This is quite an achievement for Novick, but coming from a newspaper that endorsed Bush in both Presidential elections, and Smith last time around, as a Democrat I have to question their motives, particularly given their notoriously pro-Smith bent.

If anyone but Smith is endorsed for the General, I'll eat my words, but I see nefarious intentions in this.

My Pacific NW History professor said "the Oregonian was founded as a Whig newspaper, and it still is".

Notice the language of the endorsement. The headline is not Novick WILL make Oregonians proud but rather COULD, and this is about potential:

"He has the potential to press Smith as he has done Merkley."

I have said this before and I will say it again-- Steve Novick is a very bright guy, and this may be the year where people want edgy nominees of the kind who run ads like Steve's ads, claim to be safeguarding principle, etc.

But based on the experience my friends and I have had, Steve also has the potential to say things which leave people scratching their heads and wondering why someone would go out of their way to say words which cause potential allies to be angry.

This is a lesson lots of adults who work with kids (parents, teachers, coaches, child care workers, etc.) spend a lot of time and energy on: "no, if you called him a name, you should not be surprised if he says he never wants to play with you again" sorts of things.

Steve has been known (long before he ran for US Senate) to make flat statements who alienate some of those in his earshot. He has never said publicly what he learned from working on the Bruggere campaign. The mistakes of that campaign are how we got Gordon Smith as our US Senator in the first place, but those of us who remember that election are supposed to take it on faith that there will be a mistake-free campaign if Steve is the nominee where no swing voters will look at something Steve has said or done and decide they won't vote for him after all?

Too many of us who have been around politics for decades remember other outspoken "no one has the right to be insulted by anything I have ever said" candidates who did not end up winning the election involved. Ruth McFarland and Ed Fadeley come to mind.

If comparing Steve to such former candidates makes one less than progressive, or "a Merkleyite" or any other such name, that's fine. I have been called worse.

What really happened is that Novick has added to the list of endorsements he can advertise. Here in Salem, there have been jokes over the years about people who read the endorsements in the SJ and vote the other way.

If that Oregonian endorsement causes Steve to win the primary and the general, we will have a 2nd Democratic Senator. But don't ask me to take it on faith.

"Novick represents a bold choice... has the potential to press Smith as he has Merkley, and has the potential to make Oregonians proud." Right on all counts. (And of course the verb is "COULD"- this is a primary endorsement, not a general endorsement!)

On the other hand, guessing nefarious intentions is a pretty unhelpful exercise. (Especially when the Bush-conspiracy theory doesn't hold- colin's right, the O unequivocally backed Kerry in 04). Endorsing Steve may be surprising, but it's hardly irresponsible; and, given their reasoning, they're right on! Just because a paper publishes Dave Reinhard doesn't mean its editors are (all) nuts.

And- if there's a Dem Senate candidate out there praying for an Obama ticket, it's Steve. His electability in the general will have a lot to do with non-traditional voters- young people, newly-registered, etc. (I know this is impossible, but I'd love to see a Merkley-Novick poll on top of a Clinton-Obama poll.)

LT, I agree with Stephanie- I'd like to know what Steve has to answer for as Bruggere's campaign director. What are you hinting at? And if it's merely the fact that Bruggere lost, given how much Oregon has changed in 12 years, why should that matter?

[Full disclosure: When I was a hungry middle-schooler at an OEA Conference, Tom Bruggere gave me a 100 Grand candy bar and earned my eternal admiration. But I speak here only for myself.]

A few months ago, Novick tried to call me at my office and left several messages to call him back. (My membership in a trial lawyers association probably put me on his to-call list.) I didn't get around to calling him back, and he eventually called me at home on a weekend. After I told him I hadn't yet made a decision, we ended up talking for over a half-hour about issues concerning the coast, where I live. He was engaging, sharp, and had a good sense of humor. On the other hand, the only contact I had with the Merkley campaign was through blanket e-mails sent to registered Democrats. Since that call from Novick, and after watching the debate in Newport earlier this month, my mind has been made up to support Novick.

