This can't be good for the D's.

There are plenty of good reasons to vote against Gordon Smith but unfortunately Smith's sexennial faux-moderation is kicking in and lots of well meaning Oregonians will vote for him because he is making noises that encourage their desire to see the best in him.

The Democratic nominee needs all the anti-Smith votes, and Frohnmayer runs the risk of becoming a Nader-like figure in Oregon politics if Smith is reelected by a plurality with Frohnmayer and the Democratic nominee jointly receiving a majority.

As for the excess of partisanship in Washington, regrettably, solving that problem won't be very simple, and electing John Frohnmayer won't be the answer. Fact is that the Republicans created the problem, it dates back to 1981, and it is not appropriate for the Democrats to simply stop asserting themselves, or they will perpetuate their existing disadvantage.

I think Mr. Frohnmayer will be a welcome addition to the race. I don't think it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DSCC will throw its weight behind Mr. Frohnmayer if they believe he has the best chance to unseat Smith.

I also suspect that Mr. Frohnmayer, who probably has the best name recognition and contacts of anyone currently in the race who is not named "Gordon Smith" has a decent chance of winning with a plurality -- certainly as good as any of the current Dem candidates in a head-to-head contest with Smith.

Also, since he is registered as "Independent", he won't run into the same problems that Sen. Westlund did trying to make the ballot.

Although I agree that electing one person won't end partisan divisions in Washington, Frohnmayer will be in a position to wield a great deal of influence as an Independent in a narrowly divided Senate if he gets elected -- much more so than a left-leaning D would have. Just a few of the "right kind" of centrists in the U.S. could really shift the political polarity of this country in a better direction.

Would John Frohnmayer have to collect signatures to get on the ballot or can he just pay the fee and run? I'm curious to know how that works.

Would John Frohnmayer have to collect signatures to get on the ballot or can he just pay the fee and run? I'm curious to know how that works.

He is registered as an Independent. As I mentioned here a few months ago, Linda Williams and some other activists formed the Independent Party of Oregon as a vehicle to help independent candidates avoid the signature collection problems that effectively ended Ben Westlund's bid for governor.

So, I believe that he can seek the nomination from the Independent Party and, assuming he gets it, run on their ballot line by simply paying the same fee that major party candidates pay.

Thanks to the 2005 legislature, which enacted HB2614 in an attempt to keep independents off of the ballot in Oregon, were Frohnmayer to run as an independent (rather than an Independent), he'd need to collect a bunch of signatures, and then throw out the signatures of everyone who is a registered D or R, who votes in the primary -- pursuant to the rules that were put into place when HB2614 was enacted into law.

Excuse me? With whom would he caucus? Bernie and UnHoly Joe?

Of course, I haven't spoken with Mr Frohnmayer, but I think it's fairly likely that he would caucus with the D's, as both Bernie and Joe currently do, and as Jim Jeffords did after he left the GOP (also Wayne Morse, etc.).

I don't see how electing an I to a seat currently held by an R creates the possibility that the Senate would be thrown "back to Republican control".

Exactly right, Sal.

John Frohnmayer's core issues seem to be defending the Constitution and civil rights.

Where does this idea that he'd switch back to R come from?

Sal,

Thanks for the explaination. It will be interesting to see what he decides and to do and his strategy (running for the Independant Party nomination or running as an Idependant on his own).

He will take a slice of the anti-Smith vote, and in doing so, will ensure Smith's reelection. Almost no one who otherwise supports Gordon Smith is going to vote for John Frohnmayer instead. Substantially all of his support is going to come the other way.

Ben Westlund was smart enough to see that his continuation in the race would result in Ron Saxton becoming Governor. Frohnmayer, who from all accounts is a very good man, as an independent candidate would be in the same position. His legacy would be six more years of Senator Gordon Smith.

I'm not up for that.

Stephanie, that there's a whole lot of assumptions.

He will take a slice of the anti-Smith vote, and in doing so, will ensure Smith's reelection.

It seems to me that if Frohnmayer looks to be the strongest candidate not named Gordon Smith, then you can make the same case for why lower profile Democratic candidates should consider dropping out and throwing their support to him.

After all, why should they eat up votes from a stronger candidate who can actually defeat Smith?

