Kari, I'm interested in the financial issues you raise, can you expand? First, you say Loren Parks couldn't fund a Mannix run -- is this because of Federal limits on campaign finance that don't apply to state offices like AG and Governor?

Second, you say that Kroger or Macpherson (and presumably anyone in the SoS race, like Vicki Walker or Rick Metsger, who I think both are in the 5th) couldn't move their funds into a Federal race. What restricts that? State law? Federal law? Constitutional? Statutory?

Finally, anybody entering this race oughtta be pretty secure in his/her home life…if Wikipedia's right, none of the Reps in the 5th have yet gotten through without a divorce! Eesh!

Fascinating suggestions. None of the SOS candidates live in the 5th, and none of them could take their money with them. So, possible, but unlikely.

Pete... On the money: The federal individual donation limit is $2300 per election. So, Loren Parks could donate $2300 twice. Which is a far cry from the $300,000 checks that Mannix is accustomed to picking up from him.

Similarly, you can't move state money into federal because of those limits. A state committee can donate to a federal campaign - I think it's either $5000 or $10,000 - but you can't move the whole enchilada.

I've updated the post above with the news that Dave Hunt is out, and adding Jim Hill as a plausible candidate.

This is going to be a tight race anyway, let's not make it any harder by nominating a carpetbagger. So who actually lives in this district? Presumably Clem, Courtney, Evans, and the Schraders. Looking at a map seems to suggest that most of MacPherson's district is in CD5, but I couldn't be sure (the SoS's interactive map is just awful). I have no idea where Kroger lives, but it seems likely he's in CD1 or 3. As for the SoS candidates, they all appear to be well outside. Anybody got real scoop on who, of the likely candidates, really lives in CD5?

All of the people I've mentioned above live in Oregon's 5th - except Steve Novick.

Along the same lines as a possible Novick run (i.e., outside of the district)... Ben Westlund might make a good candidate too.

Nate, gotta toot my own horn just a little – I made maps of state Senate districts, they're on Wikipedia's article on the Senate. Haven't gotten around to the House districts yet. But, I'm pretty sure Macpherson's is in CD5 -- he's in Lake O., which I'm pretty sure is all in CD5. Not sure about others.

On the R side, I keep wondering if Molly Bordonaro's gonna resurface when she comes back from Malta…but boy, I hope not.

How about Metro President David Bragdon? He said he's not running for anything, anywhere in 2008, but would he reconsider in light of this retirement?

Hill may be a towering intellect, great fundraiser, and other complimentary things too numerous to list, but by golly, last time he said he was gonna run, no actual campaign ever materialized. Never was able to figure that one out.

Metsger would have to move, and I'm guessing, given his beautiful homestead in his hometown of Welches, he'd be reluctant to do so.

I'd love to see either of the Schraders jump in, but if they don't, I'd go with Clem or Evans.

<hr/>

Puts me a four favorites.......

I haven't talked to Brian Clem but his daughter was born about two weeks ago which doesn't really seem to be a indicator for a possible candidacy. But if he did I'd drop out of school to help him out.

I broke down why everybody else on the list besides the Schraders, Johnston and Evans is a good bet not to run at Forward Oreogn.

Its a little long so I didn't want to post it all here but essentially, Hunt, and Mac said no already, Jim Hill is still in debt from 06, Kroger's CV plays better as a AG.

Isn't Frohnmayer currently dedicating his efforts toward ensuring another term for Gordon Smith?

I'd like to see some Oregon style "Joementum" with Joe Baessler from the Bus Project.

RUN JOE RUN!

Kick-off in a bunny suit???

I nominate Pavel Goberman as the Republican candidate for CD5. He currently lives in Aloha (CD1) but I would gladly pay his bus fare down to Valsetz

I would love the possibility of working on either of the Schrader campaigns. Both are great political leaders. I also would love to see Courtney go for it. As someone who has worked with all three of the folks mentioned, I know how hard each of them would work on behalf of Oregon.

I've posted an update. Macpherson is out. I've also added Bryan Johnston, who is reportedly considering a run.

I thought this seemed obvious, but wouldn't Bill Bradbury think about a run?

Bill Bradbury is a resident of Bandon, Oregon - which is in DeFazio's district, and where he served as a State Senator.

Of course, that doesn't preclude a run, especially since he (like many statewide officials) has temporarily relocated to Salem for the duration of his term in office.

As others have said before, anyone not currently living in the district will not be well received by the voters. It is tough enough being a Democrat in the district let alone a 'newbie'. Same goes for most of the progressive names like Novick. This is a district that needs a lot of "down home" sensibilities and a long history as a resident. Evans, Schraders, and Clem meet that requirement.

Another update: John Kroger is out, per his campaign manager.

Tab... I agree. Any suggestions?

The two women legislators in the 5th District are Jean Cowan and Betty Komp. I've been told that it's unlikely that they're interested -- though I haven't confirmed that directly.

E4... Dan would be a great candidate. At the moment, he resides in Blumenauer's district. Though, as I've noted above, that's not a legal impediment.

Some outside updates to the speculation:

The Oregonian reports that both Kurt and Martha Schrader, as well as Paul Evans are all indeed considering a run. On the republican side, interested parties include Mannix and Reps Boquist and Brunn.

PolitickerOR reports that Dave Hunt has talked with the house dems in the district; Macpherson, Clem, and Komp, and supposedly none of them are interested in running. As noted above, Johnston is said to be interested.

What about someone like Larry Galizio, who holds down a very swingy Tigard district?

Obliquely calling for Novick to drop out of the race by March 11--classy!

Sara Gelser is in DeFazio's district. Larry Galizio is in Wu's district. Either would make an excellent member of Congress.

Kitzhaber represented Douglas County, DeFazio's district, in the State Senate. Today, he's registered to vote in SW Portland, in Wu's district.

