City Club debate on Senate to exclude Candy Neville & David Loera
Jeff Mapes reports that the Portland City Club has decided that the US Senate debate - which will be broadcast live on public radio - will exclude candidates Candy Neville and David Loera.
Candy Neville is a Democratic Senate candidate from Eugene who starts without any base of support. But she's energetic, a good speaker and an able participant at the two debates held so far.Now she's trying to raise a fuss because the City Club of Portland isn't inviting her to its April 4 debate. Neville said the decision "to invite only Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick is exclusionary, prejudicial and elitist," particularly since it means the only woman in the race (her) and the only minority (David Loera, a Latino from Salem who is also running) won't be able to participate.
How doe the City Club explain the exclusion?
Wade Fickler, interim executive director of the city club, said his group wanted to focus on candidates who actually have a chance of winning. "We've all been to debates where there are a lot of fringe candidates and you don't learn a lot about the people who might be elected," he said. He noted that the debate is aired on Oregon Public Broadcasting, and he'd prefer to use that valuable radio time quizzing Merkley and Novick in-depth.
The response from the two campaigns that were included?
Not surprisingly, neither the Novick or Merkley campaigns wanted to be seen as trying to exclude other candidates. Both said they wished all of the candidates would be included, and Merkley spokesman Matt Canter picked up on the idea that, given the party's presidential candidates, "Candy Neville and David Loera - a woman and a man of color - should have a voice in these forums."
Discuss.
|
March 24, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Mar 24, '08
Bah, who cares. If you really want to only include candidates with a chance of winning, it would be Jeff Merkley up there by himself.
11:10 p.m.
Mar 24, '08
Well, technically, if you looked at the polls to date, it would just be Novick.
And it would be a good time, too.
Mar 24, '08
I don't agree that Merkley is the only candidate who can win.
And although I doubt the Novick team would advocate it, I think they would benefit more from the field being artificially narrowed to two. They're framing this race as Novick being an outsider and Merkley being an insider. And if one agrees with that characterization, then a four-person race dilutes the "outsider" vote three ways. And people who disagree with that characterization likely already consider a four-person race to be Merkley vs. three other people anyway.
Mar 25, '08
I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter, so you can probably guess what I think about it. It SUCKS.
It's not the job of the City Club of Portland to choose the Democratic nominee for the Senate. That's an issue for the VOTERS to decide. And the VOTERS have a right to hear from all four candidates.
I urge Jeff Merkley to refuse to participate unless all four candidates are included.
Mar 25, '08
Perhaps Merkley and Novick could agree on that: all or none. (Like I said, I don't think Novick's team would actually advocate a two-person narrowing, even if, by my personal logic, it would help them more. And I would welcome anyone who disagrees with my logic.)
Mar 25, '08
Also, it appears the City Club can be contacted here, and OPB Radio can be contacted here.
2:16 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
They all agreed to the format beforehand: there was a set number of debates (that has since expanded, but this was an original), and it was understood that City Club (among other sponsors) reserved the right to invite candidates, or not. Neville agreed to that, so did Lorea. Now, I certainly don't begrudge either candidate from advocating for their right to be there, but in the end it can't be a surprise that they're not being invited. They knew enough to know that "reserve the right to select invitees" was code for "only viable candidates by then, please."
Let's not kid ourselves. There are two candidates with a reasonably considered chance at victory. No one's choosing the Senator for the voters; CCoP is exercising their right to inspect who they want. The entire body is considering an endorsement of one, both or neither, and so is it really reasonable to ask them to consider candidates they've decided they're not going to consider?
So this is more newsworthy than attempted espionage by the Merkley campaign, I guess?
Mar 25, '08
Your blog didn't seem to find what you're talking about newsworthy, either, so I had to do some more digging. (A link would have helped.) Politicker says a 22-year-old new Merkley hire requested a Novick bumper sticker and remit form under an alias. The Merkley campaign says "He never should have done this, it was an error in judgment," and "This is not behavior that lives up to the standard Jeff Merkley has for himself or his campaign," pointing out that it even violates a signed code of conduct. If that's the case, I don't know why he wouldn't be fired, although they do point out that they just found out about it (and that's apparently as of Monday afternoon). WW is less specific, saying this person "wanted to help Novick raise money," which, if one were to interpret that as wanting to actually work or volunteer in some capacity, sounds closer to the espionage that TJ and Portlandia are calling it. I assume this info came from the Novick campaign. Do they think it was espionage? Was there more to it than a bumper sticker and remit form? And to the Merkley campaign, what's the penalty for violating your code of conduct?