Of course, that's not going to happen, yet anyone who calls for a strong Independent candidate to drop should be asking themselves why they don't say the same thing about longshot D's. Is there a good reason why we should hold Independents to a different standard than D's and R's?

In my mind, there is no reason to suppose that if Frohnmayer raises enough money to be competitive, something that Ben Westlund did not do in 2006, that he could not win a plurality in this race.

If he doesn't raise enough money, he can always drop out and throw his support to the strongest candidate in the race.

Nah, I think Stephanie is right.

When you're challenging an incumbent, there's typically two votes - pro-incumbent, and anti-incumbent. Unless there's a strong ideological push in another direction, it's always about change versus more of the same.

In short, you'd have two people making the case against Gordon Smith - and splitting the vote of those who want to remove him from office.

That's especially true if he'd be running on a center or center-left set of issues - like civil liberties.

When you're challenging an incumbent, there's typically two votes - pro-incumbent, and anti-incumbent. Unless there's a strong ideological push in another direction, it's always about change versus more of the same.

I think you're misreading your elections history.

Clinton defeated Incumbent George Bush with 43 percent in a 3-way race involving Ross Perot. Reagan defeated Incumbent Jimmy Carter in a 3-way race involving John Anderson.

Jesse Ventura won the Governorship in Minnesota with 38 percent of the vote in a 3-way race involving Norm Coleman and Hubert Humphrey despite only spending $600,000.

Credible 3rd party challengers can defeat incumbents outright or help to knock out incumbents depending on the political climate.

If not, I don't see it lasting long, as I don't see a wealth of resources available for someone who's running against Smith but not also a D.

I guess that's the question and challenge for his campaign, assuming that he goes forward with his candidacy.

Sal brought up a point that reminds me of the conflation of the terms Independent (now an actual minor party) and Non-Affiliated (no party whatsoever).

First of all, I would presume that John Frohnmayer isn't registered as a capital-I Independent Party member, but rather as a Non-Affiliated Voter, which is no party whatsoever. It's not safe to presume that Frohnmayer is the default candidate for the Oregon Independent Party, as they may prefer to run a candidate that is actually a member of their party. However, unlike major parties, minor political parties can nominate any qualified citizen for an office regardless of that citizen's own party identification.

Second, the Independent Party's ballot access still requires the nominee to accept the nomination of the party. Frohnmayer may actually prefer to be a true independent without party and decide to pursue ballot access through either petition or through assembly of electors. This would qualify Frohnmayer as a "Non-Affiliated" candidate on the ballot rather than as a candidate from a minor (third) party.

Another interesting question is: How do newly-registered voters tell the difference between becoming a member of the Independent Party and electing not to be affiliated with any party at all?

It seems that many of the Independent Party's members (and electors for nominees) could have intended to be without party, but mistook 'Independent' for 'Non-Affiliated'. It would be hard to get many of these unassuming party members to participate in a primary election, especially when they thought that they had chosen not to participate in such primaries.

Tao,

Interesting analysis, thanks. All except the last bit, though - I think you got that wrong. Minor parties don't conduct "primaries" in the same way as major parties. The state does not fund or conduct elections on their behalf; they can choose to nominate according to whatever process they like.

(Side note: See here for a better idea.)

Anyone know what happened with this lawsuit challenging HB 2614? Or the repeal that was before the Senate in May '07?

Pete,

Thanks for the clarification. As a member of a major political party, I am a little hazy on minor party procedures.

It would seem a little odd, though, for the Independent Party to select its nominee by any means other than a mailed-ballot style election where its disparate and mostly disinterested members would have to do little to participate.

Any other form of selection would be like convening a meeting of the Anarchy Club.

A few comments...

The voter registration card very clearly states "Independent Party", "Democratic Party", "Republican Party", etc. and has a line-item for "NAV". It may be the case that some people mean "independent", when they check off the box titled "Independent Party", but I doubt there is very much confusion.

The State does not pay to send out primary ballots to minor political parties, as they do for the major parties,

The news articles say that Mr. Frohnmayer is an Independent, not non-affiliated or independent.

As I understand it, the IPO was created primarily to give independents a vehicle to get on the ballot without having to collect signatures under the new rules, which would otherwise make it all but impossible for them to get on the ballot in Oregon.

