Peter, your vitriol about Merkley continues to mystify. I'd characterize the argument thus:

1. Oregon is a Democratic state, and voters are becoming more pro-Dem;
2. That Merkley isn't well-known is an advantage over so-called "first tier" candidates like Earl Blumenauer and Bill Bradley, who are famously hated in many parts of the state;
3. Merkley's orientation isn't Portland-centric, and unlike some Portland politicians, he will be comfortable campaigning in rural districts;
4. Merkley is a tough campaigner;
5. Merkley is almost certain to be backed by national Dems.

Again, if he is to win, he'll need to raise and spend on the order of several million dollars. You appear to think he's weak purely by virtue of his low name recognition. Explain to me how, after spending 5 million dollars, he's going to be unknown in this state?

You either forget or ignore the fact that Smith himself won the Senate seat straight out of the legislature. Was he the towering public figure you imagine the Dems need to run to win?

Come off it.

AS(s).... Um, no. BlueOregon's revenues (tiny as they are) come entirely from the ads you see on the site.

On a similar topic, I see Gordon Smith once again worked it in his favor to be able to vote on a Democratic bill when it had no chance of passing.

No doubt he's heard that only 34% of Oregonians say they'd vote to re-elect him.

Disclaimer: I work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, but I don't speak for the campaign.

"highly competitive against Senator 'Salmon-killer' Smith."

Yay Liberalincarnate!

Does House Leadership pay the bills for this site?

I have never received a dime for any blog post I've written nor from any campaign. I haven't even met Jeff Merkley, though I did talk to a number of people in preparation for this series.

Okay, Peter, maybe I misread you. But I think you've misread what happened in the last election.

I am certainly no expert in political prognostication. But I do not see Mr. Merkley as another Jim Webb or Jon Tester. These candidates ignited a huge groundswell of national progressive activism, perhaps most notably on DailyKos. That helped garner these candidates a great deal of national media attention.

Merkley IS Tester. They have very similar political backgrounds (he came out of the Montana State Legislature). The reason Tester was so successful was because he ran a great campaign. Webb wasn't really setting the world on fire until the famous George Allen "Macaca" comment. Do you have any evidence that either one of these candidates won because they were "outsiders?" Didn't something about their victories have to do with the guys they were running against--and how corrupt and incompetent they appeared?

I don't know what makes you so convinced, looking into the future of this campaign, that Merkley will fail to inspire if he runs. Where's your foresight come from?

Maybe Merkley will run and fizzle. I've made my argument about why I think the odds against that are long. But all you've offered is speculation about what Kos will do. That's not particularly convincing, either.

Peter -- Could you provide a source for your assertion that the World Affairs Council is "working for the UN or its proxy"? On an earlier thread, you asserted that the World Affairs Council was created by the UN. I couldn't find anything about that on the Oregon group's site. To the contrary, it appears that the Oregon group was founded by a group of Reed professors.

Furthermore, it seems that the World Affairs Council of America was founded in 1918. Some 27 years before the United Nations.

<hr/>

All in all, Peter, while I respect your arguments - it seems that your worldview starts from a notion that rural Oregonians are uniformly conservative retrogrades that can't be convinced to support a Democrat.

Funny thing, last I checked, every single statewide elected official in Oregon except Gordon Smith is a Democrat. And not counting Smith, the GOP hasn't won a statewide partisan race since Dave Frohnmayer in 1988.

Excuse me. And Bob Packwood in 1992.

Excuse me. And Bob Packwood in 1992.

Don't forget Jack Roberts for Labor Commissioner in 1994 (when it was still a partisan position). I remember because that was the last time I voted for a Republican for anything.

In order for Smith to win he's got to depend on Southern Oregon and the rest of the 2nd Congressional district. We are working hard down here to prepare for supporting the winner of the Democratic primary, if there is one, to take on Smith.

As a short note, I am strongly in favor of Mr. Merkley running. I think that he has a resume of successful public service that would be more appealing to Oregon voters than all the other candidates presently in the race. Further, I think that this is important, because while Gordon Smith is beatable, that doesn't mean we're going to automatically be able to win with just anyone.

That said, I won't be for Mr. Merkley until he actually decides to run. I'm getting a little sick of having all the people with major chops getting cold feet about this race. I find Steve Novick's willingness to not dick around and just announce increasingly appealing.

So, Mr. Merkley. It will be a major undertaking. You probably have about a 70% chance of making it if you try (30% chance Gordo pulls it out with his sudden pretend "independence").

Are you going to fish or cut bait? It's time to decide.

Oh, and just for fun, a couple of arguments that rural areas do house a large number of retrogrades... here and here and here.

Peter, I think you inadvertently made my point -- and revealed your anti-rural bias.

Even on those election maps, the worst counties still had at least 30% vote on the progressive side of the issues. That's the problem with these red/blue maps (er, green.) They flatten out the diversity of the votes underneath.

Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland. They each just need to do better than usual...

Peter, you asked what the downsides on Merkley as a candidate are, and I'd identify two: name recognition and speaking style. I honestly don't see the first as any kind of barrier at all, because in a high-profile race like US Senator, he's going to get the press. That he's such a strong candidate means it will stick with him. Media coverage will treat him as a candidate with gravitas--as they should with a candidate like him.

As to speaking presence, you're right--it's not a strength. But we've gotten though a whole raft of possible deal-killers (experience, skill, background, etc.) and the biggest drawback is that he's no Bill Clinton on the stump?

I can live with that; after all, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, our two current Senators, aren't exactly Bill Clintons on the stump, either. Nor was your man Tester. You don't have to scintilate. You have to connect.

A Good Uppercut

Jeff,

with all due respect, a lot of us who volunteered for Rob Brading's campaign, canvassing in the crappy weather that we had that year, were really disappointed by that ad. Mark Foley and Karen Minnis may have in common the fact that they're both hypocritical Republicans, but the ad that was made to link them was, in my opinion, a mistake.