And to TJ, you say they "all agreed to the format beforehand," and that the City Club got to choose the participants. So should Loera and Neville have said, "No, you can't do it that way" beforehand and decided not to participate in the debate, since they weren't going to get to participate in the debate? It's not like this is a private endorsement meeting. The debate is being broadcast on the #1 radio station in the state.
Mar 25, '08
My complaint is not that I am not invited to the City Club. My complaint is that the City Club has used a public forum to provide massive public media including OPB to promote Merkley and Novick. If you remove "public" and "mass media" I would not care.
Regarding the concept that I agreed to terms that would exclude me, is inaccurate. I observed there were circumstances beyond my control. I would not presume to make decisions regarding other candidates. The criteria for attendance at the Friday Forum was so transparent that March 14 the Merkley campaign called and asked if I was aware that the invitation from the City Club was designed to exclude me.
My entire press release is on my website at www.candyneville.com
8:03 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
I agree with Mac. It's not the City Club's job to artificially restrict the field.
Props to the Merkley campaign for the effort to be inclusive by giving her campaign a head's up on the restriction.
FWIW, I saw Ms. Neville speak at the now infamous PDA meeting which was designed to deliver an endorsement for Steve Novick. I was deeply impressed with what she had to say. If the primary format was to vote for one's top two choices she would be one of them along with Jeff Merkley.
8:30 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
kevin, they're a private organization holding their own gig--who else should be deciding? If you want to have a debate and invite Pavel Goberman (did Merkley call him too?), knock yourself out.
Will we go through the outrage again when AP and LWV likely only invite Steve and Jeff too?
Ms. Neville, you told me you signed onto the debate plan with Messrs. Novick and Loera, knowing that some sponsors might seek to exclude you, but that no campaign was opposed to your presence.
James x, the piece in question was up at 7am today. I don't have a fellow to publish news for me, however.
8:56 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
kevin, they're a private organization holding their own gig
Except that it's being broadcast on Oregon Public Broadcasting - which gets 14% of its funding from taxpayer sources.
No one has cast any votes yet. Technically, they're all tied at zero.
And yes, include Goberman if he wants to - though he declined to participate in the debate discussion way back.
This isn't really that difficult. I moderated a debate back in 2000 that included 16 or 17 different candidates for Mayor (for X-PAC's Jabbin' at the Aladdin series - a precursor to Candidates Gone Wild.) It was interesting and informative and every candidate felt they were treated fairly, including Mayor Katz and her major challenger, Jake Oken-Berg.
8:57 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
Oh, and full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.
9:34 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
Kari, OPB can cover any event, including those held by private organizations. This is exactly the way that we manage to hold Presidential debates between the two candidates who can actually win, and not the 250 or so (many with mental issues) who actually file in one state or the other.
You hold debates between the actual electable alternatives because of time. Cattle calls are nothing but the battle of the 10 second sound bytes. When you winnow down to two, you end up with an actual debate. Have you notice how substantive the debates between Obama and Clinton have become lately?
So let them debate substance. All Jeff has to remember is that he's the Speaker of the House - all the progressivism of Steve, but with actual effectiveness! He doesn't rail entertainingly on the sidelines opening beer bottles with his hook, he actually knows how to pass laws that help people!
Imagine that.
9:39 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
so if cspan shows up to cover the debate, City CLub ceases to be a private organization with the right to hold their event as they see fit? What does the broadcast have to do with it?
I didn't ask whether Goberman should be included (he shouldn't), although you act as if you're unaware he was at the last debate. I asked if Jeff called Pavel and David and Roger about the gig too, or just Neville.
The false magnaminity isn't working, by the way. Merkley got his clock cleaned in Eugene with them almost all there; he certainly must be trepidatious about trying to handle Steve 1 on 1.
Mar 25, '08
I have just a couple of points to add to this great discussion
First, City Club never endorses candidates. It only takes positions on ballot measures, and only then after a rigorous research process and a vote of the membership — and membership is open to everyone. City Club hosts candidate debates and forums for the sole purpose of bringing relevant information to light about those seeking public office. We do this through a robust, structured question and answer process with the leading candidates.