Stacey, thanks for setting the record straight re: Westlund. You guys handled that race very well, expanded its focus, elevated the discussion etc. It's worth making sure that the recounting of it is accurate.

Re: Frohnmayer, you might want to look into how he departed Washington before assuming he'd be basing his campaign on a defense of Bush 41…doesn't seem likely to me.

I'm kind of surprised how little we all seem to know about this significant figure. The NEA was at the center of some pretty divisive politics before, during, and after Frohnmayer's tenure. He has written two books, but if any of you get to the library and check them out before me, I'm gonna be mad!

Sal, I know for a fact that John Frohnmayer is registered as a Non-Affiliated Voter. If it's so easy for the media to conflate the two, what makes you think that newly registered voters haven't done the same when they filled out the SEL 500?

Naming it the 'Independent Party' in the first place is an obvious exploitation of such a conflation. High-profile potential candidates like Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel are often mentioned as possibly 'running as independents' for president. Does this mean as a member of the Independent Party or as a candidate without affiliation? The creation of an Oregon Independent Party creates this ambiguity and subsequently collects confused voters onto the rolls of a a party with its own agenda and values.

Even if the party was created to give independents ballot access, they can only choose one nominee for each office. When more than one non-major party office seeker looks for the Independent Party's support for ballot access, the Party can choose only one of them. And that is precisely the moment that it becomes independent in name only.

I think Mr. Frohnmayer will be a welcome addition to the race. I don't think it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that the DSCC will throw its weight behind Mr. Frohnmayer if they believe he has the best chance to unseat Smith.

That would be utterly disgusting. Frohnmayer is not a Democrat. The DSCC exists to support Democrats. They made the mistake of not doing so in 2006; I'm sure they are ruing the day. They'd best not try it again, here.

Did the DSCC support Bernie Sanders in 2006? If so, was that also a mistake?

Sal,

as far as I know, the DSCC did not fund Sander's in any way, though on their website the list him as being the candidate who will caucus with the Dems in the race in the last election cycle, an give his bio. Admittedly I am not 100% versed in the particulars of the DSCC activities in the VT race that cycle beyond the election news consumer during the elections from here in Oregon.

In addition, I believe there was no fielded Dem candidate in that race. Sounds like an Apples to Oranges argument.

That's a fair point about the Sanders comparison.

Let me amend the DSCC comment to suggest instead that it would not surprise me if traditional Democratic funders gravitate towards the candidate they feel has the best shot at unseating Smith, even if the candidate in question is an "I".

Stacey:

Thanks for clarifying the point on Westlund. I was about to go dig through archives to prove the point you just did.

Naming it the 'Independent Party' in the first place is an obvious exploitation of such a conflation.

There are other states, including California, that have barred the use of the word "independent" in party names to prevent confusion. In Oregon, we don't - we merely prohibit the use of any word that exists in another party's name.... so we couldn't create a party called the "Liberal Democratic Party" or somesuchthing. (Not that I'd want to.)

There are other states, including California, that have barred the use of the word "independent" in party names to prevent confusion. In Oregon, we don't - we merely prohibit the use of any word that exists in another party's name.... so we couldn't create a party called the "Liberal Democratic Party" or somesuchthing.

I suspect that both behaviors -- the one Kari attributes to California, and the Oregon law, have less to do with avoiding name confusion than they do with limiting the competition.

It's a system that's already pretty tilted anyway. For example, taxpayers pay for the free printing, distribution, and counting, of primary ballots for the major political parties -- in effect, subsidizing their nominating process of the D's and R's -- but not the minor ones.

Re: Stacy's comments on Westlund.

Stacy, I believe your comments upthread, but both you and Ben are pretty widely quoted in the press as saying that the new rules hampered the ability of your campaign to get on the ballot. It certainly raises the costs of collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.

The press release you put out last July said that you collected 36,000 signatures, not 50,000. That's what I was basing my comment on.

http://www.westlundforgovernor.com/documents/release_signatures_7-24-06.pdf

I gather that you collected another 14,000 signatures in the last few weeks of the campaign, but it's unclear to me that you were a shoe-in to qualify even with 50,000 signatures.

DR's validity rate was only in the low to mid 60's for ballot initiative campaigns, and you had to contend with the loss of a third of the electorate, all D's and R's who voted in a primary.

