough choices, and anybody else who might be considering the race has only had seven days to think about it so far. Give 'em some time. If someone else gets in, they'd better be deadly serious about winning. Oregonians deserve no less. And beating Gordon Smith will demand it.
How long can we wait?
As I wrote before, don't panic, there's plenty of time. We're nearly a full year from the primary election, and 18 months from the showdown with Gordon Smith. Yeah, earlier is better, but July will be plenty early. America's getting a little 2008-crazy, but that's mostly because the presidential primaries will all be over in just nine months. The same isn't true for the US Senate race.
Gordon Smith will be defeated in 2008. Of that, I am sure. He's either going to lose to Steve Novick, or to someone who had the ability, capacity, and gumption to first beat Steve Novick before beating Gordon Smith.
The more the merrier.
(Full disclosure: Steve Novick is a personal friend. I'll happily support his candidacy. I talk to him at least twice a week about his campaign, though I'm not working for him yet. As I said, I think another candidate or two in the race will help Steve, not hurt him.)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
7:03 a.m.
May 22, '07
The longer the candidates wait to declare a run against Gordon Smith the less time Smith's campaign has to paint a target on the challenger's back. The "robust primary" could generate real interest among voters; it might even pull folks away from endless hours of watching reality TV! The rest of us political geeks know the race to unseat Gordon Smith is going to be a hot one! Smith is the lone Republican to hold statewide office in Oregon and the only Republican U.S. senator serving the West Coast states.
Smith is vulnerable within the Republican party. He and other flip-floppin' Republicans like Norm Coleman and Collins are viewed by conservatives as needing to be pruned, some already have the shears in their hands.
7:24 a.m.
May 22, '07
I agree that a competitive primary strengthens the candidates and the party. What I have a hard time with is begging office holders and former offices holders to run. Either their hearts are in it or their not. I support Steve Novick!
May 22, '07
Good idea Kari, but do you really think you can out-communicate and out-debate Novick on your way to winning the nomination?
But seriously, of course you're right about a contested primary actually strengthening the ultimate nominee (Novick).
"That which does not kill me makes me stronger." Ray Nitchke said that. Linebacker, philosopher.
7:39 a.m.
May 22, '07
I can't help but wonder if Kari's piece here is (at least in part) a response to our decision at Loaded Orygun to back Novick. Yeah--I'm sufficiently ego-filled to believe stuff like that. Sue me.
To be clear (and I speak on this part only for myself, not TJ), now that DeFazio and Blumenauer have decided not to run--and Kitzhaber shows no interest-the best candidate for Senate is Steve Novick.
There is nobody else in the state who can do a better job, in my opinion.
That said, if other candidates enter the primary--more power to them. A vigorous debate is and always has been what the left is about.
May 22, '07
"A vibrant and robust primary election will be good for Oregon, good for Democrats, and good for the candidates themselves. And very bad for Gordon Smith."
I agree! A few months ago, many commenters were urging Democrats to agree on a candidate. I argued for something more--something, well, democratic. Voters deserve more than the opportunity to choose the lesser of two evils in the general election, which is often what happens when the Party anoints the candidate.
In addition, primary elections engage the base early, favor energetic candidates, and get them to start connecting with voters early. This goes directly at the heart of Smith's weakness--he is aloof, out of touch, lethargic, and unwilling to engage voters, except through the mass media and in closed door fund raisers.
7:56 a.m.
May 22, '07
I can't help but wonder if Kari's piece here is (at least in part) a response to our decision at Loaded Orygun to back Novick.
Yes, in part. Along with many other conversations in the various comment threads here at Blue.
May 22, '07
For my part, I'm happy to wait for the end of the legislative session to see if any of our state legislator want to take up the challenge. I'd rather senators and representatives were concentrating on doing a good job in Salem, now, than worrying about a campaign. As Kari and others have said, there's plenty of time for running a campaign after they fix our schools, roads, and budget.
May 22, '07
Couldn't agree more about the contested primary. What's annoying, Kari, is the effort of Blue Oregon and others to "draft" DeFazio, Blumenauer, Bates, etc. As you said, the decision to run is intensely personal. We shouldn't push anyone into making a run they don't want to make, because that's a sure way to lose. So let's drop the effort to "find" someone, support Novick's attempt to get up and running early, and hope that other strong candidates jump in.
May 22, '07
Any chance that John Frohnmayer would run as a D?
9:18 a.m.