Secondly, I notice that few here have openly advocated for inviting absolutely every candidate to the debate, which suggests that most of us do a mental sorting of candidates and draw a line somewhere between viable and nonviable candidates. To do so consistently and fairly, City Club invited the campaigns to supply whatever information they believed would best provide evidence of viability. City Club’s holistic assessment of candidates’ viability relies heavily on the following three criteria:
Ultimately, invitations to participate are based on the judgment of a volunteer committee.
Deciding whom to invite to debates is an important discussion to have, and one City Club has been having for decades. Some organizations that sponsor debates have chosen to include many candidates. No doubt the public receives some benefit from these more inclusive discussions. But so too does the public benefit from a tightly focused debate where the most viable candidates are expected to discuss issues in depth. City Club has opted for the latter.
11:14 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
Is it permissible here to state the obvious: Process and inclusion (and public broadcasting) arguments aside, a two-person debate works in favor of Novick and against Merkley.
That's because Novick, having less money, needs to use as much free media as possible to help him establish that this is a two person race. Merkley, with the most money, wants to keep the field muddled until his media buys can establish him as the clear frontrunner.
Arguments about inclusiveness in debates are generally less about principle than about interest, i.e., self-interest.
11:15 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
With all due respect to the City Club of Portland, that assertion strikes me as directly undermining the earlier assertion that...
It seems pretty obvious that weeding out who can participate based on arguably arbitrary criteria on who is or isn't viable (remember, not a single vote has been cast yet) guts the "sole purpose" assertion.
11:18 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
Arguments about inclusiveness in debates are generally less about principle than about interest, i.e., self-interest.
I agree with that, Jack. But isn't the reverse equally true? That arguments about exclusion are likewise generally less about principle than aobut self-interest of one form or another?
11:48 a.m.
Mar 25, '08
Jack Roberts: [A] two-person debate works in favor of Novick and against Merkley.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom, so presumably I'm straying off message as a bought and paid for Merkleyite(*). I'm also amused at the hypocrisy of so many pro-Novick progressives, who normally rail against winnowing debates to non-spoiler candidates, having no problem with it this time around because it helps their guy.
Still, that conventional wisdom applies only if Jeff can't convince people he's got Senatorial demeanor. I think he does.
(*) Sarcasm noted for the sarcasm impaired.
Mar 25, '08
I'm a student at the University of Oregon School of Law, and we're planning a debate between US Senate Candidates on April 2- room 175 at our law school, from 5:30-7. Interestingly, we went through the same debate when deciding whether or not to include additional candidates besides John Frohnmayer and Steve Novick. Initially, we invited every candidate. But for several weeks we had just planned on the the two mentioned above, when we received interest from Candy Neville. We evaluated whether we should give more air time to those that had the better shot at winning, or equal coverage. After attending the Obama rally in Eugene last week, I realized the obvious answer- of course- equal exposure for everyone! Not too long ago, Obama was an underdog. Public exposure is fair.
Come watch three of the candidates next Wednesday if you want to give Ms. Neville a chance. Or come if you want to hear the other two! Email [email protected] for more details.
Mar 25, '08
Most presidential primary debates are hosted by private organizations, too. The City Club isn't unique in that regard.
Mar 25, '08
As a longtime City Club member, I'm not going to defend the club on this. In fact, for an otherwise extraordinary organization, it's debate formats are generally pretty standard and not terribly illuminating. For one thing, unlike all other forums, club members can't ask questions from the floor. (I suppose they are trying to prevent planted questions from campaign staffs).
So I'm going to suggest to City Club this solution: 1) make the debate 90 minutes, rather than an hour. 2)For the first half hour, let all the candidates in the race debate--probably that would allow an opening statement and two or three questions from the moderator, with each candidate answering. 3) After 30 minutes, let the club members in attendance vote on which two candidates should be allowed to continue the debate. The losers at least got a chance to make their case and a free lunch, and they can sit down in the audience with the rest of us.
Mar 25, '08
SOP for the city club. I had to claw my way into their city council debate two years ago. Boyles had qualified for her "clean" money, so she was in. Sten had qualified so he was in. Burdick had raised a big warchest so she was in. I had just started fundraising, had no big dollars to report, so I was out.