You are a very talented campaign manager, and you did a great job for Westlund, but based on a look at voter registration, primary participation, and validity rates from other campaigns in 2006, I do not believe that you could have guaranteed a validity rate far greater than 40 percent using DR plus volunteers.

I've done signature gathering campaigns. It's much, much, harder than candidate races.

Thanks for the compliments, but you just didn't have all of the information.

Hey, story of my life.

I'm shocked that you had such high validity rates, even after factoring out people who voted in the primary. Maybe you should start working the ballot initiative circuit. :)

Katherine Pfieffer's a hard worker - I had the opportunity to do some work with her during last year's primary season. She doesn't seem to ever stop for a rest.

the DSCC exists to support Democrats

Will someone please explain to me how this is partisanship gone wild? For a Democratic Party committee to support Democratic candidates seems like a baseline definitional thing.

This is one of the inherent advantages that accrue to the nominees of the major parties - the major party apparatus is there to support them.

the confusion over Mr. Frohnmayer's registration just proves what a mess this is.

There is no confusion on that point. John Frohnmayer is not unaffiliated. He is an "I".

As to the voter registration card itself...

There is nothing confusing about it. The card says "Constitution Party", "Democratic Party", "Independent Party", "Libertarian Party", "Pacific Green Party", "Republican Party", "Working Families Party", and "Not a member of a party".

Sal says strongly that John F. is I-party. Tao says strongly that he's NAV. Anyone with access to the voter file care to settle this?

Stephanie: I believe that the goal of the DSCC is to strengthen the majority of the Democratic Party in the Senate. Most times, that means running and supporting Democrats. In not one but TWO cases last cycle, it did not: the DSCC endorsed Bernie Sanders and did not run a candidate of their own, and promised him committee memberships, in exchange for his commitment to caucus for them (not sure whether they gave money or not); and (right or very wrong) they supported Joe L.

There is no reason why they shouldn't consider unusual cases on their own merits, and make a decision accordingly. It's being suggested here that this case is unusual: Smith is vulnerable and relatively short on funds, we have a former cabinet secretary considering a run as an independent, who appears very unlikely to caucus with Republicans, and thus far there is a case to be made that no strong Democratic challenger has emerged.

So, I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that your position "exemplifies extreme partisanship," but I do think it's reasonable to expect the DSCC to consider the possibility of endorsing/supporting John Frohnmayer.

To put a finer point on that: I think the DSCC should consider endorsing/supporting any non-D candidate who (1) credibly pledges to support Democratic Senate/committee leadership, (2) demonstrably shares Democratic values on a large number of issues, and (3) is likely to be open to discussion/negotiation on those where there is disagreement (seek common ground rather than playing up the polarity of the issue.)

Pete:

Unless he has re-registered lately, he is NAV.

The DPO's voter file is outdated. The last update was March or earlier.

I talked with someone who had also called in to check some weeks back. They were told on the phone NAV.

That's why I said that about he may have changed recently.

So, I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to say that your position "exemplifies extreme partisanship," but I do think it's reasonable to expect the DSCC to consider the possibility of endorsing/supporting John Frohnmayer.

Well, thanks for the kind words, but I guess I just struggle with the idea of the DSCC supporting a non-D when there is a perfectly good D in the race, and the non-D (albeit a very good man) last held public office (non-elective) 15 years ago.

Sal, last DPO update was in May, actually, just two months ago.

The Secretary of State's office could settle this matter, as it is public information after all.

Some articles call him little-i independent, like Jeff Mapes in a July 2006 Oregonian Article; others capital-I Independent, as the Tribune's Sources Say indicates.

I'm pretty sure that the Tribune article could have clarified his membership in the little-known Independent Party if that were the case. His classification as an independent--or even as an Independent--in journalism without such a clarification or so much as a note still indicates that he's probably what is commonly considered an independent, but is known as a NAV to us junkies.

Besides, don't you think his membership and possible candidacy in a minor party would have generated a different angle for this story?

It's a little too easy just to say that the voter file hasn't been updated.

I should say that I don't know when the DPO voter file was last updated (although I thought it was in May for the elections), since I need to re-sign my authorization papers so my login will work again. That's why I asked a friend who was local to call and check the registration.