I'd rather see Kitzhaber as Surgeon General or in another cabinet post. Or as governor in 2010. His talents would be somewhat wasted in the House, IMHO.

Sara may actually live in CD5; she's north of Corvallis a few miles, on the way to Crescent Valley HS. the 4/5 dividing line is really weird; they do a yin-yang thing in Corvallis so Hooley gets OSU and Defazio UO -- they didn't want both in 1 district.

Sara's kids are way too young anyway. it's tough enough being a State Red (now Asst Majority Leader). she's likely to be governor at some point, but i think she'd like her family to grow up first. or at least all get thru elementary school.

Major Paul Evans. in January 2009, he would be there to make sure our troops were coming home -- and that there'd be no need, i hope, to send the 3500 Oregonians scheduled to go over next March -- including my son.

Sara may actually live in CD5; she's north of Corvallis a few miles.

Not according to the voter file. She's in 4.

Brian Newman. We have a winner! He's in the 5th District, though I suspect he's very happy in his dream job at OHSU.

The fact that no top tiered Democrat candidate is rumored to be willing to run against Mike, shows weakness on the part of the DPO.

Puh-leeze. Obviously, you're not hanging out where the rumors are running rampant. There are plenty of Democrats considering the race. (Did you even read the post above?)

As for the Republicans... I just posted my speculations.

Kari,

Your attempts at downplaying Steve Novick's ability to obtain the Democratic nomination (as opposed to your employer) for Senate are unproductive and fracturing for the Democratic Party. Yes, it is important for Oregonians to run a solidly Democratic contender in the 5th CD. Yes, it is important to beat Gordon Smith in 2008.

What you are ignoring is the fact that Steve Novick has beaten Jeff Merkley in every poll taken during this race, and that he continues to build uncanny grassroots support (as opposed to pretend grassroots support) around not only the state, but the entire country. As I have said before, I would have absolutely no hesitation in supporting Jeff Merkley for the United States Senate, were Steve Novick not running.

But he is running. He is ahead in the polls. He is working his ass off for the nomination. He is pounding pavement around the state. And he is going to take on Gordon Smith in a big way. We finally have a candidate who will fight for the things we have been wanting our elected officials to fight about for too long. Steve Novick will be a senator who will pour his heart and soul into every piece of legislation he sponsors. He will fight for the issues that are important to Oregonians. I have no reservations about supporting Steve Novick for the United States Senate. None at all.

I forgot to add a great debt of gratitude to Congresswoman Hooley. She has represented those within and without her district for years as a potent and integral voice on the Hill. I wish her the best in her future endeavors and I express my greatest hope that a strong Democratic contender steps up to fill her sneakers.

OK, I've so far ignored all the potshots taken at me about the Novick thing.

But I'll just say this: The state capitol was running wild with speculation today about whether Steve Novick could/should/would run for Hooley's seat.

I didn't make it up, or pull it out of my ass. I would have been remiss in writing this up for our readers if I didn't include the one candidate on everyone's lips in Salem.

Frankly, I would LOVE to see both Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick in Congress. Wouldn't you?

I'd love to see Steve Novick in the US Senate, personally.

If Jeff Merkley wants to move to Lake Oswego and run for Congress I will be happy to send him a contribution.

would like the new person to go out to Washington and kick butt, not cave to the blue dogs. Which candidate is the most progressive? Thanks.

I, on the other hand, would like a good solid progressive that can actually get to 50%+1. In my mind, that narrows the field considerably.

So again, Schraders (either of the two). Both are pretty well known and liked by their constituents.

Paul Evans. The relationship to the Hooley org, the military and civilian record of service, and the look and feel.

I've had a chance to work with the Schraders over the years, and have followed Evans with interest, and have also done Walkies for him in the last cycle. Any of the three would be very good for the state, for progressives, and would build on Hooley's carefully crafted record of achievements.

Hey, I'm not pushing Steve Novick here. I'll leave that to others. I'm just reporting what the conversations are.

There is one bit of information that's worth adding to the conversation. Steve Novick lives exactly twelve city blocks from the 5th Congressional District. I won't reveal his home address on a public blog... but he literally lives twelve blocks away.

How far north does the 5th Congressional extend? Put it this way. When you ride the OHSU tram, when you board at the bottom of the hill, you're standing in Hooley's District. (At the top, you're in Wu's.)

Sure, the district goes all the way south to Corvallis and all the way west to Tillamook, but it includes a big chunk of Portland, too.

(And, frankly, that's the part of the district that would allow it's U.S. Representative to be more progressive.)

Neither Novick nor Merkley live in CD5. Both are in Blumenauer's district. Just wanted to clear that up for those who weren't sure.

Part of CD5 is in Multnomah County, though. The bulk of the county is Blumenauer, but we have portions of Hooley's and Wu's districts as well.

backbeat12: The politicos and their staff down in Salem might get all worked up over this possibility [of Steve Novick running for Darlene's seat], but it is politically ridiculous.

If it's so politically ridiculous, why is it any less ridiculous for him to run for Senate? The C5 district may not be the absolute heart of Portland, but it ain't Pendleton either.

So yes, it's clear Steve has a much better chance of winning it than he does the whole State.

Steve:

Maybe because Steve doesn't live in the district, which wouldn't be received well by voters.

Another update: Brian Clem is out.

I think you misread my point, LT. Steve Novick does indeed have a better chance of winning the 5th CD than he does the State.

1% is more than 0%

So Steve, if Novick's chance in the state is 0%, does that make Merkley's shot less than zero, considering that he seems to be running behind Novick, if anything? IIRC the Riley breakouts right, even with a high undecided vote, on the coast and in east OR, the ONLY Dem respondens said they favored was Novick. Nobody even mentioned another candidate.