Taylor, loved your disclosure. If my 2 conversations that year with Bruggere had been that rewarding, I too might have been a fan. But in the primary I talked with him in the hallway after a speech and got a blank look from him when I asked a followup question to something he said in his speech (about veterans--a friend and I had lobbied veterans issues, and he was after all campaigning as a veteran).

Yes, folks, people do have the right to have a "bad taste in the mouth" more than a decade after an election-someone at the Public Comm. on the Legislature was still angry about campaign tactics used a lot farther back than 1996. And I notice no one has yet brought up those infuriating Gordon Smith ads from Jan. 1996. Gordon smugly said "we're all real tired of career politicians"--at what point is Gordon a career politician?

I think the 2 major campaigns which made the most mistakes in the 1990s were both US Senate nominees: AuCoin and Bruggere. Novick is proud of his association with both of them. I would drop out of politics forever before I would willingly support either of them for anything ever again. Some here seem to think I do not have the right to that opinion because Steve is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we should all praise anyone Steve was ever associated with.

Stephanie, do you have any memory of that summer and fall of 1996 and how the Bruggere campaign went?

Here are some of the mistakes I think the Bruggere campaign made, at least one of which Steve has already showed he won't make (that of refusing to say how he would vote on particular legislation):

1) In the entire general election campaign, there were maybe 2 actual issues/legislation Bruggere stated a specific position on. In one case, Bruggere opposed legislation that was among the first bills Wyden co-sponsored after being elected in January (a bill I supported). When I asked Bruggere why he held that position--at an advertised campaign stop where he had 2 staffers with him--he never said anything. The staffers, however, yelled STOP RAINING ON OUR PARADE!! Did they really think that would gain them votes? In a similar situation one would hope that any candidate would be smart enough to say "Please excuse my overzealous staffers. The reason I oppose the legislation Wyden co-sponsored is....." Anyone with sales training knows that no one is forced to buy a product, an idea, an election campaign. People are allowed to buy one product over another, or not to buy anything--and as a candidate I once helped elect said over 20 years ago, politics is a lot more like sales than some people would like to admit.

2) Bruggere's entire campaign was I FOUGHT A WAR I FOUNDED A COMPANY I AM NOT GORDON SMITH There was one other ad filmed very darkly (Steve's pull the plug ad is a much better ad) which talked about Bruggere pumping gas as a young man. This was supposed to make people vote for him because....?

We were suppposed to give him a 6 year term without knowing anything more than that? There was an internal problem in the campaign, apparently, where Steve was writing issue papers but they weren't reaching the public (he and I had an email exchange about that at the beginning of the campaign). But we shouldn't ask a guy who worked on a US Senate campaign what he learned from that campaign given that he has never run for office himself? Sounds like a question someone should have asked at an endorsement interview and made the answer public.

We do know more about Steve than we knew about Bruggere-- Steve has a long history in Oregon politics. Bruggere was picked from obsurity as one of the "Kerrey Millionaires", a 1996 lame brain strategy which said if DSCC Chair Kerrey could get elected to the US Senate as a self made millionaire, why couldn't other Democrats? (Forgetting that his having been Gov. of his state and awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor had nothing to do with his political success.) It was such a failed strategy that NONE of the candidates thus chosen became US Senators (either lost the primary or lost the general).

I guarantee that those who make the angry remarks about Schumer funding Merkley are not half as mad as I was in 1996 over that strategy. I was so angry I registered NAV after the primary and largely dropped out of politics until after the turn of the century (brought back into politics by Howard Dean and the Oregon Bus Project.

I still favor grass roots politics and candidates I personally find inspiring over those supported by consultants and people telling me I shouldn't think for myself but instead vote as I am told to vote. Many of my friends (regardless of political persuasion) who were active in politics in the last couple decades of the 20th century have taken a "life is too short, there are other things in life than politics" attitude, and it takes a lot to impress "old war horses" like us. It is great to see people inspired by this election year. However, when asked about attending the Obama rally in Salem, many such folks nod and smile knowingly when someone like me says "Great that people are excited and are going to the event, but my feeling is been there done that, let someone else have my space at the rally".