However, I know sometimes election offices can take a while to input voter registration forms when there isn't a deadline for an election or whatever coming up.

It may be if you call and ask now that the registration says something different.

Tao - verify to your heart's content. You are mistaken. No big deal. Also, DPO dataset is from April at the earliest, not May.

So I don't get viciously flamed, let me repeat that I'm a huge Novick fan and will continue to support him fervently. But in this thought exercise about where things may stand six months or a year from now, none of us should be saying that we're supporting Steve come hell or high water. If Smith is as bad as Blue Oregon claims he is (pretty much daily), then we're morally obligated to do whatever has the best chance of getting him out of the Senate.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 12, 2007 11:47:47 PM

OK Sal, we'll see what additional evidence I can get tomorrow.

But I wonder what makes you so sure of his party status. You have yet to offer that supporting information.

+---------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| EFF_REGN_DATE | LASTNAME   | FIRSTNAME | PARTY_CODE |
+---------------+------------+-----------+------------+
| 04-23-2007    | FROHNMAYER | JOHN      | IND        |
+---------------+------------+-----------+------------+

Sal, what's up with the resolute refusal to state your source? You have a good reputation around here - if your position is "I have a good source, and I stake my reputation on it, but I don't want to say what it is right now" - why not just say so? For the sake of civilized discussion?

Nobody knows where the text-table you (finally) copy-and-pasted above comes from.

Pete, the text table comes from a partial run of the SOS voter file that was updated at 3pm today. It was a happy coincidence that I had ordered the data set today, in preparation for the 2008 campaign.

Okay, cool. Still scratching my head about why you didn't just say so about 10 comments ago, instead of lobbing mysterious challenges at other commenters. But no biggie - I guess now we know, thanks.

Okay, cool. Still scratching my head about why you didn't just say so about 10 comments ago

No mystery. I didn't have the dataset loaded 10 comments ago, and Tao (if that really is his name) is going to call the SOS office tomorrow regardless of whether or not I provide references to comments on this blog.

Sorry to have put you off.

On the micro level, I completely agree that removing Gordon Smith from office should be our top priority, assuming that the replacement would be an improvement, i.e. a Democrat or otherwise somehow reliably part of the Democratic caucus.

But on the macro level it seems to me that, even if we DO have a problem with excessive partisanship in American politics these days, the solution to that problem is not unilateral disarmament by the D's. This era of heightened partisanship was initiated by the R's and has been masterfully manipulated by them since the Reagan adminstration. Why should we be the ones who roll over?

And don't say "because somebody has to, and we're the good guys." I am tired of the D's always wanting to be the good guys and being taken advantage of, or losing elections, or both. This circles back to something I posted someplace online here the other day about "dignity." Sometimes winning elections is undignified. John Kerry should have struck back fast and hard at the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004, instead of saving his fire for Sam Fox ($50,000 contributor to SBV) when Fox was nominated as ambassador to Belgium (and got in anyway on a recess appointment). We already know that the Republicans are capable of all kinds of ugliness and have no scruples about doing what works. I am not saying we have to "stoop to their level," but I am saying that a nice polite dignified statesmanlike candidate who eschews partisanship is going to get his ass handed to him -- not by nice-guy Gordon Smith, but by Gordon Smith's not-so-nice-guy surrogates.

THAT's why I am reluctant to even get into a discussion of some hypothetical future time when Frohnmayer has a better chance of defeating Smith than Novick does. Because I don't believe that such a thing is possible.

Stephanie, thanks for your thoughtful post - I didn't get where you were coming from before, but it makes sense now.

I share your concern that "rolling over" is the last thing that we should be doing, and agree about Kerry's approach.

But from what I know so far, I don't buy the premise that supporting Frohnmayer would be "rolling over," or that he himself would "roll over" as a candidate. At least not from what I know thus far. I think there's a case to be made for both Novick and Frohnmayer that they represent the true progressive majority better than traditional Democrats.

Here are the things that stick out to me, thus far, about John Frohnmayer:

• He has a deep commitment to quality education as a basis for rational discourse.
• He takes the First Amendment to the Constitution very seriously, and in particular values the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Gettysburg Address, and MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail as documents that should guide our approach to politics.
• He has been burned by the hyperpartisan right, and has reflected extensively that experience.