May 22, '07
I'm in full agreement with Carla here. She and I both had Steve essentially 4th in order of candidates we wanted to see run. And the other three have said no. We're aware of no other candidate--named or unnamed--who excites us more or represents a better profile for a run.
We did not intend our statement to be a discouragement to others to enter the race (although it's flattering to think anyone would actually give a rip if we had). We're not closing the barn door; we've simply picked our horse.
May 22, '07
Gordon Smith will be defeated in 2008. Of that, I am sure.
I suspect that you wrote this just to fire up the readers, but I hear this said so often among progressives that I'm worried it's turning into an expectation. That might lead supporters to think they don't have to get as involved (through donations, canvassing, whatever) as they might have if it was a "difficult" race.
So let's be clear. Gordon Smith is the heavy favorite to win. Regardless of what progressives think of him, he is viewed favorably throughout the state. He positions himself in the center on enough issues to convince a lot of people that he is a Hatfield-type Republican. On the war, his shift almost perfectly reflects the views of a majority of Oregonians, who supported the war initially and are now opposed due to the inept management and the lack of any clear exit strategy.
The only way that Smith is going to lose is 1) If every Democrat commits time and money to the eventual nominee, and 2) We convince moderates and independents that Smith is inexorably entwined with the worst parts of the GOP. The first part has to play itself out over the next year, so instead of fighting amongst ourselves about who's going to run, let's instead use the time to build the case against Smith.
9:59 a.m.
May 22, '07
I can't help but wonder if Kari's piece here is (at least in part) a response to our decision at Loaded Orygun to back Novick. Yeah--I'm sufficiently ego-filled to believe stuff like that. Sue me.
Actually, I think it's in STEVE'S best interest if there are other candidates. I am pretty strongly in favor of Steve's candidacy (hard to know if I'll back him no matter what, since other candidates are figments of our fantasies), but I think he'll be a better candidate in the general election if he beats a couple strong candidates in the primary.
There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is that it creates buzz and energy around the Democrats and allows us to highlight our obviously winning positions on the issues. Look at the presidential campaign. It's not hard to imagine how lackluster it would feel if Hillary were running solo (that is to say, lacked serious competition).
It is for this reason that I'd like to take this opportunity to announce my candidacy ...
Ha! (There are obviously some candidates who would not bring attention and glamor to the race.)
10:15 a.m.
May 22, '07
Frohnmayer, a D? Not likely. CQ reports that he'd run as a right-of-center candidate (never mind the error - he's not the UO's president, duh.)
10:21 a.m.
May 22, '07
The only way that Smith is going to lose is 1) If every Democrat commits time and money to the eventual nominee, and 2) We convince moderates and independents that Smith is inexorably entwined with the worst parts of the GOP.
Yes, of course. We'll be beating that drum incessantly for the next 18 months.
10:27 a.m.
May 22, '07
I agree that a good primary campaign can sharpen the edge of the victorious candidate ... but it certainly depletes his or her war chest.
I hope everyone is prepared to give twice (or more) the amount you presently have in mind -- once to the giver's preferred candidate in the primary, and then, after the primary, to Novick.
%^>
May 22, '07
CQ has certainly gone downhill. They have confused John and Dave Frohnmayer and neither one would be to the right of Smith in any case. Dave Frohnmayer running as an independent might be able to turn things into at three candidate race. I think John will have a much harder time.
The key to a primary benefiting the ultimate candidate is keeping the campaigns focuses on who should replace Gordon Smith, not why they other guys shouldn't. The more candidates there are and the closer the race the easier that will be to do. If someone gets out ahead of the pack or it is a one-on-one campaign I think it will be hard for whoever is behind not to go negative.
May 22, '07
Jeff Alworth for Senate!
2:10 p.m.
May 22, '07
I remember having a similar debate just over a year ago, prior to the gubernatorial primary. A bunch of Chicken Littles were crying that Pete and Jim weren't clearing the field for Ted, and the contested primary would only hand the race to Saxton. Well, look what happened; Ted used the primary season to address concerns that his opponents (and parts of his Democratic base) were raising and he emerged stronger and more well-known than before the primary. His approvals were up and so was his head-to-head polling against Saxton.
Hopefully we can finally discard the silly idea that a contested primary is a bad thing. Hell, for further comparison look at two of last years' netroots heros. Both Jim Webb and Jon Tester emerged as victors against favored establishment opposition. The primary gave them a chance to refine their campaigning, flesh out positions, and, most importantly, build name recognition.