I phone banked for Rob, recruited volunteers, walked door to door, got Republicans to pledge to vote for him, gave him what little money I could, and got others to give money to him too. After that ad aired, thankfully near the end of the campaign, my efforts were really half-hearted. I thought Rob ran a great campaign, a positive campaign, and one that I was proud to volunteer for. Then FuturePAC came in with their ads, and it turned people off.

I still would have voted for Rob (didn't live in the district), but it would have been hard to say that he was a different kind of guy after seeing that ad. From my conversations with Marah, the campaign manager, there was a lot of "blowback," especially amongst the volunteers because of that ad in particular. If that's Merkley's brand of fighting, and he's the nominee, he'll have my vote, but not my time or my money. Sorry.

{{disclaimer: volunteering for Novick.}}

I was 2 feet away from him as he gave a presentation last night and he just came across as boring. I don't think his delivery, or presence, are well-suited to a high-pressure media campaign.

Hmmm... I don't think Jeff spoke twice last night - so you must have been at the same "presentation" I was.

You must have been dozing off while the rest of the crowd was clapping and cheering. Merkley did great last night -- and his comments were perfectly modulated to the audience.

In any case, it sounds like you're not a fan. Got it. Message received.

Just an idle question ... if Merkley decides not to run, who will be the next "flavor of the month" on BlueO?

Kari wrote: "Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland."

Dan Lavey pioneered Gordon's strategy for winning. He and Smith postulated that they needed to "win" about 35 percent market share in Portland (and similarly in other population centers). That, for them, is winning in Portland. For us, denying Smith that kind of margin in the population centers and causing ultra-right fringe fanatics to sit on their hands are the keys to a campaign against Smith.

There is more than enough outrage about Gordon's votes that sides with the ruining of America by Bush and the rest of the Republicans. But I caution Laura and others that just simply arguing to the public that Bush and Smith are united at the hip will not necessarily wash with the people we need to vote for Merkley either in rural or urban settings.

As Merkley himself has said, there is a wave of disgust with what Republicans have done to America. And that message, properly framed and advertised, will resonate both in rural and urban Oregon.

WRT Merkley as a public speaker: I have not been bored by any of his talks. He may not be a glib orator (and God knows Gordon is glib), but he is "folksy," he does know what's right without consulting the oracles because he knows it in his heart, and he does communicate extremely well.

Last but not least, while Gordon has his church people, and they are plentiful, wealthy, and easily organized, we have our people. We are fixing to do a much better job of organizing and communicating with our people than ever before. And don't forget, the yahoos on the ultra right think that hate crimes law is thought control, hate gays, and will sit on their hands when they find out that Gordon has been playing footsie with Log Cabin Republicans.

With Schumer's money and our people power, Merkley can and will win.

Kari wrote: "Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland."

Dan Lavey pioneered Gordon's strategy for winning. He and Smith postulated that they needed to "win" about 35 percent market share in Portland (and similarly in other population centers). That, for them, is winning in Portland. For us, denying Smith that kind of margin in the population centers and causing ultra-right fringe fanatics to sit on their hands are the keys to a campaign against Smith.

There is more than enough outrage about Gordon's votes that sides with the ruining of America by Bush and the rest of the Republicans. But I caution Laura and others that just simply arguing to the public that Bush and Smith are united at the hip will not necessarily wash with the people we need to vote for Merkley either in rural or urban settings.

As Merkley himself has said, there is a wave of disgust with what Republicans have done to America. And that message, properly framed and advertised, will resonate both in rural and urban Oregon.

WRT Merkley as a public speaker: I have not been bored by any of his talks. He may not be a glib orator (and God knows Gordon is glib), but he is "folksy," he does know what's right without consulting the oracles because he knows it in his heart, and he does communicate extremely well.

Last but not least, while Gordon has his church people, and they are plentiful, wealthy, and easily organized, we have our people. We are fixing to do a much better job of organizing and communicating with our people than ever before. And don't forget, the yahoos on the ultra right think that hate crimes law is thought control, hate gays, and will sit on their hands when they find out that Gordon has been playing footsie with Log Cabin Republicans.

With Schumer's money and our people power, Merkley can and will win.

"That ad by FuturePac was a necessity - you cannot just keep taking in the teeth from a pit viper like Minnis. She was flabbergasted anyone would dare give her a taste of her own medicine."

It certainly was NOT necessary. It can be argued whether it was a good choice to take on Minnis for her role in the situation, but there simply was no concordance with the Foley situation. He molested kids; Minnis protected her brother in law. It was an overreach, is what it was.

Lord knows I've advocated for forceful talk and unvarnished opinion by politicians. But it's a risky game, and you can't go for the jugular unless you have the goods. Even then, Brading had built a decent narrative that Minnis was running smear, and he was running clean. After that ad, forget it--op-eds shifted from talking about the Minnis smears to "they both do it." That helped Rob not at all, IMO.

They used a privacy service on the domain purchase. So none of the information is actually that for who purchase the domain name. This helps keep the amount of spam and junk mail to a minimum. I know I get tons of e-mail, as I'm the listed contact for probably 2 dozen or more domain names.

That should have said tons of e-mail and junk mail.

Whenever a domain is getting ready to expire, I get a dozen or so pieces of mail from other domain companies trying to get my business. Of course they all cost twice as much as my current domain company, and I've had no problems with them, so why would I switch?

However, I'm not annoyed enough by it yet to do the privacy service on any of the domains. I may do it in the future, though, as the price on that is dropping significantly.

If the purpose of this 3-part series on Mr. Merkley is simply to create a rah-rah comments section, please let us know ahead of time so that we can move comments that dare question their electability to another forum.

Yes, bend to my will! No, of course, express your opinion. But don't be surprised if you get opinions expressed back.

