How much of the Constitution Party's David Brownlow's 7% will end up in the Smith column when the #2 meets the ballot paper at the kitchen table? Smith can't be happy about this overall, but it's closer than it looks if you leave Brownlow out of it.

Chris Lowe asks: "How much of the Constitution Party's David Brownlow's 7% will end up in the Smith column when the #2 meets the ballot paper at the kitchen table?"

The constipation party voter is very much like the naderite voter: they are devoted to unreality. The Rs detest them and the Cs detest back. My guess is that only a statistically insignificant percentage of the Cs will vote R.

The fact that Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Smith might increase the number of C and L votes. But it's not really necessary to publicize that fact because there are tons of Rs who hate Smith for having worked for a hate crime bill -- that's 'cause they love to hate. They are sitting on their hands in this election.

Since Smith has been running as a Democrat for the entire election and is best buddies with all the Dems that Republicans love to hate (Obama, Kennedy, Kerry) I would be shocked if the Libertarians and the Constitution candidates didn't get a bigger than average vote. He has got to have pissed off a lot of Republicans in this campaign.

what makes you think Const Party supporters will vote for Gordo? Dave Brownlow is not a gimmick candidate, no matter the simple fact that he never had any chance to win. he's a man of deep beliefs and the willingness to stand out in public for them. he's also the father of an Iraq vet and a member of Military Families Speak Out: he is, and always has been, against this war (and now against the move to turn Afghanistan into Iraq's replacement).

i couldn't be mor opposed to Dave on almost every aspect of policy and belief, but he's genuine. he and his wife are good people. i don't know that he's representative of the Constitutional Party and its supporters, but i'm guessing, given what their stated beliefs are, that he is. and the gap between them the and GOP is pretty signficant. i'm thinking a lot of them cannot abide Gordo any more than most Dems, and even if it's a "lost" vote, they'd rather stick to principle and vote for Dave.

let's hope so, anyway!

and what the hell is with this 48-41 Merkley lead in Pdx? i thought we were better than that. sheesh. let's hope they are smarter than that on 57/61 (yes/no).

T.A.,

Meant no slur or slam against David Brownlow. I think I was on a panel with him at PSU on May 1 at an anti-war event there, & with the exception of Kayse Jama of the Center for Intercultural Organizing, who's a Somali immigrant, with whom he about tied, D.B. had by far the most powerful and cogent critique of U.S. imperial wars of any of us. He seemed completely genuine and deeply principled to me in that context and your report from actually knowing him only confirms that impression.

It was an honest question, i.e. asked in genuine ignorance of how to interpret what the CP number might mean. My impression is that Green poll numbers tend to register higher a few weeks out than the actual votes, & I wasn't (& am not) sure if that might be true on the right. I know a lot of Rs are angry at Smith, call him a RINO etc., but when push comes to shove, he's going to vote a lot further right than Jeff Merkley. On the other hand, it does seem that the Rs sometimes really do punish those they see as ideological strays to maintain "discipline" in the longer run.

The 7% figure for the CP also seems a good deal higher than I've seen in past years for them, so I was guessing that maybe it reflects a core vote plus angry Rs, some of whom might melt back to Smith at the end of the day. But maybe not, maybe David B. is not only catching folks turning away from Smith but impressing them enough that they stick with him.

If that number holds, I think it will give the CP automatic ballot access next time around, unless the Top Two Primary initiative passes.

Chris,

I also have questions about how soft Brownlowe's numbers might be. But to put this into context, a valid range for his impact is probably somewhere between Mary Starrett, who picked up 3.6 percent in the gubernatorial race in 2006 and Al Mobley, who picked up 13 percent in the gubernatorial race in 1990.

The context for this race is that Smith is a moderate Senator who is running to his left in an election cycle where the top of the ticket candidate is hardly a darling of the GOP's social conservative base.

It seems reasonable to assume that a higher number of hardcore social conservatives may peel off under these circumstances than in other recent elections.

Another factor is that a higher percentage of down-ticket voters tend to vote up-ticket, rather than vice-versa. I mention that because in CD1, a district that Smith absolutely must win, the Republican candidate is running as an Independent, and has endorsed Jeff Merkley. That's a serious blow when you also consider that he is also sharing the ticket with Erickson in CD5.

Chrs, M65 will not affect minor political parties that meet the 1 percent threshold in this cycle until after the 2010 election, and will not affect any political parties that meet the registration requirement, which is 0.5% of registered voters -- roughly 10,000 people.

Even Dan Meek agrees that minor parties will have an easier time recruiting and retaining members under M65, since voters will not have to change political parties to vote for their candidate of choice in the primary election.

Both the House and Senate Elections and Rules Committees have been given a recommendation on how to ensure that smaller minor political parties like the Constitution Party may maintain ballot access if M65 passes -- essentially this will require a minor modification of ORS248.008 to have the 1 percent requirement apply to endorsed candidates of that party in the primary rather than the general election.

<h2>Thanks for the clarification on timing of effects Sal.</h2>