At least this time, the DSCC support is out in the open--perhaps because of the Internet. Gosh, supporting a legislative presiding officer to run against a former legislative presiding officer. What a concept!

3) Supporters of Bruggere in the general election didn't think anyone had the right to ask issue questions, like "Where does he stand on.....?". Often, the response was a snide, "Oh, you're just saying that because your friend lost the primary". Yes, I plead guilty. I admired the candidate Bruggere outspent 10-1, the one he outspent 100-1, and the 3rd candidate as well. The votes of those 3 gentlemen together "carried" (got more votes than Bruggere) in 20 counties. But Bruggere didn't need to change his campaign any after winning the primary because all supporters of other candidates were supposed to pledge allegiance to the nominee, shut up, and volunteer on his campaign? Gimme a break!

A few years later I was walking by a newspaper box and saw a LARGE (maybe 2/3 of the space under the masthead, above the fold) picture of one of those gentlemen I truly admired but some seemed to think I shouldn't be a friend of since he lost the election. I bought the newspaper, cut out the picture, and it is still on the wall in this room. If anyone EVER AGAIN tries to tell me politics should dictate who my friends are and who I am "allowed" to admire, I will consider that person as having the soul of a dictator or an ayatollah---one of the basic freedoms in this country is supposed to be freedom of association.

Well, folks, does that answer your question? I had great faith in the Democratic Party and in politics up until roughly 12 years ago almost exactly (sometime in March or April 2008). I lost faith in politics esp. after the primary. Obama might restore my faith if he wins the nomination and runs as inspiring a general election campaign as he has run so far. But for the rest of my life I will have no patience with certain political tactics and attitudes.

Does that answer your questions?

Listen folks: Let's assume that Novick wins the primary in a close vote: 51%-49% or closer, result not known Tuesday night, etc. Do you really think that everyone who did not vote Novick (or wasn't sure they cast the right vote), all the independents and Republicans who aren't exactly thrilled with Gordon, all the new voters, are just going to vote for Novick and campaign for him because he won the primary? What are you willing to bet that if Steve is the nominee he will reach out to people who didn't vote for him in the primary and actually ASK for their votes rather than just saying he stands up for principle and we should get used to that? Steve deserves praise for admitting that not all of his word choice has been well thought out. I give him credit for that. But will he or his followers pay attention to those who say things like "we worked so hard on Ruth McFarland's campaign, and then she'd go mouth off about something and lose votes"? Or will they act as if that couldn't possibly happen because he is the great infallible Steve who everyone who is worth anything should admire and vote for?

I could be wrong. Steve could win the primary and the general and be Wellstone and Morse put together. But I will believe it only if/when I see it, not before. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I have faith that we will have an excellent 5th Dist. candidate whether it is Schrader or Marks. I have faith that the Oregon House Dist. 23 state rep. in 2009 will be a breath of fresh air because I know both of the major candidates running (both have run before and are good, honest, down to earth gentlemen). I do not see the US Senate race as anywhere near as inspiring as the Obama campaign or the 5th Dist. Dem. primary campaign.

Will you admit I have a right to that opinion? Or should I see politics through someone else's eyes rather than through my own experience?

Colin,

Thanks for setting me straight about the Kerry endorsement in 2004, I guess my memory failed me, I thought I remembered a polemic regarding one for Bush.

Nonetheless, I still fear that Novick is the weakest candidate to face Smith, and suspect the Oregonian will be endorsing Smith against him this fall.