On the question of the Brading ad, I think the question of whether it was successful is separate from whether it was fair. To its success--in rallying the Brading folk and shifting votes--I can't say. Maybe the Foley angle was the wrong way to frame it (though I have to say that the arguments made assume a level of attention I'm not sure the average state House race gets). But that's a strategic calculation. In terms of politics, I think you gotta run those kinds of ads if they're true. Because you're going to be up against Republicans who will run hit pieces that AREN'T true. In 2004, I kept saying of John Kerry--"the man's in a back alley knife fight; why does he keep showing up with boxing gloves?"

It was a good move.

On the question of the Brading ad, I think the question of whether it was successful is separate from whether it was fair. To its success--in rallying the Brading folk and shifting votes--I can't say. Maybe the Foley angle was the wrong way to frame it (though I have to say that the arguments made assume a level of attention I'm not sure the average state House race gets). But that's a strategic calculation. In terms of politics, I think you gotta run those kinds of ads if they're true. Because you're going to be up against Republicans who will run hit pieces that AREN'T true. In 2004, I kept saying of John Kerry--"the man's in a back alley knife fight; why does he keep showing up with boxing gloves?"

It was a good move.

Bringing Foley into it was one of the worst blunders I've seen FuturePAC make, period. In terms of the ads, you can attack people's record and gain ground. Minnis had certainly done enough in office to offer plenty of fodder for assertive/aggressive ads. Changing the House rules. All the out of state money. Money from the PayDay loan industry. The Pharmaceutical industry. That ad came out, and the whole tenor changed. Clearly we can't know if that cost Rob the election, but it weakened his stance as being the candidate taking the "high road."

Sure, show up to the knife fight with a knife, but make sure you stab your opponent and not yourself. The ad did him more harm than it did her. Yes, she was caught off guard, but did it change any votes? I'm guessing not. Did it demoralize a decent number of Rob's supporters? Yes it did.

Back to the Novick/Merkley issue. Steve's made it clear that Gordon's record of corporate giveaways, supporting (enthusiastically the President and the war), voting for the President's tax cuts, doing nothing about health care, his giveaways to pharmaceutical companies, his attempt to undermine Oregon's minimum wage, recently helping to block the Employee Free Choice Act, among others will provide him with plenty of material to use against him. He's a conservative Republican in the minority party, in an increasingly "blue" state. It's time for him to go, and i think Steve's got the right approach to unseat him.

If the Foley/Minnis ad is the approach that Merkley would take, then i'm really concerned. It was NOT a good move.

Here is an interview from MyDD by Jonathan Singer with Novick that was done when he announced his candidacy. He's got the right attitude, and he'll take the approach we need to beat Smith.

Here's a question this otherwise exhaustive (or at least exhausting) three-part hagiography has not answered: putting aside Gordon Smith for a moment, if Merkley does run, how is he going to beat Steve Novick?

Seriously -- is he going to give up his speakership for a primary campaign he can easily lose? Or is he going to rely on Chuck Schumer's henchmen to muscle the netroots / grassroots candidate out of the race to give him a clear shot into a general election campaign he can easily lose?

E.P.:

I agree with you about Gore. He's definitely the candidate I'd like to see run. My husband (who as many of you know has been a registered R all his life, but seems to vote D more than R) has even said that's who he would like to vote for.

Did it demoralize a decent number of Rob's supporters? Yes it did.

The important thing to remember about negative campaigning is that it brings up the negatives for both candidates.

It should not be lost on anyone that the lowest turnout races in 2006 were by-in-large the most expensive, most negative races in the state. $1.6 million was spent on barely 15,000 people who voted in the Minnis/Brading race -- more than $100 per vote!

HD 49 turned out at 61.7%, with 16,626 people voting (plus 535 undervotes). Minnis won by 690 votes. Multnomah County voted at 69.06%.

One thing to remember, though, is that HD 49 has an abysmal voter registration level. It was at just under 27,000 on Election Day last year. That is 7,513 voters less than HD 42, the district with the highest registration in the county.

It is the district with the fewest voters in the entire county. Some estimates put the registration level at less than 50%. We also have a very large transient population in the district - lots of very poor apartment dwellers who move a lot and are unlikely to re-register to vote.

In 2004, the district only turned out at 74.4% - 10.47% less than the rest of the county (84.87%).

So between 2004 and 2006, the county turnout dropped by 15.81%. However, HD 50's dropped by only 12.7%. So while the numbers were low, they actually saw a smaller drop in turnout than was seen around the rest of the county.

HD 50, its "sister" district, turned out at 59.56%. In that race, John Lim spent about $30,000 and Jill Selman-Ringer spent less than $2,000.

In 2004, it turned out 77.75% of the vote.

These are two districts with serious voting and voter registration problems. They have lower than normal voter registration numbers (most districts in Portland are well over 80% VR), and they tend to not vote. It takes a lot more than usual to get these people out to vote.

Ha... Merkley's the son of a millworker who earned a full scholarship to Stanford.

He's no "limousine liberal". Puh-leeze. The dude drives a beater and couldn't afford even one of Gordon Smith's suits.

He could have made millions as a Wall Street bond trader or a corporate lawyer. But no, he's spent his time working on affordable housing issues - and serving in our barely-living-wage Legislature.

I find it interesting that we've got people simultaneous arguing that Jeff Merkley is a boring milquetoast -- and then arguing that he went too far in approving the ad that told the truth about Karen Minnis's cover-up and protection of a rapist.

We can, in hindsight, argue about the political effectiveness of that ad. But there's no argument about this: Jeff Merkley has balls of steel.

Full disclosure: I was one of the very few people brought into that top-secret decision-making process - because I built the website with all the background material. (And I was told of the ad only about 24 hours out.)

Precisely because I was concerned about the blowback, I asked a LOT of questions about the allegation. I can tell you that that was Jeff Merkley's #1 priority -- making sure that every single word of the ad was vetted. Nevermind the political blowback. If anything was off, we would all lose our houses to Karen Minnis's inevitable slander lawsuit.