These are all qualities that make me want to learn more about the guy, and how he plans to approach his campaign and the job of U.S. Senator. We still have almost a year before the Democratic primary, and I intend to use that time for all it's worth.

A somewhat separate point: I strongly support Democrats over Republicans for the most part, but there are areas where I believe both parties are equally responsible for the current sorry state of American politics. Generally, those areas revolve around the corporate and big lobby influence in both parties. Any candidate who offers an approach that might shake up that influence in some way commands my attention, and I see potential in that area from both Novick and Frohnmayer. There are others out there as well, but these two guys are the ones with the mojo right now, as far as I can tell.

And, Sal: I wasn't put off, just a bit befuddled…and my ramble-filter doesn't always work so well late at night. No worries.

I just confirmed Sal's information with the Secretary of State.

But for what it's worth, the staff that I talked with was confused. Initially, she thought that 'I' meant Non-Affiliated. Then she thought about it for a minute, and said that he is probably a member of the Independent Party.

Maybe we should have a separate post on the problems the Independent/NAV situation creates.

Taoiseach:

I'm wondering if that's what happened to the person who called a few weeks back, since it was definitely after the April date that Sal lists above.

Wouldn't surprise me. I've found lots of people in elections offices that don't necessarily know all the rules and information, which can be frustrating. I had to explain to several of them in 2004 that college students had the right to register and vote at their college.

In Oregon, we don't - we merely prohibit the use of any word that exists in another party's name.... so we couldn't create a party called the "Liberal Democratic Party" or somesuchthing.

The statute that limited use of a word that appears in another party's name was struck down as unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8.

As a practical matter, the only reason why the word "Independent" was even available to the Independent Party of Oregon is that partisan legislators changed the term describing candidates and voters not affiliated with a political party to "NAV" to make such candidates less appealing on the ballot.

Strange how bi-partisan these folks can be when it comes to defending the status quo in Salem.

This whole discussion reminds me of a choice line or four from the Simpsons, wherein space aliens invade and run for president:

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

I still think another thread on legislative changes to independent/NAV status and the new Independent Party would be enlightening.

A few points:

1) The GOP began as a 3rd party.

2) Oregon is one of the few states to elect an independent candidate to statewide office.

3) Most 3rd party movements are built around charismatic individuals or are driven by strong ideological, non-mainstream leanings (i.e., PGP, Constitution Party, Libertarians). The idea of a centrist, somewhat non-ideological, "Independent" 3rd party that is not driven by a charismatic leader hasn't really been tried in the United States since prior to the Civil War.

4) If the major political parties did not feel that their hold on power in our electoral system were somewhat tenuous, they would not work to create a system of rules that keeps 3rd parties and independents off of the ballot in Oregon and elsewhere.

5) Fusion voting or some variant is a strong possibility in Oregon during the next few years.

Others may disagree, but I believe that a significant plurality of citizens in this state, and in this country, are ready for an alternative to the partisanship and special-interest control that characterizes our political process today.

What they are waiting for, I believe, is for a strategic 3rd party movement to build a base of power in a way that does not entail voters "throwing their votes away" when they choose not to vote for one of the major political party candidates.

Whether the Independent Party of Oregon is a suitable vehicle for that movement, I have no idea. But I am intrigued by the possibilities, and I am hopeful of anything that holds any possibility of shaking up the status quo in our government.

Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 14, 2007 5:27:28 PM

Fair enough, though I think you're dreaming if you think that the Independent Party of Oregon becomes an institutional force for change without a driving, charismatic leader.

And I don't think that the 2008 Senate race should be their venue to force something like that. John Frohnmayer says that he's 'in it to win it', and I am absolutely certain that he stands no chance whatsoever between Smith and the eventual Democratic nominee.

And I don't think that the 2008 Senate race should be their venue to force something like that.

That's Mr. Frohnmayer's decision to make and no one else's.

am absolutely certain that he stands no chance whatsoever between Smith and the eventual Democratic nominee.

You should be careful with "absolute" certainty.

2 days ago you were absolutely certain that John Frohnmayer was not an Independent.

TJ, aren't you just proving Frohnmayer's point that partisanship is out of control? If Frohnmayer agrees with the Dems on 60-70% of issues, and he's the most credible candidate to defeat Smith, why in the world shouldn't the DSCC (and all of us) support him? Just because he refuses to put a "D" after his name?