Oh well, I can always send my donations to Franken, he's got a legit chance at winning his race.

p.s. It should be noted that Merkley picked up the Register-Guard endorsement. Out of fairness, I'll entertain any conspiracy theories related to that.

p.s. It should be noted that Merkley picked up the Register-Guard endorsement. Out of fairness, I'll entertain any conspiracy theories related to that.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=95229&sid=5&fid=1

Posted by: verasoie | Apr 26, 2008 10:37:09 PM "Oh well, I can always send my donations to Franken, he's got a legit chance at winning his race."

Thanks, that reminds me of that Duin column awhile back with a headline saying humor serves Novick better than anger.

What I have seen and heard about the Franken campaign (interviews, the commercial with his old teacher, etc.) convinces me Fraken is running a better campaign. The day he left the radio show, Al Franken said "I will start the way I started this show, by learning something".

I saw Merkley in a town hall meeting asked about a subject he didn't know about. His response was to say it sounded interesting, and he'd have to learn more about it.

As Mike Deaver said, perception is reality. Steve might be helped if he appeared to be learning new things, not just telling us what he believes, and that he stands up for principle, etc.

Anyone who believes that what voters care most about is "principle" should look at news stories about people losing their jobs, at Help Wanted ads to see what there is available if they had to look for work, and then consider the people in this state working part time, split shift, temporary jobs etc. because that is all they can find. Does anyone on his campaign know anyone who finally landed a job but the commute involves buying more than one tank of gas a week in an area where public transit is not an option? THAT is the real world of 2008.

As I recall, Dan Gardner did "workdays" shadowing people in various occupations when he ran for Labor Comm. Lawton Childs made that strategy famous when he ran for statewide office in Florida. Has Steve Novick ever considered doing that? Or does he already know all he needs to know?

Saxton in 2006. That is the endorsement from the Oregonian that I was "misremembering," and the polemic that followed it. I stand corrected, but I think my point remains valid-- the Oregonian doesn't necessarily have the Democrat's best interests in mind by endorsing Novick, a thought seconded by several here.

I suggest readers use this event to reflect upon the fact that there are a lot of people who have underestimated Steve Novick to their great peril.

Stephanie,

You should check Kitzhaber's track record on contested primaries before touting it as a plus. It's abysmal, it's practically the kiss of death. Novick fits the bill perfectly for the type of candidate (i.e. longshot) whom Kitzhaber has endorsed perenially, only to see them go down in flames.

Barbara Roberts, on the other hand, has a good record of picking winners in contested primaries.

And yes, I do in fact know Kitzhaber personally and have been privy to personal conversations with him about the Senate race--- that is one among many reasons why I do not frequently follow his lead in primary races, including this one. Although I admire Kitzhaber tremendously, he likes to lend his name to individuals who desperately need his support to shore up what otherwise is a hollow adventure, whereas I have no problem supporting a well-known, highly qualified, progressive candidate like Jeff Merkley who has worked well with the Democratic party in Oregon and done great things to advance a progressive agenda.

Remember, Kitzhaber was very, very close to running against Kulongoski last time as an Independent, which would have almost assuredly given us Saxton as our Governor. Those are not the type of political instincts that I follow blindly, ones that would sabotage the Democratic party in this state for the potential of personal advancement... although Novick does seem to fit that mold.

LT -

It was Bob Graham, not Lawton Childs.

The Nitpicker In Chief

I suggest readers use this event to reflect upon the fact that there are a lot of people who have underestimated Steve Novick to their great peril.

Perhaps.

Or maybe those here who so smugly and arrogantly dismiss Jeff Merkley carefully review those who underestimated him: including all those whose defeat he helped engineer in 2006 and those who tried to block the agenda in 2007.

Beats me about The O trying to "game" the Democratic primary, but if they do NOT ultimately endorse Gordon Smith for re-election, as they did 6 years ago, I will be stunned. So...their endorsement of Novick strikes me as frankly irrelevant.

1. Democratic leaning papers seem to be endorsing Merkley. Republican leaning papers seem to be endorsing Novick. Maybe concidence, maybe not. Does anyone think there's any chance that The Oregonian will endorse Novick in the General? I don't.