Well, she filed her lawsuit. And right after the election, she dropped it. Why? Because Merkley's insistence on getting the facts right on every single word was dead on.

Again, you can argue about the political effect. But never doubt that Jeff Merkley is a tough-as-nails political fighter. Gordon Smith had better watch out.

Closer examination of his "work" on affordable housing reveals a much more ambiguous picture about his actual work in solving the real problems of affordable housing.

Care to share any details of your "closer examination"?

Over at OPB, they quote the exec dir of Human Solutions thusly:

The director there Jean DeMaster credits Merkley with bringing nearly 540 affordable homes to poor people. Jean DeMaster: "Jeff was one of the pioneers that saw how this could be done and saw how non-profit agencies could develop housing so that very low income people could have safe and decent places to live."

Every political view I hold fits with Al Gore.

Including having Lieberman as your running mate?

Bluenote raises some very percipient questions: "What impact will the ... presence of the two anti-gay ballot measures have on the Oregon 2008 US senate race? Will the Dems be able to distance their candidate from the ballot measures, such that the usual heavy anti-gay turnout by inner city and rural church populations will not result in a Smith victory?"

First, I tried to get Phil Kiesling to keep the original Measure 9 (OCA anti-gay measue) off the ballot. Later I failed to get the same Phil Kiesling to keep the next OCA measure off the ballot. But I finally concluded that the OCA measures got more Democrats out to vote because the gay community got to work on phone banks all over the state. The anti-gay religious fringe crowd simply doesn't understand that it is merely energizing the left-of-center vote (Democrats and independents). Yes, they're stupid -- but that's good for our side.

At the same time, as I've pointed out earlier in this discussion, the same fringe groups are furious at Smith for his stand on hate crimes. They'd much rather hate than vote for Smith. Smith is in favor of civil unions -- he told me so in person and he said as much at a Dorchester conference. That alone will infuriate the alleged "defence of marriage" coalition kooks. He has also spoken favorably on the non-discrimination (ENDA) issue (he may have co-sponsored the federal ENDA bill). Again, he has undermined his own position in the fringe conservative crowd. Yes, they're stupid -- but that's good for our side.

Last but not least, polling consistently shows that Oregonians oppose discrimination. The discrimination posed by the two ballot measures definitely will bring out a larger vote on the left-of-center.

Kari,

I find it interesting that we've got people simultaneous arguing that Jeff Merkley is a boring milquetoast -- and then arguing that he went too far in approving the ad that told the truth about Karen Minnis's cover-up and protection of a rapist.

I think that there are two different groups arguing "simultaneous" about Merkley's merits. I'm not one of those who's saying he's "a boring milquetoast," I actually don't have much of an opinion on his public delivery style. I am expressing my hope that in the fight against Gordon Smith, that we don't use those types of tactics. The ad my have contained "the truth," but it also contained a poison pill that hurt Rob's campaign. Please don't try to link the two arguments, they're different, and you're more intellectually honest than that.

We can, in hindsight, argue about the political effectiveness of that ad. But there's no argument about this: Jeff Merkley has balls of steel.

sigh... can we ALSO stay away from highly gendered notions of courage/assertiveness? "balls of steel?" are you implying that people without testicles couldn't run an aggressive race? Obviously you're not, since you're supporting Kate Brown for SOS (as I likely will as well). Talking about "balls" may work well on the schoolyard, but it doesn't have much place here.

Give me a break Merkley IS Tester. The problem with our party is that too many people like Jeff really don't have the brains to realize how much Merkley and Tester are not even close to the same.

I don't mind discussing whether John Tester and Jeff Merkley are close analogues, but do we have to put up with anonymous trolls who offer no facts and an argument that consists of: "you're stupid"? Anonymous, if you want to slag Merkley and me, at least have the courage to drop the anonymity, make a real argument, and join the discussion. We're talking about the democratic process--hiding and throwing potshots does not advance it. If you're going to accuse someone of being a "limosine liberal" you gotta do more than, in the manner of Fox News, merely slandering them with a label. What's your evidence? Put up or shut up.

Lee, I think you've hit on an issue that illustrates why I got all hot to trot on Merkley. Before the session, I was a little panicked that Dems would instantly begin working on civil unions, piss off the entire Republican base, and create a situation where it was impossible to get real legislation through the House. Instead, Dems brought it mid-session, and then passed a bill that gave exclusions to churches. It was far from an in-your-face power play; instead, it was accepted broadly for what it was: a civil rights bill. Oregonians will not punish Dems for that.

OPB ran a story about Merkley a couple days ago, and they cited Wayne Scott, of all people, who had this to say about Merkley:

"I think he handled it fine. We come at things from a different perspective. But he was always cordial and respectful and polite. He always gave me an opportunity to visit with him."

I believe it's going to be hard for the GOP to punish Merkley for domestic partnerships--which passed with a bipartisan majority.

When I said "get real legislation through the house" I didn't mean to say I didn't think the domestic partnership bill was "real"--far from it; it was one of the biggest issues on my plate. I meant that it could hamper other big issues down the road that needed to get passed. Sorry for any confusion.

Neal -- We've definitely thought about the Feingold parallel. As you know, one of the keys to that race was that Feingold secured the endorsement of Elvis Presley (see link below). We've been in touch with the King, stressing the fact that my mother is from Tennessee. I would not want to tempt fate, or put words in his mouth, but I'm very hopeful that he will help us out. Best regards, Steve Novick

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/travels/page.jsp?itemID=27934727

Elvis has left the pollbooth...

So here's my next question: if Jeff Merkley really cares about what's best for Oregon, has he sought and obtained a commitment from the DSCC that they will support the ultimate Democratic nominee no matter who it is?

DSCC support and "viability" can be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, after all. If the DSCC want to unseat Gordon Smith, they need to collaborate with Oregon Democrats to ensure the economic viability of the nominee. Top-down "democracy" is a contradiction in terms.