They claim to be progressive, but they equate electability with dollars, pure and simple.
In the end, of course, Boyles spent her 150 grand to get 4,000 votes. I spent 70 to get 14000.
2:25 p.m.
Mar 25, '08
sorry wade--I had remembered there was an endorsement after Kulo v Mannix, but clearly I confused that with the raft of endorsements on ballot measures. My mistake; thanks for correcting the record.
2:35 p.m.
Mar 25, '08
Arguments about inclusiveness in debates are generally less about principle than about interest, i.e., self-interest.
I agree with that, Jack. But isn't the reverse equally true? That arguments about exclusion are likewise generally less about principle than aobut self-interest of one form or another?
Absolutely. My point wasn't to suggest that one side or the other has the high ground here but that this is a purely tactical political question, not a moral issue. The "debates about the debates" are a standard part of politics and these arguments aren't harmful unless swallowed.
For the classic example, people can go back and read about the Reagan-Bush debate in New Hampshire 1980, where Reagan wanted to include the other candidates at the last minute (after originally agreeing to pick up the entire cost of the debate because he thought he was behind and needed a one-on-one with Bush). Bush, who realized he really did need a one-on-one debate with Reagan, insisted on sticking to the original agreement.
It proved to be a pivotal point in the nomination fight, but not because there were high principles of inclusion or exclusion involved.
Mar 25, '08
From the many debates I have watched at City Club, I definitely think that more people equates to less time for each candidate/question, and therefore results in less interesting debate. From my perspective, then, it's important to draw a line somewhere. And surely no one can dispute that under the criteria the City Club uses to evaluate viability, Merkley and Novick are far above the other candidates. If some other candidate thinks they are viable, then make a case (like Dave Lister did back in his City Council run). But simply saying "I am the only woman candidate" does not, in my view, justify thinning out the substance of the debate, particularly where there does not seem to be a vast disparity in substantive positions.
2:58 p.m.
Mar 25, '08
holy crap--Kulo v SAXTON,not Mannix.
5:12 p.m.
Mar 25, '08
A factor that should also be thrown into the mix is timing. If this debate were happening a little earlier, it would make sense to have all four candidates. But ballots go out in less than a month. If the City Club and OPB want to make the choice clearer for voters, they have to make a decision about whom to include.
Not to diss the two excluded candidates, but at a month out, you have to demonstrate viability in some manner. We often adopt a populist approach to these things, but simply submitting your name to the Secretary of State's office is a pretty low bar for "populist support," isn't it?
To take one example, Steve Novick is a candidate with no elective experience and little name recognition when he filed last year. Since then, he's garned lots of press, endorsements, money, and name-recognition. The people have spoken--Novick's a serious candidate. Candy Neville and David Loera had the same opportunities to raise their standing in the race, but at this late date, have failed to do so. Why penalize the serious candidates who have to give up valuable minutes to fringe candidates who can't possibly win? Where's the populism in that?
OPB and the City Club likewise don't serve their audiences by pandering to this sense of fairness at the expense of getting more deeply into the issues with one of the candidates who will actually become the nominee.
If there's an issue of fairness here, it's more complex than some people are allowing.
Mar 25, '08
I am glad it will be the top 2. Then it can be a real face-off like the 1992 Portland City Club debate was---hopefully with full color pictures the next day in the Oregonian and wide coverage just like 1992.
Mar 25, '08
I seem to agree with Kari, Lister, and Roberts at the same time here. If there were some kind of mandate where all candidates could be heard in some 'official debates' and promoted to where they got a certain level of attention, then it wouldn't make so much difference what City Club does. The problem is, organizations like City Club collectively become the gatekeepers to the channels of communication for everybody. Look at Kucinich in Nevada. There's almost a social impact and bystander effect at play, where the gatekeepers are looking at other gatekeepers and this weird reinforcement takes place in terms of 'who has a chance of being elected.'
What does that have to say about democratic values about everyone participating, or about conservative notions of what the Founding Fathers believed in, or progressive ideals about moving forward from weaknesses in the current system? Not much.
Democracy represents the disbelief in all great men and in all elite societies: everybody is everybody's equal. -- Neitzche
7:16 p.m.