2. Novick looks like the likely primary winner at this point. What does that say about the Merkley campaign? What should they be doing differently?

I have no problem supporting a well-known, highly qualified, progressive candidate like Jeff Merkley

In what sense is Jeff "well known"? I know he's been anointed by the national party, but at last check he was polling slightly behind Candy Neville. Hasn't that been his major problem- getting his name out there as the presumptive nominee? I mean, he's well known by those of us who passionately follow Oregon politics, but so too is Pavel Goberman.

And LT, thanks for your thoughts on the 96 Brugerre race. As I hinted at in my disclosure, at the time I was more familiar with free chocolate than Bob Kerrey's DNSCC strategies; it's helpful to have a better understanding of what remains a pretty forgotten contest. One quibble though- Les AuCoin is a hero, and I think a lot of Oregonians would vote for him again in a second.

Taylor, many Oregonians did vote for AuCoin--that is why there was a recount result of 330 votes statewide and it was fairly late into the night in November before we knew Packwood was re-elected.

However, I think the nasty ads of the Swifty variety are wrong, no matter who does them. I had known the AuCoin family since he was a legislator and his kids were little in the 1970s. I don't care if I am the only one who feels this way (and I doubt that is true), I lost all respect for Les AuCoin in the period from the 2nd half of 1991 to the summer of 1992. I campaigned for every other Democrat in fall, 1992 except AuCoin (wrote in the name of the guy who lost the recount).

I believe it is bad for the state and for a party when such nasty ads are run. They were so contentious they were still being debated 2 years later among people who had been on opposite sides in 1992.

At least the "Toss AuCoin" bumper stickers in the fall of 1992 had some humor. AuCoin's people seemed to think they were as entitled to the nomination as Hillary's folks seem to think she is entitled.

Other people can regard Les as a hero, I haven't since 1991 although I supported him previously.

Just as kids can shun someone who calls them names, adults have the right to be angry about nasty ads---from ANYONE!

In what sense is Jeff "well known"? I know he's been anointed by the national party, but at last check he was polling slightly behind Candy Neville. Hasn't that been his major problem- getting his name out there as the presumptive nominee? I mean, he's well known by those of us who passionately follow Oregon politics, but so too is Pavel Goberman.

Taylor--are you sincerely claiming that Merkley is equivalent to Pavel Goberman?

I realize that you're a hard-core Novick supporter, but it doesn't exactly look like intellectual honesty to go that route, even to make a point on name ID.

oh, so this is how the top is spinning after all -

"merkley wouldn't want the oregonian endorsement anyway, since they're all about gaming the primary in smith's favor"

okey doke.

Hey MP- newsflash- the primary's less than a month away, and MERKLEY HAS BIG TROUBLE WITH NAME RECOGNITION. The point wasn't that Jeff and Mr. Get Energized! are on the same level- (come on!) -it's that Jeff's campaign has seriously struggled to get his message out beyond those of us who live and breathe Oregon Democratic politics. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about that. But to repeat, calling the DNSCC's candidate "well-known" when he's pulling below the teens, after a 4'9" activist, and a real estate broker/ political novice, well, that's just plain wrong.

And- "hard-core Novick supporter"? Had you said that before this morning (when I learned of Steve's flawlessly correct stance on interleague play), I would have certainly disagreed. I've donated some spare change to Steve's campaign, but only after he started waging an effective, thoughtful underdog run. I think very highly of Jeff, but Steve's someone who's really inspired me, and a lot of other people.

Taylor:

Given that Jeff has been on television for several weeks in by most accounts a fairly regular clip, I doubt that the name ID issue (even when typed in all caps) is a problem to the extent that you're typing.

Even if it were, however, comparing Jeff to Pavel Goberman is silly. Even on the name ID front. Seriously, its beneath you.