Right now, I like Steve Novick a lot and plan on supporting him. However, I think everyone can agree that his biggest weakness is a lack of name recognition. What better way to build it than with an energetic primary? And I believe the winner will emerge as a better candidate as well. Brilliant as he is, even Steve could probably learn a thing or two about health care from having to debate Sen. Bates, or fiscal policy from Randall Edwards. And if some other candidate ends up as the Democratic nominee, I know they will have benefitted from Steve's lively debating abilities and wealth of knowledge.
Finally, assuming the primary doesn't get dirty, we all win by having a primary that engages the largest number of Democrats and gets everyone thinking about how things could be better than they have been under Smith/Bush. When we all come together behind the winner next May, whoever that may be, then we'll really be able to take a run at Smith.
2:31 p.m.
May 22, '07
I don't mean to argue with Nate's larger point, but using Ted's primary is a bad example. Contrary to claims, as we see from the SUSA tracker of Ted's ratings the primary season was TERRIBLE for Ted. He went from 43% in December, when Kitz and Vicki Walker were still considering a run, to 33% just four polls later, right before the primaries. And the month after the primary, Ted bottomed out at 32%.
What turned Ted around was hiring a new campaign team and capitalizing on Saxton's first mistake, which was bloviating about immigration.
2:59 p.m.
May 22, '07
Nate and TJ, I think you can both be right. A contested primary (esp. for an incumbent) can drive poll numbers down, but still make the candidate stronger. It's a tough race that sharpens messages, puts the field organization through its paces, gets the fundraising operation churning, and gets the candidate's blood pumping.
Sure, every candidate would like a pain-free smooth ride to the finish line, but that ain't gonna happen. I'd rather see our candidates try out their chops before running into the buzzsaw that Gordon Smith and Karl Rove are gearing up.
May 22, '07
So let's be clear. Gordon Smith is the heavy favorite to win. Regardless of what progressives think of him, he is viewed favorably throughout the state.
That means it is time to make the case the senator is naked which is the easy part. The real problem is getting so many to see past Smith's image. These are the people who don't care that Smith ignored the Constitution to sign Bush a blank check for the war on Iraq. Nor do they really care about the more than 3,000 (and constantly counting) military personnel that have been killed in Iraq, or how many have died after returning home, or the tens of thousands of military that have been wounded, or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed and maimed or the millions that have become refugees. They probably don't even care that the bill for this war will eventually exceed one (maybe two) trillion dollars as long as their own portfolios are doing well. How do you get through to people like that? Maybe Steve Novick has the answer. Let's give him a try.
3:39 p.m.
May 22, '07
Yes, John Frohnmayer would be a right-of-center candidate . . . assuming you define Steve Novick as the center.
3:41 p.m.
May 22, '07
Wrong, but nice try.
May 22, '07
Why bother voting for Democrats when they only back down in the end. Look at the Iraq war bill. The Democapitulators. It's time for real opposition party.
May 22, '07
A competative primary can be destructive, as was the case with AuCoin-Lonsdale in '92 (There were actually one or two more). However, Steve will be ignored if he is the only candidate. He, and our party, need at least one more candidate.
May 22, '07
People should seriously look at Paul Evans. As a veteran of both Iraq Wars, and Afghanistan he can seriously challenge Smith on the Iraq issue in a way that Novick or any other Dem can't, and attract serious national funding. He's got plenty of support in general from many Oregon Democrats and Democrats on the national stage. Plus he can talk about things like cleaner energy and universal health care in way that would interest rural voters without compromising his stance. I say draft Paul Evans.
May 22, '07
Why bother voting for Democrats when they only back down in the end. Look at the Iraq war bill. The Democapitulators. It's time for real opposition party.
There are Democrats who believe in government of the people, for the people and by the people, and then there are Democrats who spend more time checking with pollsters and and campaign donors. The two should not be confused. Steve Novick is among the former and a good reason to vote Democratic in November 2008. As for the Democrats at the national level, they are a good reason for not voting.
May 22, '07
GREG ODEN FOR US SENATE!!!!!!!
May 22, '07
Bill writes: "There are Democrats who believe in government of the people, for the people and by the people, and then there are Democrats who spend more time checking with pollsters and and campaign donors. The two should not be confused. Steve Novick is among the former and a good reason to vote Democratic in November 2008. As for the Democrats at the national level, they are a good reason for not voting."