I know you really like to hang your hat on that poll, Mark, but it's about 1/10th as accurate as a Zogby poll, if that.

When people are polled about something they really don't know about, they still feel compelled to come up with an answer. They strain to find any response that might seem even reasonably plausible for fear of seeming stupid otherwise.

That's just human nature.

That's why polls so far out are unreliable, why Rudy Giuliani led the GOP nomination race for over a year. And why the Riley poll you love so much (because it gives the answer you desperately want to believe) came out the way it did.

But guess what? When it comes time to vote, people read the voters pamphlet. About 35% of them use no source of information other than it. And it is going to tell three stories: Gordon Smith, a Senator pretending to be a moderate. Jeff Merkley, Speaker of the State House with a tide of legislative accomplishment to point to. And Steve Novick, Portland lawyer whose sole government experience is laudably winning an anti-pollution lawsuit. In New York. More than 20 years ago.

I understand you really want to believe that the majority of Oregon voters believe as you do, that the majority of the Democratic party is too conservative. (I think "corporatist" is the new in-word going around these days.) But guess what? Voters in the rest of the state aren't even in the same ballpark as you are. They worry about the Democratic party being too liberal, not vice versa. Above all, if they're going to take a risk in voting for someone other than the devil they know in Senator Smith, they want someone who actually has experience in a similar role. Like a successful legislator, for instance.

We've gone around this argument far too many times for me to ever delude myself into thinking I can talk any sense into you. But after your strongly held beliefs run into the concrete wall of reality in the primary, I hope you'll make a resolution to be a little more realistic. You know, realize that there is more to Oregon than the weirdest part of Portland.

Well Steve, I see after pulling the figures 1% and 0% entirely out of your ass, and having those figures exposed as, well, stupid--you appear to have learned your lesson by simply throwing more unsubstantiated claims and numbers out there, in a poor attempt to obscure unfortunate conclusions.

but it's about 1/10th as accurate as a Zogby poll, if that.

Considering that Riley uses AAPOR-approved methods and Zogby doesn't, you'll have to find something to back that up, Pancho. I assume you mean his internet polling anyway, since the Reuters/Zogby traditional phone polling has actually been doing OK in the primaries.

When people are polled about something they really don't know about, they still feel compelled to come up with an answer. They strain to find any response that might seem even reasonably plausible for fear of seeming stupid otherwise.

Human nature being generally the same no matter who is polling them, I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly it's not that undecideds were pushed too hard; a 73% undecided rate makes that clear (and mirrors earlier polling by other sources that put those unclear about Novick and Merkley at around the 70% range). Unless you are trying to say that Novick voters are willing to speak up but Merkley voters aren't, I don't see how this affects the distribution of responses, such that it presents an even race at best, one in which Merkley is behind at worst.

"That's why polls so far out are unreliable,"

Well, no--that's not why they're "unreliable;" they're "unreliable" because they're not SUPPOSED to be reliable for the tool you want to use them for: forecasting. They are not future predictors; they are reflections of the point in time in which the surveying was done.

But you pointedly avoid making any assertions as to the quality of the Riley poll, and its ability to reflect a point in time status of the race. That makes your own fulminations a bunch of baseless assertions, doesn't it?

I don't know what you're attempting to project as my view of the Riley survey, but it sure looks wrong. What I've said is that the overwhelming conclusion is that the race is wide open, and if anything Merkley is running behind Novick (since we know with 95% certainty that Novick could be up by as much as 17 points, or Merkley up by as much as 11, and the majority of outcomes favor Novick). This result mirrors previous polling, which ALSO shows an advantage for Novick, albeit within the margin of error.

And Steve Novick, Portland lawyer whose sole government experience is laudably winning an anti-pollution lawsuit. In New York. More than 20 years ago.

If I'm not mistaken, Steve spent time working in the Oregon State Senate 10 years ago, and for the state Department of Education shortly after that. Perhaps you should go read a bio before tossing around baseless accusations like that.

I understand you really want to believe that the majority of Oregon voters believe as you do, that the majority of the Democratic party is too conservative. (I think "corporatist" is the new in-word going around these days.) But guess what? Voters in the rest of the state aren't even in the same ballpark as you are. They worry about the Democratic party being too liberal, not vice versa. Above all, if they're going to take a risk in voting for someone other than the devil they know in Senator Smith, they want someone who actually has experience in a similar role. Like a successful legislator, for instance.

I'm sure you have citations for at least SOME of this? Cause otherwise it looks an awful lot like more anal leakage, source wise. And you seem to have the trend for "change vs experience" pretty much backwards. I'd be happy to show you very recent polling data showing a strong momentum among Oregon voters for change.

But after your strongly held beliefs run into the concrete wall of reality in the primary, I hope you'll make a resolution to be a little more realistic. You know, realize that there is more to Oregon than the weirdest part of Portland.

Thank goodness pollsters are smart enough to ask questions outside of Portland! Otherwise we'd be left to the substanceless ruminations of folks like you.

"Merkley is going to win the nomination, hands down."

Those hands are going to have to come from somewhere, and right now they're being sat upon. Even in a room full of machine politicians, the straw poll at DPO Super Tuesday was an essentially even affair--just five votes separated them. DC is not impressed.

A bunch of Portland activists are "machine politicians" ! A straw poll is in any way believable. Mark, you crack me up. Spin that any harder any you'll throw out your back along with your logic.

All that straw poll showed was that Mr. Novick couldn't even win in the most liberal, least pragmatic, territory in the entire state. What, he couldn't get an extra dozen people to throw the thing his way?

I mean geez, even Ron Paul manages to win internet polls.

Why exactly does mentioning Steve Novick represent some kind of covert slam against him? I'd really like to hear that tortured logic. Folks, you're starting to look seriously unhinged.