Stephanie... Are you under the impression that the DSCC wouldn't support the eventual Democratic nominee? Has that ever happened? (Not counting the rare Lieberman case of the primary loser running as an independent - which wouldn't even be legal in Oregon or most states.)

Of course, "support" can mean a lot of things. Like any donor, the DSCC is perfectly within their rights to invest their money where they think it'll make the most sense.

This came up in the conversation about FuturePAC earlier this week -- I don't think any candidate is entitled to any other person's time, money, or energy. They've got to earn it. Most importantly, they've got to show that the donor's or volunteer's contribution will actually make a difference to the outcome.

Ultimately, whoever our nominee is (including anyone that starts out in the good graces of the DSCC) will have to prove that. Over and over and over. Fundraising (and volunteer organizing) is a continuous process of convincing the prospective supporter that their support has been earned and will be put to good use.

No one is entitled to anything. Least of all, a candidate for public office.

How much money did the DSCC give to Bill Bradbury? and when did they give it?

And what did they say about Bradbury, publicly and to their own donors?

"Viability" is circular, after all.

No one is entitled to anything. Least of all, a candidate for public office.

Let me come back to this for a moment.

I believe that in general, a candidate for public office who is the nominee of a political party should have a right to expect the reasonable support of the party apparatus.

You can have outliers: David Duke comes to mind. But those should be very rare and unusual exceptions.

Well, yes, of course. But what level that support takes is necessarily going to vary.

Scenario: You've got $21 million to spend. You've got seven seats that are reasonable opportunities. Sure, you could spend $3 million each - but you've done the math, and you're pretty sure that that's not enough on any of 'em. Instead, you decide you're gonna pick three of 'em - and spend $7 million each.

How do you pick which three?

Investing wisely is a fact of life, and a crucial part of campaigns. No one is entitled to anyone else's money. They have to earn it.

Listen, if you were a donor to the DSCC (or any organization for that matter), and you found out that they were writing checks to a surefire dead-last 30-point loser, you'd be mad as hell.

The challenge for any candidate is to make the case, and prove that they're within striking distance. And that the money their donors give 'em (and the time their volunteers give 'em) will actually make a difference.

I have been a donor to the DSCC. And I expect that I will be in the future.

So I am familiar with my feelings about that, although you oversimplify their options.

Now, what about Bill Bradbury?

So I am familiar with my feelings about that, although you oversimplify their options.

Well, I wasn't describing their options at all. Clearly, a three-sentence blog comment can't do justice to the anyone's funding and decision making process.

Neal WAY underestimates the GOP seats in play. I wouldn't say they're Dem pickups at this stage, but they are by no means safe:

2)Alaska- Stevens despite the scandals. (give it time; he and much of the AK GOP are in it deep; his favorability number is currently apparently only 45/44)

4)Idaho- Craig (raised just $200K last quarter; possible retirement, right wing challenge)

5) Kansas-- Roberts (KS GOP is nearly bankrupt, Roberts is at 51%, and if Sebelius gets into this race it's over for Roberts)

6)Kentucky- McConnell (KY GOP still reeling from Fletcher scandal--Brashear is wiping up the floor with him in polling. Meanwhile, the local papers are not kind to McConnell.)

8)Nebraska- Hagel (potential retirement/run for office, right wing challenge)

9)New Mexico- Domenici (USAGate problems, potential turnout issue if Richardson is VP nominee)

11)South Carolina- Graham (seeing MAJOR wingnut challenge right now)

13)Texas- Cornyn (currently standing at 42/43 via SUSA; those numbers are for shit, especially in TX. Rick Noriega is a very popular Democrat, and Mikal Watts is throwing in millions of his own money)

14)Virginia- Warner (strong retirement possibility; raised $500 in Q1 and $70K in Q2. If he retires, look for Mark Warner to enter the race and that seat flips).

I'll predict right now that 2 of those seats, and as many as 4 of these "safe" seats will change hands next year.

No more presidential politics on this thread, folks. Stay on topic.

TJ:

I agree with you that I think that those assumptions about GOP seats are off.

Dems in Texas are already working hard to take down Cornyn. I'll be extremely glad if it happens. I get his e-mails and the just make me sick.

While yes, my husband has been looking at changing his registration, I'd like to point out that he's voted for Bush a total of 6 times (1 gubernatorial primary, 1 gubernatorial general, 2 presidential primaries, and 2 presidential generals). Had he moved to Texas earlier than the spring of 1997, it would have been 8 times. Like many Republicans, he's become sick of his party -- they're no longer fiscal conservatives, and for those who are "liberal" on many social issues, there isn't much left to keep them there. But as we all know, this is pretty much a 2 party system, especially in the federal races. My husband's just one of many, and if we target them correctly, we can get their vote for the Dem U.S. Senate nominee, and not for Smith.

We learned last election that the primary opponent of the "chosen one" is not automatically doomed; they just have to work twice as hard.

I'm about 90% sure that's what's shaping up in this race. Jeff will enter, and he will be the DSCC's candidate. Steve will be his primary, primary opponent, and will be the netroots candidate. I think they both could function in either role, but the DC decisionmakers will strongly influence who takes which.

1. No more donations to DSCC and DCCC; I give to the candidate who I think will best fulfill the office. Afterall, the Democrats in Congress by and large have been huge disappointments both before and after 2006 and we don't need more of like kind.

Charlie, I won't tell you what to do with your money, but the implication--that the Congressional committees corrupt the process--is naive. Candidates don't emerge from a vacuum to run for US Senator. Politics is an activity of connections, not least the connections between candidates and people. To think that there could be some kind of pure starting place where candidates would be judged in the rarified air of a Lincoln-Douglas debate misses what the whole endeavor is about. The DSCC and DCCC are there to support and nurture talent. And not supporting the DSCC just ties one arm behind our backs as the wealthy Republican committees flood elections with money.

Yours is an admirable impulse, but I think misplaced.