Mar 25, '08
I understand Ms. Neville's disappointment at being excluded from the City Club event. Of course the City Club is a private organization that has the right to invite or exclude whomever it chooses (just like the League of Women Voters, CNN, MSNBC, or any other organization that sponsors debates in this election cycle), but that doesn't take the edge off her anger and disappointment and I respect that. Steve has spoken very highly of her to me and I was hoping I'd get to see her in-person in one of these events sometime.
As a Novick supporter, though, I must in all honesty and practicality cop to the fact that I believe the one-on-one format benefits my guy.
I think it allows him to compare and contrast himself most effectively with Merkley and obviously I expect that that process will redound largely to his benefit.
Mar 25, '08
I am a past president of the City Club so I'll concede that I am not unbiased here. As others have pointed out, this is a recurring debate about the inclusiveness of the City Club forum for candidate debates. I can asssure you that there is no more strenuous argument about including candidates than within the Club itself.
In my experience The Club takes seriously its role in staging the most visible and significant candidate debates in state and local elections. The standard of viability for a campaign is always hard to apply. But I believe the public debate is best served by a quality debate among the the viable candidates - and in my experience the Club took pains to set a low threshold for viability. I don't think there is a question in the Democratic primary for Senate. It's Merkley v. Novick. I don't think there's an obligation, especially at this late stage in the race, to provide a podium to everyone who paid the filing fee.
Mar 25, '08
Taken from City Club website: Speaker Criteria: (Neville qualifies) Established speaking ability. The speech length should be no longer than 30 minutes, or in the case of a panel discussion the 30 minutes needs to be divided among panelists. The speaker should be able to answer 20-25 minutes of questions from the audience. Credibility and expertise of speaker(s) on the proposed topic. Name recognition and prominence of speaker(s). Possible “hidden agenda” or self-promotion.
Special criteria to disqualify Neville - mainly money - taken from e-mail 1. polling data suggesting a broad base of support or a competitive position 2. evidence of significant fund raising 3. evidence of strong name recognition within the electoral jurisdiction
Does this debate cover the breadth and width of this election? Do we really want abuse of privilege bestowing unfair favor via publicly funded media and extensive free cable coverage? Merkley and Novick are tough - they don't need this pampering.
Mar 25, '08
"I don't think there's an obligation, especially at this late stage in the race, to provide a podium to everyone who paid the filing fee."
Mr. Marker - how snide of you to equate my hours of travel, radio time, debate time, speaking engagements and deep and abiding concern for my country to "paid the filing fee". Further, I have done no fund raising requesting others to pay my fees, including inclusion in your forum - a concept that is clearly foreign to you. I am running for office because I care deeply, consistently and relentlessly about the war and it remains my number one issue - an issue that hops around in rank of importance with others. I'm not trying to get into politics. I'm trying to get into government, work hard, speak up and make a difference.
Mar 25, '08
I'm one of the volunteers on the City Club of Portland's program committee for the Friday Forums. (Other CCoP events are organized by other groups, such as the very active New Leaders Council.)
I was part of the group that excluded my friend Dave Lister two years ago. I'm part of the group that excluded everybody except Merkley and Novick this year. (Novick himself was part of the committee until last year when he became a candidate.)
Our goals on the committee (bear in mind I'm not a spokesman for the group - the committee chair might be persuaded to say something here) are to put on the best forum we can for the membership and the public at large.
For candidate debates and candidate forums, that has always included a viability test.
That test is not that exclusive - in 2000, I got in as the third (Libertarian) candidate for Attorney General at the City Club debate, the same year Mitch Shults got in as the Libertarian for Treasurer. In 2002 I got in again for my Libertarian run for Governor - based largely on a poll that showed me getting as much as 11% of the vote. (Okay, it was 7% +/- a 4-point margin of error, but I had an excellent campaign manager. And I ended up with 5%.)
Candidate Candy Neville is mistaken when she says in her press release that she was "banned" and that the Club "departed from its routine criteria" - neither is the case. Had Neville bothered to submit a persuasive response to the committee's questions, she might have even been invited. (Neville's real complaint seems to me to be that she was not given the special treatment she wants.)
I don't always agree 100% with every decision from the Friday Forum Program Committee. I do agree with this one. And I will vouch for the integrity and good intent of everyone on the committee. I'm happy to discuss my experiences on the committee and in the Club with you - call me at 503-616-2865 or email me.