As for the seat, it will be an interesting test of Democratic strength. A number of the names on the list are very strong, and despite what should be a pitched battle in the fifth, we should be able to win it.

Kurt Schrader is a perfect fit for the 5th.

Both he and Martha are really nice people though and I'm not sure I'd wish the congressional lifestyle on them.

Would Novick beat Smith? Probably not. But in my view, he has a better chance than Merkley because the only way to beat Smith is with a quirky, off-beat campaign.

Miles, perhaps you ought to talk to some folk who are right-of-center and take the time to actually try to understand what motivates them before trying to claim that there's only one way to beat Smith.

Just about half an hour ago I was talking with some friends over pizza at Godfather's and we were talking politics for part of the meal. Except for one guy's wife, I was the only progressive person at the table.

An older guy, a self-declared conservative NAV, sitting across the table from me stated bluntly that he'd voted for Smith twice and that he is going to vote for Merkley this year. Not because of Jeff's politics per se but rather because he feels that Smith lied to him - says that Smith's statement about the need to get out of Iraq was pure BS and nothing more than a political stunt. His reasoning for wanting to vote for Jeff was mostly about Jeff being competent and a viable candidate. He knows who Novick is, btw.

Why is this list so short on women? Do we really want an all male federal delegation?

A good damn question. Any suggestions? The only other women legislators in the district are Betty Komp and Jean Cowan. I've been told that they're not interested - though I haven't confirmed that.

I'm not clued in to the politics of the Marion, Tillamook, Lincoln, or Benton County Commissions -- any Democratic women there?

And of course, this entire list is made up of elected officials. No reason an activist, business, or community leader couldn't run and win. Or even someone completely unheard of. (Just ask David Wu.)

"A bunch of Portland activists are "machine politicians" !"

Were you there? The activists were sorely outnumbered by the Democratic Party establishment, although quite obviously both attended. At $50 a head, however, this was an insider's gig.

In any case, this seems an odd response for you to direct as an answer to my questions of you, to support your previous assertions on polling science. It makes one think you don't have an answer, thus you simply move on to a different set of unsupported, baseless assertions as a way of avoiding that truth.

So how many polls showing Merkley doing no better than Novick--at best!--do you need before you come to accept it? Would three be enough? Or to put another way, how many will it take without even ONE to support your position, before your position becomes too embarrassing to maintain publically?

"Why exactly does mentioning Steve Novick represent some kind of covert slam against him?"

Because it's a ridiculous think to suggest. WHY on EARTH would he quit a competitive Senate race to start a House race in a district where he doesn't even live? There is no practical purpose to suggest it, unless what you'd really like to see is Novick out of the Senate race. The obvious implication is the suggestion that he's not qualified to run for Senate--or, alternately, that he's TOO qualified and threatens to upset some folks' precariously positioned apple carts.

The slam was fairly overt. What's covert is the discomfort Novick must be giving Team Merkley, for them to start floating ideas to get him out of the race. What's next, a concerned call from Howard Dean?

Let's put it this way: it's pretty damned patronizing and borderline dishonest to say to a US Senate candidate in a competitive primary, "Here, check out this House seat in a district you don't live in! You stand a much better chance of winning THAT!"

I mean, COME ON. Sure it would be convenient for Jeff Merkley if Steve Novick decided to run for something else. Guess what? It would also be convenient for Steve Novick if Jeff Merkley decided to run for something else. That's obvious.

Of the two, why does only Steve's name get floated for that scenario? That's obvious too: because it's Jeff's internet guy doing the floating.

For once in your life you're completely transparent, Kari. I'm not sure you intended it, but congratulations.

Robert, Stephanie, the reason why most of us think mentioning Steve Novick for this position is complementary is because we simply don't think it's a competitive primary - any more than the Jim Hill/Pete Sorenson challenge was competitive 2 years ago against Ted Kulongoski.

Do you remember that race? I do. BlueOregon was filled with purity trolls blaming Ted for managing us through a recession. They wanted to focus fire on him instead of Karen Minnis and the GOP caucus, and were able to simultaneously embarrass both the Governor and themselves by flooding a Multnomah Democratic CC meeting with followers to endorse his rivals.

Thank goodness, the damage they did wasn't enough to keep us from reelecting him or flipping the House. If it had, everything they claimed to be for, wouldn't have been possible last session.

It's just the same today, except that Gordon Smith is an even tougher opponent. It's quite possible that Steve Novick's run, which has absolutely no chance of being successful, will still pull just a shade of momentum from Jeff to bring him shy of knocking Gordon off in the general.

I'm reserving judgment though, to see how Steve handles himself after the primary. If he pulls the same childish stunt Jim Hill did, refusing to endorse his rival for the general, he might as well change his registration to the WFP.

. . .

Oh, and Mark, yes I was at the DPO party. While there were several Democratic luminaries in the room, the vast majority were regular people and PCPs, most from Portland. So the only way you could call them "machine politicians" is by counting PCPs as part of the "machine". Is that what you think of me as? LOL.

I think there are 50,000 people like the ones I have pizza with. That's all.

Miles, Kevin's point of view is hugely important to the reclaiming of the progressive vision for the country and your response is (perhaps purposely) dense.

Of course your 50,000 will either vote for the Democrat, whover that might be, just like Kevin and I will. Your other alternative is to throw your weight behind a Nader, Frohnmayer, or some other perceived Purist Spoiler of the Week.

And, undoubtedly, many solid Lefties will do just that, because they have goals that are wildly different from mine, and my fellow travellers in the progressive wing of the Dem Party.

The 50,000 he's talking about may well not vote for the latest KBOO/IndyMedia wet dream in any race at all. They feel betrayed by Smith, and Bush, and their Right Wing talkers, (and incidentally, McCain), but they still hate and fear them durned pseudo-inellechuals.