On the GOP senators, I'd say it's worth tracking where these races are, but (fortunately!) Senate races develop more slowly than presidential races; guessing where these races will be in a year is like guess what the weather will be like in a month. We have a general idea, but big changes can throw predictions off.

Chuck Schumer has to make some big decisions early on, but that's why he's the big cheese. I don't envy his position, and I don't put much faith in early predictions about which seats may be vulnerable if certain events transpire.

The DSCC and DCCC are there to support and nurture talent. And not supporting the DSCC just ties one arm behind our backs as the wealthy Republican committees flood elections with money.

What flavor is that Kool-Aid, Jeff? C'mon, you know the committees pick someone and shut out the person they don't pick. And in certain cases (cough-Hackett-cough-Cegalis) they try to shut off their flow of money directly. Politics is about connections, and once the cmtes choose, they tend to game those connections to create an uneven playing field. Will that happen in OR? I don't know, but it's already clear which choice the national is making in this race. Charlie is right to be suspicious IMO, and I think his best bet is to continue giving money...but to direct it to the "Democratic Nominee for Senate, 2008." That way, you know the money you spend will ONLY go towards helping defeat Gordon Smith.

I don't personally give to either DCCC or DSCC. Better to give it directly to the candidate, erase a little overhead, and make sure it goes where you want it to.

I'm really tired of hearing about Hackett. He based his entire political persona on the idea that he was above and outside the influence of politics, that he was a reformer and not subject to the pandering of Dems. Yet somehow a conversation by Chuck Schumer was adequate to convince him not to run.

There's kool-aid here, but I think you're the one drinking it. When did you get the idea that poliitics was fair and genteel? That's a strangely netroots orientation--that the rough world of politics should stop at the doorstep of sincere, committed underdogs. If you believe what you're saying, you fight for it. That's what's admirable about Steve Novick. No one "made" Hackett jump out of the race, and had he stayed in it, he might have earned the voters' respect and the DSCC's backing.

Life's not fair; politics isn't easy. And the popular is not always the corrupt.

"Yet somehow a conversation by Chuck Schumer was adequate to convince him not to run."

Is that all you think it was? Jeff, they were calling Hackett's donors and telling them NOT to give him money. And it wasn't simply a conversation, it was a conversation after ANOTHER, previous conversation where they begged him to run. Once he was in, then they decided they had someone better and they sandbagged him. Maybe you aren't aware of some of the things that were alleged. Read this:

Swift boats soon appeared on the horizon. A whisper campaign started: Hackett committed war crimes in Iraq—and there were photos. “The first rumor that I heard was probably a month and a half ago,” Dave Lane, chair of the Clermont County Democratic Party, told me the day after Hackett pulled out of the race. “I heard it more than once that someone was distributing photos of Paul in Iraq with Iraqi war casualties with captions or suggestions that Paul had committed some sort of atrocities. Who did it? I have no idea. It sounds like a Republican M.O. to me, but I have no proof of that. But if it was someone on my side of the fence, I have a real problem with that. I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would do that to another Democrat.”

In late November, Hackett got a call from Sen. Harry Reid. “I hear there’s a photo of you mistreating bodies in Iraq. Is it true?” demanded the Senate minority leader. “No sir,” replied Hackett. To drive home his point, Hackett traveled to Washington to show Reid’s staff the photo in question. Hackett had demonstrated his ability to shake money from donors during a January fundraising roadshow in California and New York. But he soon discovered that top Democrats were attempting to cut off his money. The hosts of a Beverly Hills fundraiser for Hackett received an e-mail from the political action committee of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that concluded, “I hope you will re-consider your efforts on behalf of Hackett and give your support to Sherrod.” Waxman’s chief of staff, Phil Schiliro, said the e-mail was only sent to a handful of people and that “it probably came from a suggestion from the Sherrod Brown campaign.”

Michael Fleming, who manages Internet millionaire David Bohnett’s political and charitable giving, was one of the recipients of the Waxman email. Bohnett has given to hundreds of progressive candidates, but Fleming says, “This was the first time I had ever gotten an email or communication like that. I find it discouraging and disheartening. It’s unfortunate that the powers that be didn’t let the people of Ohio figure this out. We should be in the business of encouraging people like Paul Hackett and viable progressive candidates like him to run. The message instead is don’t bother, it’s not worth your time.”

Sen. Schumer was also reported to be trying to turn off Hackett’s cash spigots. No one would confirm this to me on the record. But veteran political activist David Mixner, who described himself as “a fanatically strong supporter” of Hackett and who helped sponsor a New York fundraiser, confirmed that he “received calls from a couple people in Congress urging Paul Hackett to withdraw or not to contribute money to his campaign. The reasons ranged from he can’t win, to he’s too controversial, Brown has more money, is more centrist, and more appealing. It was that inner beltway circle crap,” said Mixner. “They are people who have no idea what’s going on in the country but believe they know everything.”

Mixner added, “I don’t think it’s inappropriate to call me. What’s inappropriate is that the people calling me were the same people who asked him to run, and now they wanted to push him out. That's what made this unique.”

I also think it's shameful that you excuse it by saying, "hey, that's just politics." That may be the way adversarial politics goes in the general, but in a primary THEY'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM. And to bully and coerce one Democrat just to elevate another is not behavior I'll endorse.

If you're tired of hearing about Paul Hackett, how about we discuss Christine Cegelis instead?

The Hackett situation was not entirely as cut-and-dried as many in the blogosphere would have you believe.

There is no question that Sherrod Brown was the DSCC's favored candidate, but Hackett dropped out of the race after his campaign's internal polling showed Sherrod Brown winning by huge margins among likely Democratic voters.

Brown had a lock on Democratic donors and key endorsements, not because of the DSCC favoritism, but because he was better connected to the Ohio Democratic establishment and to national funding partners.