Mar 26, '08
Just a slight heads-up: WW is about to hit the streets with The City Club as its rogue.
Mar 26, '08
Willamette Week: This didn't get posted in daily news: Peace is a woman’s job, Jeannette Rankin famously said when she was Congress’ first female member and opposed U.S. involvement in World Wars I. In 2008, Candy Neville—who’s running in Oregon’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate—is doing her part to make sure voters have candidates who think ending the Iraq war is everyone’s job. Unfortunately, Neville’s efforts have been rejected by City Club of Portland, this week’s Rogue for barring Neville from the club’s upcoming debate focusing on the Senate primary. The rejection is both undemocratic and unnecessary. City Club’s April 4 debate spotlights the Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate hoping to unseat Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). There are six, including Neville. But the City Club has invited only Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley and activist Steve Novick. “We want our debate to be as in-depth, substantive and useful to voters as possible,” says Wade Fickler, the club’s interim executive director. “In this case, we think there are two very clear front-runners.” Neville says City Club debates are supposed to provide voters a public service. “In this election, it’s important that I be heard,” says Neville, the only woman among the six candidates. “If [voters] want to reject me, then reject me. If they want to elect me, then elect me. But don’t eliminate me.” The Rogue Desk agrees with Neville. Merkley and Novick managed to contend with a third antiwar voice in an issues-centered debate earlier this month at the Eugene City Club, and Neville’s stress on arguably the campaign’s most substantive issue—the war—should earn her a City Club of Portland invite.
Mar 26, '08
One thing I have to say here...if Ms. Neville gets in, ALL the candidates should get in. Passion and concern are admirable but unless you can raise the money and poll decent, you simply are "viable" under most common definitions. So, if Ms. Neville gets a pass on meeting City Club's criteria, then everyone who has filed should as well.
In the meantime, Ms. Neville, ask WW and the Oregonian to do in-depth stories on your campaign...you've got the limelight...exploit it to your advantage and present your platform via the media.
City Club is private (yes, even if the media covers their events). They could state that the only candidates they'll allow must be able to hold their breath for 10 minutes straight and if they candidates really wanted to attend, they'd show up with their stopwatches. It's their house, their rules, and their choice.
Mar 27, '08
Have some of you lost all sense of curiosity? Are you really willing to allow the self-appointed "in crowd" to make your selections for you - without even checking things out? Beware of being trusting to the point of obedient.
Mar 31, '08
Ms. Neville,
Believe it or not, the City Club event is not the only time I'll be listening to the candidates--including you. I'll be researching online for news stories, checking out the candidate websites, reading blogs and the voters pamphlets. The City Club debate is ONE event in the entire state. The "in" crowd at the City Club can do any damn thing they like---that doesn't mean I automatically discount candidates just because the City Club doesn't deign to invite them--and you seem to be implying that unless you are included in the City Club debate, that the poor misguided voters won't have enough sense to check out ALL the candidates on their own. This is insulting and if I had ever considered voting for you in the past, you just lost my vote.
Apr 1, '08
Here is something I would like to see in the City Club debate. There is an article in today's Oregonian about a debate between Jeff and Steve on capital gains taxes.
The article uses the term "marginal tax rate".
Whether everyone in the room for the City Club debate understands that term, my guess is that many in the radio audience may not understand it. If you stopped 10 people on the street in an ordinary town (NOT in the financial district of a big city) and asked them to explain marginal tax rate, how many would/ could do that?
There was a time when the Democratic Party believed in explaining such ideas in plain language so everyone could understand.
I found this explanation online.
"Marginal Tax Rate The amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income. As income rises, so does the tax rate.
Notes: Many believe this discourages business investment because you are taking away the incentive to work harder."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Whenever I hear a public figure using the term "marginal tax rate" it sounds to me like they bought into Reaganomics, and all of us should accept that as revealed truth.
It seems to me that if there is a married couple where the husband is a technician (or a carpenter, or a plumber) and the wife does some sort of freelance work or owns a small business, and they own some stock, they should be treated differently than 2 married college professors, a CEO and his wife the high powered lawyer or other single or married high income people.
And given the number of Oregonians who would be happy to make $50,000 and generally have a lower income than that, it seems Democratic candidates ought to use examples from that income bracket, not just those making over $75,000.
<h2>So where does that put me in this debate?</h2>