We want those guys in the general, guys like my dad, who at 76 years old, has never voted for a Dem and is now seriously considering Obama. So when you say:

Would Novick beat Smith? Probably not. But in my view, he has a better chance than Merkley because the only way to beat Smith is with a quirky, off-beat campaign. Smith wouldn't even take Novick seriously until it was too late.....

I seriously doubt it.

The subtext here seems to be an old one. We will turn out all of the correct thinking people and ridicule the benighted Righties for their stupidity in not seeing our Revealed Truth, and All will be Well.

Haven't we tried that a couple of times, starting back in about '72 with the First Children's Crusade?

TJ, Miles, and Stephanie--you guys have gotten WAY too sensitive. You're seeing bogeymen in the shadows where there aren't any. Seriously, anyone here mentions the name Novick, and you assume there's a covert message or a slight. Except, of course, when you see a covert message or slight when he's not mentioned.

When assessing candidates, they're going to see Merkley and Smith as exactly the same, and thus they'll vote for the incumbent. They will see Novick as something different, unique, and those qualities that might make them switch.

You're describing an apples to oranges situation compared to my friend. He's not apolitical but neither is he Kool-Aid swilling partisan. He votes regularly, which is how he came to vote for Smith twice. If he'd been living in Oregon when Smith first ran I'm sure his tally would be longer than just the two votes.

There were about a dozen of us at the Pizza joint. Of those who knew who we were talking about, not a single one indicated that they see Merkley and Smith as the same. If you'd been there and suggested that Merkley and Smith are essentially the same they'd have laughed at you and probably given you the evil eye for trying to snooker them.

None saw Novick as unique, at least not in a good way. These folk don't typically vote for political activists of any stripe, conservative or progressive. Not because they necessarily have anything against activists like Steve, they just don't see them as viable candidates. They've been alive long enough to have figured out that there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. And they want to see a track record before betting on a horse - particularly for such a major political office. If it were for Dog Catcher or something like that then they'd be much more open to giving a newbie a chance to prove her/himself.

I'm certain that most of these guys have voted for Smith in the past. And some of these guys will probably vote for Smith again. Although the old guy who said he's gonna vote for Merkley is influential among the group and the others may follow his lead and do the same.

BTW, having been a conservative Republican once upon a time, and a self-described centrist for most of the last decade, I've voted for Smith too. In fact this will be my first time voting against him, including his initial loss to Wyden. So I have some idea of where these folk are coming from.

And since it was brought up, no the Hill and Sorenson people didn't flood the Mult Dems CC meeting in order to endorse them over Kulongoski. It had absolutely nothing to do with that. The people who were voting on the endorsement were pretty much entirely long-time Dem volunteers, PCPs, and activists. They were people who are always there at a CC meeting, there to the end even when our meetings run over, etc.

I was a supporter of Sorenson over Kulongoski, and it had nothing to do with being a "purity troll." I was extremely unhappy with Kulongoski's performance, which had nothing to do with Minnis & Co. It had to do with him not fighting harder, not participating in the budget process, etc.

But I can say that had Kulongoski acted the way he has over the past 14 months or so during that first term, I would have been a Kulongoski supporter from the beginning. He participates more, fights more for Oregon, etc. Obviously he understood why so many of us were unhappy with him and has worked hard to change that.

And I think it's funny that you say all that junk when the people you're accusing of not being for fighting against Minnis and such were just about the people out working HD 49 in 2004 when just about everyone else declined to participate. Or that these people were out in HD 49 and other similar districts around the area in 2006 (and state, for those of us canvassing with the Bus Project) to make sure we won the House and kept the Senate. Or that they turned out in droves to re-elect Kulongoski once the primary was over.

Calling people like me a "purity troll" is completely insulting and does nothing but drive them away. It's this kind of stuff that people are doing more and more that is keeping people from getting involved with the greater cause once their candidate loses a primary or pulls out of the race.

There was absolutely no reason to float Novick's name for the 5th CD race, nor any basis for it.

Novick is leading in the polls in the Senate primary race. Not only is his campaign is not tripping over itself every other week, his beer commercial is one of the best earned media efforts we've ever seen in this state.

If things keep going the way they have been for the last few months, I'd be surprised if Merkley stays competitive through May, particularly if Novick can keep it close in terms of fundraising.

Roxanne:

Name sounds familiar, but I can't quite place where I'd heard it. Could you tell us a little more about him? What you've listed such far is quite interesting.

Mike Caldwell also has the advantage (?) of being the brother of Oregonian editorial page editor Bob Caldwell.

Mike is a great guy but probably not running for Congress.

Being a mom and an elected official can definitely be hard. It's something I had to really think hard about before I decided to run for the Gresham City Council (an unpaid position). We're talking about finally having another, but I definitely won't even consider it this year - I can't imagine campaigning and being pregnant at the same time.

It would definitely be great to hear from more elected officials who are moms as well. I was glad to see Rep. Gelser above mention it. We need more women involved as elected officials for sure!

"TJ, Miles, and Stephanie--you guys have gotten WAY too sensitive."

Sensitive? I'm delighted! Some folks with a vested interest are trying to get the fly out of the primary ointment, and Josh Kardon is telling people Steve can win statewide--since obviously if Novick is a good shot to win the 5th, statewide is a cakewalk. If a Democrat can win over an electorate without Portland, you can win it with.

I mean really, is that the best they have? "Hey Steve, what about THIS race over HERE??" LOL

LT - It's not policy that differentiates these guys -- though there are clear and important differences between them -- but rather the different areas of expertise.

If you believe that we need, first and foremost, a proven manager with some experience in building coalitions to make incremental progress toward moderate policy goals in the Senate, then probably Merkley is your guy.