Hackett had the netroots and some infrastructure from his congressional race but nowhere near the juice to win a primary race against a man who came up through the Ohio Democratic establishment; was a statewide office holder; and a sitting U.S. Congressman with strong ties to labor.

The DSCC didn't knife Hackett. They didn't need to.

Once it became clear that he was losing badly and needed to drop from the race, Hackett overplayed the DSCC story in order to save face.

I should have added: Hackett is a rock star. He'll definitely come back strong.

Miles asks, Who exactly gets to decide where the DSCC invests its money?

Um, not to be pedantic (again), but the DSCC gets to decide where to invest their money.

And, backing up a step, their donors. If the DSCC were to continually lose races, people would stop donating to them.

It's really not all that complicated. Look at the NRSC, their fundraising is COLLAPSING around them.

Jeff will enter, and he will be the DSCC's candidate. Steve will be his primary, primary opponent, and will be the netroots candidate.

TJ, you seem to imply that every race has (and should have) one DSCC candidate and one "netroots" candidate.

But that's not true. And it never has been. (And nevermind the question of this nebulous and ill-defined notion of the netroots as a single entity.)

Politics is about connections, and once the cmtes choose, they tend to game those connections to create an uneven playing field.

OF COURSE THEY DO. Damn, we all do that. When I give $50 to a candidate, I'm trying to create an "uneven playing field". I am under no obligation, and neither are you, and neither is the DSCC, to give money equally to both sides in a race -- whether it be a primary race or a general election race.

Remember, folks: The DSCC is a private entity. It is a PAC, supported solely by its donors. It is NOT controlled by the Democratic Party. It's just one of many, many, many organizations that get involved.

Sure, it's a very influential one, but there are plenty of other organizations (like Emily's List, for one) that pick primary candidates, help find donors to support 'em, and try to influence the outcomes of races.

One more time: Any candidate that wants someone else's money needs to EARN it. No one is entitled to anything. It's really not that complicated.

Is that all you think it was? Jeff, they were calling Hackett's donors and telling them NOT to give him money.

There's no crying in baseball, and no whining in politics.

Calling his donors and asking them not to donate? That's pretty much Politics 101, my friend. A US Senate race is the big leagues. That's how the game is played.

(And if you don't believe me, watch Steve Novick play the game and lock up the big donors. He's pretty good at it, actually.)

RE: Effect of anti-gay ballot measures, Thom wrote about a study of the 2004 election and gay-marriage ban ballot measures: "Their conclusion was that it was a wash. I don't mean to contradict Lee here. I just want to point out that it's still going to take a good deal of old fashioned electioneering to bring out a larger left-of-center vote."

I totally agree that electioneering is key but would point out that marriage was such a hot button emotional and cultural issue that even left-of-center voters voted yes on M. 36.

It was a battle forced on us by some rather pushy and ill advised efforts by the one who sings no longer and those who reacted against her. It was the wrong battle at the wrong time and was doomed to end in defeat on M. 36.

In the coming elections, the gay community will electioneer heavily everywhere in the state as it has in prior discrimination ballot measure campaigns not affected by heavy emotional/cultural issues like marriage. In one corner, we have Basic Rights Oregon organizing phone banks. In another, we have DPO's GLBT Caucus and as a charter member of the caucus I was thrilled to hear Trent Lutz praise the group for doing everything the party has asked of it.

RE: Effect of anti-gay ballot measures, Thom wrote about a study of the 2004 election and gay-marriage ban ballot measures: "Their conclusion was that it was a wash. I don't mean to contradict Lee here. I just want to point out that it's still going to take a good deal of old fashioned electioneering to bring out a larger left-of-center vote."

I totally agree that electioneering is key but would point out that marriage was such a hot button emotional and cultural issue that even left-of-center voters voted yes on M. 36.

It was a battle forced on us by some rather pushy and ill advised efforts by the one who sings no longer and those who reacted against her. It was the wrong battle at the wrong time and was doomed to end in defeat on M. 36.

In the coming elections, the gay community will electioneer heavily everywhere in the state as it has in prior discrimination ballot measure campaigns not affected by heavy emotional/cultural issues like marriage. In one corner, we have Basic Rights Oregon organizing phone banks. In another, we have DPO's GLBT Caucus and as a charter member of the caucus I was thrilled to hear Trent Lutz praise the group for doing everything the party has asked of it.

RE: Effect of anti-gay ballot measures, Thom wrote about a study of the 2004 election and gay-marriage ban ballot measures: "Their conclusion was that it was a wash. I don't mean to contradict Lee here. I just want to point out that it's still going to take a good deal of old fashioned electioneering to bring out a larger left-of-center vote."

I totally agree that electioneering is key but would point out that marriage was such a hot button emotional and cultural issue that even left-of-center voters voted yes on M. 36.

It was a battle forced on us by some rather pushy and ill advised efforts by the one who sings no longer and those who reacted against her. It was the wrong battle at the wrong time and was doomed to end in defeat on M. 36.

In the coming elections, the gay community will electioneer heavily everywhere in the state as it has in prior discrimination ballot measure campaigns not affected by heavy emotional/cultural issues like marriage. In one corner, we have Basic Rights Oregon organizing phone banks. In another, we have DPO's GLBT Caucus and as a charter member of the caucus I was thrilled to hear Trent Lutz praise the group for doing everything the party has asked of it.

Anon, DSCC's polling indicates Smith definitely vulnerable, and Merkely competitive after comparative bios are read. I hear Jeff's Q rating is not bad, but not what people might expect of the state's Speaker.

Jake Weigler has said at LO that their own information indicates Novick is as well or better positioned than Jeff to defeat Smith. I take that to mean his recognition and head to head numbers are similar if not better. Without seeing the data it's hard to say how strong those numbers are, but they do validate the sense that a race and not a blowout is afoot.

Responding to Kari:

TJ, you seem to imply that every race has (and should have) one DSCC candidate and one "netroots" candidate.