Um... I thought the point of an election was to compare and contrast the various contending candidates. Does Jeff get a free ride on his inability to gain traction in the race because he's backed by the DNSCC, or because he's Speaker of the House? Jeff's struggled with name recognition, and so have other candidates. Unlike a random primary voter, political junkies know about the other candidates (including the illustrious and perennial Pavel). A lot of us are sketched out by the fact that even with his profile and campaign cash, Jeff hasn't clearly distinguished himself from the rest of the pack (including Pavel- who polled eight points lower than Jeff!). That's not particularly beneath me to say that.

This situation really calls for a) a Pavel appearance, or b) a fake Pavel appearance (how dare BO be able to track our IP addresses!).

Um... I thought the point of an election was to compare and contrast the various contending candidates. Does Jeff get a free ride on his inability to gain traction in the race because he's backed by the DNSCC, or because he's Speaker of the House? Jeff's struggled with name recognition, and so have other candidates. Unlike a random primary voter, political junkies know about the other candidates (including the illustrious and perennial Pavel). A lot of us are sketched out by the fact that even with his profile and campaign cash, Jeff hasn't clearly distinguished himself from the rest of the pack (including Pavel- who polled eight points lower than Jeff!). That's not particularly beneath me to say that.

Okay, its not beneath you. I was trying to give you a break.

I think its stupid and silly to say that Jeff Merkley is equivalent to Pavel Goberman in this race on any term, even name ID.

An equivalent attempt at political comparison would Steve Novick to Bill Sizemore--there might be reasons for doing it, but it would be stupid and silly to go down that road where Steve is concerned. And it would be beneath me to do it. Does that mean I'm giving Steve a break because for some reason? Nope. I'm just not going to dissrespect Steve in that way. While I absolutely think Jeff is the best candidate--I don't need to make debasing comparison ratios with Steve's political opponents in an attempt to lift Jeff up.

But that's just me, apparently.

Alright, I can see that what we have here is a failure to communicate. Let's be clear then: Merkley's not the equivalent of Goberman in name ID or any other way (respective commitments to rooting out "political prostitution" and senses of humor included). But I hate to be the harbinger of bitter news: hard, cold, mathematics makes it readily discernable that as of April 16, Merkley was polling considerably closer to Goberman and than he was to Novick. It's not likely to stay that way. But if you're the national party's heir apparent and your poll numbers place you within earshot of the perrennial non-candidates, a month before the election, that's troublesome. That said, 'Closer' does not equal 'equivalent.'

As for comparing Steve to Sizemore (who is not running for the D Senate nomination this year to my knowledge), why not pull out a more colorful foil with just as little in common? Genghis Khan? Joe McCarthy? Lon Mabon or Kevbo Mannix? If you're going to compare apples and oranges, you might as well pick the ripest tangelo in the bunch!

As for comparing Steve to Sizemore (who is not running for the D Senate nomination this year to my knowledge), why not pull out a more colorful foil with just as little in common? Genghis Khan? Joe McCarthy? Lon Mabon or Kevbo Mannix? If you're going to compare apples and oranges, you might as well pick the ripest tangelo in the bunch!

Which is what you were doing with Merkley and Goberman.

I could pull a random reason for comparing Novick with Sizemore, Khan, McCarthy or Mickey Mouse if I chose to. But I see no reason to do that. Its disrespectful of Steve and beneath me, as I said.

So it is with comparisons of Merkley to Goberman.

If you can't tell the difference between senate candidates and non-senate candidates, and if you think "I am not persuaded" means "I am opposed," well... I guess that takes care of that. Have a good night!

"Jeff's struggled with name recognition"

"April 16, Merkley was polling considerably closer to Goberman and than he was to Novick. "

Taylor, my experience with that subject is talking to ordidnary voters (the kind who are not political junkies) and asking "can you name anyone running for US Senate this year?".

Answer was often "Gee, is this Gordon Smith's year to run for re-election?".

POLLS ARE NOT GOSPEL!

A very wise campaign manager years ago taught me that polls can be completely untrustworthy--sample size, questions, question order, demographics of sample, etc.