If, on the other hand, you believe that we need someone with a detailed grasp of the law, who can come in and provide a high level of oversight over a bureaucracy that has been riddled with Bush appointees who have rolled back basic protections for workers, the environment, etc. then probably Novick is for you.

Given the choice, I think we need a change agent, not someone to come in and make the trains run on time.

Regarding the reasons why Steve Novick was listed above.

<h1>1. Because I got something like 12 phone calls in the two hours after Darlene announced her retirement from people (who were not on the Merkley team) who wondered if he would/could/should consider running. This post was an attempt at a comprehensive list of who was being discussed in the immediate minutes after her announcement. Novick was being talked about as a candidate. Merkley was not.</h1> <h1>2. Would I like Steve Novick to get out of the Senate primary race? Sure. That would make life easier for the candidate I support. I don't have be part of some grand conspiracy to think that way. (I'm guessing that the pro-Novick people would like Merkley out of the race... doesn't make you an unethical asshole either, does it?)</h1> <h1>3. Would I like to see Steve Novick in Congress? Absolutely. Hell, I'm the guy that registered NovickForCongress.com last year - at Steve's request. I think Steve Novick is whip-smart, funny as hell, and has great progressive values. To me, the appeal of the idea of running Steve in the 5th District isn't about clearing a path for Merkley - it's about clearing a path for Steve!!!</h1>

Steve Maurer hits it on the head. You don't have to think ill of Steve to think his better move would be to find another race to run in. I like Steve. I wish him well. I believe he's going to lose the Senate primary. Badly. That's why I've hoped that he would run for the State Senate (Kate Brown's seat), the City Council (either seat), or Congress.

Now, I can understand why these comments make the pro-Novick people angry. I get it. Y'all think he's going to defeat Merkley - and y'all think he can beat Smith. If that's your view, I can understand why you'd oppose seeing him jump to any other seat.

But, for those who believe this primary isn't even competitive but who think Steve is a great guy, it's perfectly reasonable to hope he jumps to another option.

One last thought: For those of you complaining that I've got some kind of bias in this post... I simply say: You're right! Bravo! You're the masters of the obvious!

When I post over my own name, I have no legal, ethical, or other obligation to say anything other than my own opinions. They're my words. I stand by them. I have opinions. I intend to share them. There's no grand conspiracy here. Just a blogger saying what he thinks.

Would someone please explain why I'm supposed to be the only blogger in Oregon without an opinion of my own? Y'all seem to be applying some higher standard for me than for anyone else. Seriously, I don't get it.

When I post over my own name, I have no legal, ethical, or other obligation to say anything other than my own opinions. They're my words. I stand by them. I have opinions. I intend to share them. There's no grand conspiracy here. Just a blogger saying what he thinks.

Would someone please explain why I'm supposed to be the only blogger in Oregon without an opinion of my own? Y'all seem to be applying some higher standard for me than for anyone else. Seriously, I don't get it.

Kari, as long as you are doing paid advocacy work for clients, and using your commentary to the benefit of those clients in the context of a political campaign, you are going to be judged by a different standard than bloggers who are not receiving compensation to work on these races.

I can understand not wanting to be criticized, but do you really believe that there is no legitimate difference between a blogger commenting or posting on a race for which he is taking consulting fees and one who isn't?

Sal... Sure, I understand THAT concern. Of course people should take my consulting work into consideration when evaluating what I have to say. That's why I disclose it at every turn. People may absolutely feel free to apply however many grains of salt they need to consume my writings -- or better yet, if they don't think I'm credible, don't read what I write.

But that's much different than the bizarre implication (or outright argument) that I am somehow required to be neutral when I write over my own name.

I'm not neutral. Never pretended to be. Get over it.

I would not support Paul Evans because he is married to Darlene's chief of staff, Joan Mooney. Joan, by many accounts, is disorganzied, hell to work for, and has run off good staff. Why Darlene seems to have faith in her is a mystery. Twelve years of Joan Mooney as chief of staff has been 12 years too many.

John... I happen to think Joan and Paul are both fine people.

But I'll pipe up here to note that Joan won't be Paul's chief of staff if he's elected. Congressional rules are very clear: You can't hire family members.

Incidentally, you can marry a staffer, but once you do, no more pay raises beyond cost-of-living adjustments. (That's why Jim Bunn gave his mistress/fiance/chief-of-staff three pay raises of $10,000 annually in three consecutive months. And partly why he lost to Darlene Hooley in 1996.)

If Paul is elected, Joan Mooney Evans will be eligible to be a chief of staff to 434 members of Congress - but not eligible to be his chief of staff.

Kari, they don't really have a problem with you not being neutral in your own posts. If you look at the way torridjoe has reduced loadedorygun into a single page ad for Steve's quixotic run, you can see they have no problem with editorial partisanship.

The real problem they have is that: 1) They disagree with you, 2) You're influential, and 3) "Corruption" is the excuse purity trolls use explain to themselves why they lose, so it comes an easy accusation for them to throw around.

I wouldn't worry about it. Although I've found myself disagreeing with 2/3rds of your candidate choices (I'm Merkley/Kroger/Obama not Merkley/Macphearson/Edwards), I appreciate the effort you've put in to create this neutral news forum. I think the silent majority of non-contributing readers do too.

Kari:

You don't have to think ill of Steve to think his better move would be to find another race to run in. I like Steve. I wish him well. I believe he's going to lose the Senate primary. Badly. That's why I've hoped that he would run for the State Senate (Kate Brown's seat), the City Council (either seat), or Congress.

How many of those dozen calls were from Dem House members or their staffs, I wonder? Step out of the bubble, man!

It's perfectly fine to believe he's going to lose the primary badly, but since the facts on the ground make that a preposterous and unsupportable proposition, you can't fault folks for wondering what your ulterior motive might be. Jeff's running even at best, behind more likely--and I'll bet you a dollar we'll continue to see more of that phenomenon objectively expressed in the near future.