But that's not true. And it never has been. (And nevermind the question of this nebulous and ill-defined notion of the netroots as a single entity.)

If that was what you drew from that, I apologize. I was only setting the apparent stage for Oregon. But in general, yes--it usually boils down to one candidate who has the favor of the cmte, and one most-viable non-favored candidate.

OF COURSE THEY DO. Damn, we all do that. When I give $50 to a candidate, I'm trying to create an "uneven playing field". I am under no obligation, and neither are you, and neither is the DSCC, to give money equally to both sides in a race -- whether it be a primary race or a general election race.

Here you equate "gaming connections" with giving money. Pursuant to what I was discussing re: Hackett and Cegelis among others, if it were simply about giving a different candidate money that would be one thing. What I'm referring to is trying to shut down other Democrats' funding sources, whether by threats or favors or implications thereof, and trying to monkey around with who runs where. If you want to give them the disassociation of being merely just some other private organization, you have to find that kind of interference inappropriate. And I don't think calling them a private organization is really all that truthful beyond technicalities; the DSCC is headed by the senior Senator of New York, for heaven's sake--and our own senior Senator was until recently one of his lieutenants.

There's no crying in baseball, and no whining in politics. Calling his donors and asking them not to donate? That's pretty much Politics 101, my friend. A US Senate race is the big leagues. That's how the game is played.

How sad I am to hear you (virtually) shrug your shoulders. We're not talking about whether it happens; quite obviously I'm aware that it does. The issue is whether it SHOULD. It should not, especially between Democrats.

Please note that your link to Steve playing the big money game does not feature any reference to him telling those lawyers, "I don't want to hear about any of you giving to another candidate, and if I do you can forget having me back your concerns once I get to Washington."

"Mr. Weigler is a very smart man, but, seeing as he's been in for only a few weeks, I'm not sure if he actually has had time to gather numbers."

He has, trust me.

Wow, what a thread. And getting more arcane by the minute.

Okay, I'll jump in. TJ, you opine: "The issue is whether it SHOULD."

I'm still unclear about why you think this--seriously unclear, not just rhetorically. Politics is all about lining up people and money, and the candidate that does this generally wins (though not always--see Tom Potter). There are complex things that could be said about this. On the negative side, you can claim cronyism, favoritism and so on. On the positive side, I think you can cite the power of uniting behind popular candidates, a good structure, and the power of experience and connections.

But these aren't moral points--they're just the nature of politics. And it is really quite different from the corruption of politics that you see with the effect of money and the consolidation of the media. This is the most ancient form of politics, where you pull together your allies and form a majority bloc. It is deeply democratic and goes back to the start of the country. Until recent memory, it's how we elected presidential nominees--backroom deals with party bosses.

I go back to this: it's not unfair, it's not corrupt, and it's transparent. I'm still mystified by why people find corruption in it.

Politics is all about lining up people and money, and the candidate that does this generally wins (though not always--see Tom Potter).

Perhaps I'm still being unclear. Lining up people and money is the game. Everyone understands that. What should NOT be part of the game is attempting to sabotage or strongarm your way to the nomination. Exercising the collective right to support a candidate positively is one thing; it's quite another to use one's political power to actively discourage the rights of others to support a different candidate.

Exercising the collective right to support a candidate positively is one thing; it's quite another to use one's political power to actively discourage the rights of others to support a different candidate.

It's the same game. Exactly.

"It's the same game. Exactly."

Care to explain how "Vote for Steve!" is exactly the same phrase as "Fuck Jeff...or else!" ?

It's rather startling to hear that you're OK with threatening donors, placing disinformation and sabotaging campaign events of other Democrats. But I'll keep that in mind for the future.

OK, I want to make one thing crystal clear. Up above, TJ, you passed along some allegations that someone was creating false rumors about Paul Hackett.

That's beyond the pale. Clearly, that's unacceptable.

But let's not conflate that kind of evil behavior with something that's perfectly acceptable: Trying to pull together as many supporters as you can, encouraging them to commit to your campaign, and asking them to turn down all other suitors.

That's what an "endorsement" is. Other than the cop-out "dual endorsement" the whole point of an endorsement is to consolidate support behind your campaign.

I don't know anything about "threats" - but it's entirely acceptable for any private individual or private organization to pick a candidate, and encourage everyone they know to join them.

And make no mistake: The DSCC is a private organization. Just because one of its members (or even its chairman) is also an elected official doesn't make it a public entity. I can't believe we're even talking about this. THE DSCC IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It's entirely privately funded through voluntary donations. Duh.

It's rather startling to hear you describe this:

Exercising the collective right to support a candidate positively is one thing; it's quite another to use one's political power to actively discourage the rights of others to support a different candidate.

and this

...threatening donors, placing disinformation and sabotaging campaign events of other Democrats.

as "the same." But I'll keep THAT in mind ;-)

Let's argue apples and apples, whatsay, TJ? You are exercised about a specific case--and I may agree that lines were crossed--but you're also arguing that the principle is the same, and here I don't see it. I refer you to the upper quoted paragraph about trying to beat other candidates ("it's quite another...")--which describes pretty accurately the activity of politics. (Though I'll admit that your phrase "discourage the rights" is opaque. Surely rights are not at issue.

OK, let's try and find a way through the thicket.

Having gone back thru the comment thread, I think it's clear that we can all agree that attempting to influence someone's support of one candidate over another is A-OK. But that there's a point where that becomes coercion or some other kind of undue influence.

The question here is: What's that point?

Now, TJ thinks (if I can paraphrase, hopefully correctly) that the DSCC has some special role - which means that the point-of-undue-influence is very low. In other words, they cross the line by just advocating on behalf of one candidate over another (even in a primary.)

I happen to believe that the DSCC is a private organization funded by private dollars, and they're within their First Amendment rights (speech and assembly) to do whatever they want with their money, time, energy, and influence.

<h2>If I've paraphrased the argument correctly, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.</h2>