This is even more true now with so many people having only cell phones, not land lines.

You may mean that "of the sample in the poll, Novick polled higher than Merkley". But are you really willing to gamble a month's wages that the election night results will mirror an April 16 poll?

In 1992, we still had polling place voting. Monday, the day before the primary, Oregonian prints poll results in 4 races on the front page. AL 4 WERE WRONG! So many people angry at the Oregonian that their reporters heard from angry people when they were covering political events. As I recall, Oregonian changed polling firms after that.

April 16 is more than a month before the primary. These comments will all be here on June 16, July 16, etc. Before making rash statements, it would be wise to remember those remarks might look different to people who stumble upon BO and read this discussion after the primary.

Stephanie: There is indeed something revealing here, but you're missing it.

Everyone gets that you're a Novick supporter. But instead of using your support for Steve to lift Steve up, you spend most of your commenting pixels trying to tear Jeff down. And you cheer others on as they do it. Its dissrespectful and unnecessary. You're so caught up in your Novick frenzy that you have lost all sense of even a basic propriety. And its infectious to the point that other Novick supporters are doing it--hence my comment to Taylor.

As I said, I could find lots of ways to compare Steve to others in a way that you would find unflattering to Steve. But there's no reason to do that. Just as there's really no reason for you or Taylor to compare Jeff to Pavel Goberman. I recognize that you're using the excuse of "they're both in the Senate race", but I don't honestly believe that you find that argument especially compelling.

You're doing it to try to drag Jeff down and be nasty.

And yes, "I'm not persuaded" is the same thing as being opposed. I am not persuaded that Steve Novick is candidate to defeat Gordon Smith. Therefore I am opposed to him winning the nomination over Jeff Merkley because Merkley has persuaded me that he is the best candidate.

The fact that I would go this far illustrates a point: the parsing, equivocation and justification in these comments by Novick supporters has reached a level of ridiculousness that those participating should be embarrassed.

right! and don't forget, steve novick is ANGRY!

and MEAN!!!

and jeff merkley doesn't WANT the oregonian endorsement - they're gaming the primary in favor of smith.

and jeff merkley doesn't WANT kitzhaber's endorsement - he's the kiss of death.

and jeff merkley doesn't WANT national media exposure - unless the timing is exactly right of course.

signed, dizzy from the spinning

Hey LT,

I like colin's response, but I'll make a couple of quick observations:

No one's expecting Jeff to keep polling around the 11% line. Like a lot of Novick other supporters, I'll be thrilled and surprised if Steve wins. I'm not predicting Jeff to get thrashed. What I'm saying is that Jeff hasn't distinguished himself to the degree he should have as a DNSCC candidate.

I didn't say polls were gospel, but they tend to tell us something over a large sample. Yes, its one poll, but no offense, I'll trust a poll over your anecdotal experience talking to voters. Science is good! Honestly I have a lot of skepticism over any poll that gives David Loera and Goberman anything higher than a couple of votes- to me, that says the respondees are just grasping at names.

And a minor quibble- a poll taken on April 16 is just about less than a month from "the election" in Oregon. Ballots go out in the mail May 2.

I thank anyone willing to put themselves in the spotlight to run for office. I thank Jeff Merkley more, because he worked so hard and so smart to win a Democratic majority in Oregon.

Have we forgotten life under Minnis? Did anyone do more than Merkley to wrestle her out of the speaker's job?

And our collective thank you is: "Novick is smart and different, let's support him because he has NOT worked from within the system to make a positive and important change."

"Establishment" or "Anti-establishment" labels should not sway an educated electorate. Who has actually changed Oregon for the better?

I have spoken with both Jeff and Steve. They are very different so hard to compare. However, I do think there is something inspiring about Steve. He asks intelligent questions and wants real answers.

I don't know who can beat Smith, but I think there are more contrasts with Steve and I support him because of that. I know both candidates will fight Smith, Steve Novick just seems like more of a fighter.