But, for those who believe this primary isn't even competitive but who think Steve is a great guy, it's perfectly reasonable to hope he jumps to another option.

You can't really think he's going to get beaten badly in a statewide primary, and ALSO think he's a good choice in a congressional district where he doesn't live, and where winning would certainly be tougher than without 1 million or so liberal Democrats added into the mix. I think the word here is disingenuous.

It's a silly suggestion, albeit a flattering one for him. You're not hearing shouts of anger (at least from me); more like derisive snorting. And I'd add that for those who think Steve is a great guy--and is coming dangerously close to pushing Merkley's candidacy aside--hoping Novick jumps to another race is ALSO a reasonable option for those folks.

Steve,

I'd be careful about so cavalierly dismissing Novick's campaign as quixotic.

From my view in the cheap seats, Novick appears to be running a better campaign than Merkley by any reasonable measure with the exception of money, and even that would fairly be comparable if the DSCC weren't putting their thumbs on the scale on Merkley's behalf.

ActBlue is as good a barometer of grassroots support as any, and Novick has raised something like $325,000 on ActBlue -- 4th highest of any candidate for Senate and nearly triple what Merkley has raised.

TJ wrote... It's perfectly fine to believe he's going to lose the primary badly, but since the facts on the ground make that a preposterous and unsupportable proposition, you can't fault folks for wondering what your ulterior motive might be.

Sounds like a wager in the offing, TJ. A pitcher of beer on the outcome of the primary.

Sal wrote... ActBlue is as good a barometer of grassroots support as any, and Novick has raised something like $325,000 on ActBlue -- 4th highest of any candidate for Senate and nearly triple what Merkley has raised.

Sorry, Sal, it's only a good barometer if both campaigns are using it exclusively. Quite a few months ago, the Merkley campaign switched its online fundraising to another merchant account provider. I love ActBlue as much as anyone, but their 4% cut is a bit steep for a campaign bringing in as much money as the Merkley campaign is. We're now down to just over 2% or so. For every million bucks raised, that's $20,000. Every dollar that isn't spent on credit card fees is a dollar spent to defeat Gordon Smith.

Lt, you can't claim blogging doesn't mean anything--and then make an issue about what bloggers did assume any importance. You're arguing against yourself.

Kari, any child drunk on Kool-Aid can make a wager. You're dodging the point, which was that your fantasy view notwithstanding, the actual status of the race completely contradicts you. It's not that you're unable to claim some 20 point victory for Mr. 30% job approval as leader of the House--but that doesn't mean you have any basis for doing so. Making a bet doesn't change that at all.

oh--and are you bragging to the DC boys that the campaign is making too much money to use ActBlue? Cause they're not impressed. It sure slowed down in January; Merkley was only taking in half as much per day as last quarter. Was that too rich for ActBlue's blood too?

So what's Merkley's online total?

It's just crazy-stupid to suggest that Steve Novick or any other Portland Democrat who doesn't live in the 5th CD should run for that seat. Just because it is technically legal, that does not make it politically realistic or feasible.

Kari, if you were getting actual phone calls suggesting such a scenario, and I'm taking your word for that, then I would have expected a sharp political mind like yours -- in reporting those calls -- to say, yes, people are talking about this, but as he does not live in the district it is a non-starter.

And I loved this:

I love ActBlue as much as anyone, but their 4% cut is a bit steep for a campaign bringing in as much money as the Merkley campaign is. We're now down to just over 2% or so. For every million bucks raised, that's $20,000.

So, yeah, that's $20,000.

Plus the added benefit that you have rid yourselves of the inconvenient transparency that comes from raising your money at ActBlue.

Kari, fair point. Of course, there is also the matter of the "quixotic" Novick leading Merkley in the polls, and the polling that suggests that after 4 months and $400,000 spent, Merkley has been following Rudy Giuliani's unfortunate trajectory of moving down in the polls the more he campaigns.

TJ wrote... It sure slowed down in January; Merkley was only taking in half as much per day as last quarter. Was that too rich for ActBlue's blood too?

Huh? Exactly how do you know how much Merkley was raising in January? Q1 reports aren't due until April 15.

Stephanie V wrote... Plus the added benefit that you have rid yourselves of the inconvenient transparency that comes from raising your money at ActBlue.

Actually, I love the added transparency. If Merkley was moving all his money through ActBlue, he'd easily look like he was out-raising Novick. As it is, we gotta explain. Which is never good.

But no campaign is going to get 100% transparency by using ActBlue... unless they're going to reject checks.

Sal Peralta wrote... Of course, there is also the matter of the "quixotic" Novick leading Merkley in the polls

Really? Got a legitimate and credible poll that says that? (And no, right-wing hack Mike Riley doesn't count.)

For the record, I didn't say "quixotic". That was someone else.

kari, the merkley campaign is where I got their numbers. They ended 2007 with 913k. They announced a drive for a million, and as of jan 18, reported 970k. Do the math; that's roughly 60k in 20 days, or $3k per day. That's half of what you reported her for them in q4. I don't believe they actually passed a million until Feb, but I can't tell because I don't see a date attached to it. Say they got to 1.13mil by jan 31; again, that's half the pace of 4q 07.

As for polling--describe why Riley's poll is not accurate in its results. And in any case there's also the roll cal poll putting the two even against Smith. And the campaigns do intervals; hasn't Jon shown you theirs?

among the many typos in that last comment, it should read internals, not intervals.

There are lots of reasons why the latest Riley poll is bunk - and why Riley in general is not a credible pollster. Those objections have been detailed elsewhere before (here and here and here, for starters).

As for internal polling... I'm not at liberty to disclose anything about whether the Merkely campaign has done polling, and if they have, what those polls say.