No on 1, yes on 3. As to 2, the answer is because the DSCC is tasked with electing Democrats and those who can be counted on to support other Democrats. It's a party system, and if Frohnmayer is the Independent candidate, I'd be pretty pissed if I was also an Independent, and the honchos decided to back Novick (say) because they thought HE was more credible.

I'm free to support whomever I like. I have never been a Democrat, but I've voted for Democrats or someone to the left of them all my life, almost without exception. But that's partly why I'm not a Democrat--I want the right to choose exceptions. (Now that I'm WFP instead of NAV, it will be interesting for me to decide whether to vote for the Democrat, or the WFP candidate--should they have one). If I were a Democrat, I would feel tasked to support Democrats, and Democrats only. And while I hold myself to a higher standard than I expect of others (I don't judge Democrats who vote outside the party), I expect that leaders of the party, and particularly leaders whose sole purpose in their office is to get Democrats elected, will most certainly not support non-Democrats.

I do not believe that makes evidence of partisanship out of control. It is evidence of partisanship as it should be. And I don't see why it's just as likely for Frohnmayer to run 2nd to Smith as Novick; Frohnmayer is not the nominee for one of the two major parties, while Novick would be (if he got to the general election scenario we're discussing). By that alone, the strong presumption is for the Democrat to pull more votes than a minor-party third candidate. It would have to be an amazingly dynamic third candidate--that people ALREADY know, likely--to outpoll either of the major parties in a statewide race. If Kitzhaber ran as an Independent, now THAT is someone who could make the Democrat a spoiler. But Frohnmayer? I seriously question that conclusion.

Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 14, 2007 6:21:44 PM

Hell, hyperbole is my forte. I definitely still have doubts about Frohnmayer's registration.

Another two questions, one related and one not so much: Why did you order a new VAN data set that included Benton County--are you running for a statewide office?

And two: If you are indeed running for something, why so much time on the blogs, leaving a trail of comments for your future opposition to wade through? At least choose a pseudonym.

But that's partly why I'm not a Democrat--I want the right to choose exceptions.

Um, TJ, let me get this right: You're endorsing someone in the Democratic primary - but you're not planning on voting in it? That seems odd to me...

On another note, isn't "Independent Party" an oxymoron?

Um, TJ, let me get this right: You're endorsing someone in the Democratic primary - but you're not planning on voting in it? That seems odd to me... On another note, isn't "Independent Party" an oxymoron?

Certainly so on question 2, but haven't you noticed that there's now a cult around being an "independent?" It's like a cool club to be in. I'm not slagging the impulse not to affiliate with either party (although there's some research that most independents really vote consistently enough one way or the other to make the label meaningless) but there's definitely some kind of cultural pride at work for all of the independents I see making that a proud statement of themselves.

As to the first part--yes? I mean, I'm personally supportive of Novick, and although I don't specifically have an endorsement, LO does, and LO the entity doesn't vote anyway. But it's true, he can't have my vote because I won't get a ballot with his name on it in May. All the more reason why I have to put other people's votes into the basket if I want to see him win.

And he can have some of my money, too. These days sadly that's worth more than my vote.

On another note, isn't "Independent Party" an oxymoron?

Certainly so on question 2

... and yet the first Independent movement were congregationalists, and our own Declaration of Independence dealt with the establishment of government in these United States. By the definition that the two of you are operating with here, neither of these were really "independent" expressions.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, creating an Independent Party would not have been necessary if the Oregon legislature, circa 2005, hadn't screwed with ballot access for independent candidates in Oregon.

So far as I can tell, the party is only interested in a narrow subset of issues such as ballot access for candidates and election reforms such as cfr and fusion voting. Insofar as is possible, it seems that Independent is attempting to mean independent in terms of candidates agendas being their own.

...but haven't you noticed that there's now a cult around being an "independent?" It's like a cool club to be in. I'm not slagging the impulse not to affiliate with either party

It's indicative of the growing sense of failure by the major political parties to collaborate to solve the issues of the day.

<h2>The problem has gotten worse, not better as political operatives on both sides often slagging the other side for activities that they, themselves, engage in.</h2>