<hr/>You mean, Demos like Sen Wyden? Yep, best not vote for for Sen. Wyden again....since he is just too busy checking with pollsters and campaign donors.
Harry
May 22, '07
You mean, Demos like Sen Wyden? Yep, best not vote for for Sen. Wyden again....since he is just too busy checking with pollsters and campaign donors.
I was thinking more of the DLC and their accomplices. Wyden is a mixed bag who has been a disappointment on occasions, but on others he appears to have paid attention to his constituents. Prior to the vote in October 2002 Wyden was apparently pro-war, but he got an earful from constituents when he visited Central Oregon and, presumably, other parts of the state. I like to believe that he was persuaded more in this instance by the people he met on his tour around the state than by the oligarchs running the party in DC.
May 22, '07
Ron Wyden co-sponsored Feingold-Reid amendment to end the war. But I would also wonder, what good does it do to elect Democrats when they betray the voters who supported them and the promises they made to bring an end to the war in Iraq. They have the power to not fund it further. The public supports that, and they don't have the ounce of integrity to do what the public wants. It's a Democratic Congress in name only. Support the troops! Bring them home now.
May 22, '07
I agree with Kari, but I think that the most effective antidote to Gordon Smith's cronyist cliff-root to the Senate would be a devisive Independent or Libertarian (assuming that the GOP will not allow an early 20th Century Republican to undermine Smith) candidate. If a Ron Paul kind of Republican candidate were to challenge Smith in the primaries and get fair hearing, then Smith would be exposed for the Bush/Enron/Halliburton/Etc politician he really is. That won't happen, but a strong Libertarian candidate could cut him down to size for all the traditional conservatives who are sick of seeing Draft-Dodger Bush disgrace the American flag and run our military into the dirt.
May 22, '07
I agree with Kari. It's so very early to be giving out endorsements when it's a full year until the primary. As an Independent voter I am looking for a true progressive who will not only commit to the race, but commit to the progressive ideals that this nation is lacking (from both sides of the aisle). Someone who is willing to reframe the debate, change the dynamics, tie Triangulator Smith up in the little box he has created for himself, and not be beholden to corporate donors/lobbyists or politics as usual.
Smith is so immensely tied to Big Money that a few anti-war votes (meaningless after 5 years of Rubber Stamping) will not allow him to escape the weight of his wealthy benefactors nor the disaster that is today's GOP. It won't take as much money as Smith has in his war chest to beat him, but it will take a candidate with a resonant message. 65% of us are crying out for sanity in our govt, respect for the rule of law, a leader working for ALL of us, common sense.
Just don't rush it imo. It's a very important race, but that's exactly the reason to let the process be organic and produce the most viable candidate.
May 23, '07
If the war is an issue in the 2008 senate race it will likely be because the pro-war folks abandon Gordon Smith. The strategy ought to be to force Smith to repeat his opposition to the war over and over again. The more he sounds like a Democratic peacenik the better.
In 2006, the only way for people to express their dissatisfaction with Iraq was through congressional races. In 2008 that will not be true. My guess is Smith will try to get in step on a plan to end the war with the Republican presidential candidate. No one is going to be running on a stay-the-course platform.
The senate race is not going to be decided on the issues of the last eight years. But Gordon Smith's highly partisan voting record on those issues for the first four years after he was last elected can be made an issue. Regardless of his own personal views, Gordon Smith has been a lockstep, partisan Republican at a time when we really needed a statesman. The last six year have been dangerous times and Gordon Smith just hasn't lived up to that challenge.
May 23, '07
Off-topic.
what good does it do to elect Democrats when they betray the voters who supported them and the promises they made to bring an end to the war in Iraq. They have the power to not fund it further. The public supports that, and they don't have the ounce of integrity to do what the public wants.
Democrats do not have the power to defund the war unilaterally since the President has to sign off on any benchmarks, timelines, etc. Unless you're talking about not passing a funding bill at all, which is an option, but one that would ensure the destruction of the Democratic party. The public supports timelines and a date-certain for withdrawal, it does not support a Gingrich-style shutdown of the defense department.
Remember, the same public that elected a Democratic majority also reelected Bush for a second term. Elections have consequences, that is our reality, and I won't attack Democrats in Washington for being realists about that. You shouldn't either.
10:07 a.m.
May 23, '07
Hey Miles.... There's a post up now on Iraq, funding, US Senate, etc. Please take your comment there.
This is NOT a post about Iraq. Please stay on topic.
Jun 2, '07