I do know this: Campaigns don't do polls just to measure the status of the horse race. Campaigns do polls to uncover actionable data - to help them figure out what messages work and which ones do not.

I just know that there are zero independent, public polls that actually put Merkley and Novick head-to-head, other than the Riley junk.

Kari,

Sorry bro, citing a couple of blog posts written by yourself and Merkley's campaign manager to justify your opinion about Riley isn't exactly the kind of unbiased critique that might provide a legitimate justification for your opinion on this.

I guess I'd do the same thing if I were in your shoes -- shoot the messenger when he says stuff we don't like.

Most people following this race understand that if Merkley had a poll showing him running well, he'd release it to bolster the campaign's laughable narrative that the Democratic Primary is really just a coronation.

Even Hillary Clinton abandoned that tactic when the facts started getting in the way.

LT, please show me where I've said that Mike Riley is more credible than any other pollster, including Moore. All I'm saying is that the fact that Kari doesn't like Republicans, or the fact that Riley is saying something he doesn't particularly want to hear is a lousy basis for claiming that Riley is wrong.

OK, Sal, I'll play... Just ONE of the many reasons why Mike Riley can't be trusted to play fair on this stuff: He picks and chooses which candidates to include based on the conclusions he wants to draw - and he draws those conclusions independent of the data and broader context.

• On poll, he left out Steve Novick and included John Frohnmayer, despite the fact that Novick had been running for months and Frohnie was still just a rumor. (Never mind that he told said, on-air, that Dave Frohnmayer had been the Governor.)

• On another poll, he told the media that Smith's approval of 57% among Republicans was good... when any objective pollster would have and share the context that 57% from your own party is dismal.

• And on the most recent poll, he jumped up and got it in the field the week after Novick's first ad went on the air. Which is fine, if you're doing a regular monthly schedule -- but since his polls aren't regularly scheduled, it smells funny.

And one last thing: He's now a paid pollster for the Frohnmayer campaign. That's all well and good for the Frohnies, but his numbers should be regarded with that information in mind. He's no longer an objective and neutral source for data.

I guess I can actually amend my earlier statement, and don't need to call Riley's polls "junk" in order to make this clear: There are zero independent, public pollsters that have actually measured Merkley's and Novick's support head-to-head.

Sorry, LT. We're way off topic now.

Riley ran a general election poll including the presumptive Democratic nominee -- a guy you claim is going to win in a landslide, and repeats the same poll with the same candidates and questions 3 months later.

I have no idea why anyone other than Steve Novick or Jake Weigler would have a problem with that.

Then he runs a poll asking questions about the Democratic Primary, and includes all Democratic candidates. Now you appear to be implying that he is colluding on some level with Steve Novick's campaign.

So tell me, Kari, is he screwing Novick or collaborating with him?

It's reasonable to disagree with the guy's analysis about the results of his polls. It's something else entirely to infer that he is somehow a corrupt asshole because you happen to disagree with his analysis.

As to the rest...

Unless something has changed since the December poll, Mike Riley has never been a paid anything for John Frohnmayer.

The strongest criticism I've seen from you, one of the few accurate comments you've just made, is that Riley made a factually inaccurate statement on an unscripted, unrehearsed television show about 6 months ago about Dave Frohnmayer. Whoop-dee-frigging-doo.

Seriously strange stuff to get your knickers in a twist about, Kari. And now I come back to the same place I started. This is about trying to kill a messenger who is telling an inconvenient truth about the candidate you work for.

Unless something has changed since the December poll, Mike Riley has never been a paid anything for John Frohnmayer.

Wait. Didn't he get paid to do a poll by the Independent Party? Did I get that wrong? Happy to correct the record if that's not the case.

Or are you just splitting hairs between the party and its candidate?

Did anyone ever answer my question as to who the most progressive option is?

Great question, backbeat. I think the first question is - who are the candidates even thinking about it? Later, we'll get into the questions of what their views are on various issues. I'll let others summarize those positions into a catch-all description like "progressive" - since "progressive" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

Kari, don't try to BS someone whom you know understands polling science at least as well as you do.

You cited three articles. The first attacks Riley's lack of transparency on methodology. That's not the case with the January 08 poll, in which the likely screen, question text and question order are public.

The second attacks him for not including Novick in a poll, which might be a mistake if you want to know about all the candidates in the race--but it doesn't impugn a primary trial heat like the January 08 poll, where all Dem candidates were tested.

The third--written by Merkley's campaign manager--attacks Riley's analysis of his poll, not its construction or execution.

The problem here for you is that he would have to be COMPLETELY off--like, a margin of error approaching 20%--for it to jibe the least bit with your assertion that Merkley would beat Novick "badly." And you'd also have to find something wrong with the SUSA/Roll Call poll that put them in the same position as the Riley poll, with respect to Gordon Smith--unknown, Novick slightly more favorable.

I'm fully aware you won't acknowledge internal polling--but I know you know that it exists, and I think you know that I know, generally speaking, what it tells. And of course there may or may not be OTHER unreleased polling out there. That was my point--for you to suggest what you did, knowing that the facts on the ground totally contradict you, is just blowing smoke. The race is totally up for grabs and you know it--you have pretty much nothing to hang your hat on to back up your position, and much to discredit it. So to cite the concept that Novick is going to lose badly, as a pretext for floating with Kardon a completely nonsensical idea, exposes more of your motivations than you'd probably like, I think.

As for all the phone calls--we know you have trouble properly interpreting phone conversations; maybe that's the hang-up here? :)

I don't believe that the Independent Party paid for the poll, but even if they did, are you saying that a political party is the same thing as a candidate running for public office?

I don't think that anyone who understands election law, business registration, or how political party organizations work would argue that such a statement is reasonable and true.

You stated that Riley is John Frohnmayer's pollster. To the best of my knowledge, that statement is demonstrably false.