As much as I love Blue Oregon, I'm going to turn off my computer and enjoy a peaceful walk in the gentle rain.

And then I'll bake a loaf of Amish Friendship Bread.

This Saturday, breakfast at The Daily Grill, a long walk over to Laurelhurst Park, a Blazer game in the evening, and then a nice glass of Scotch listening to Miles Davis (all the time sporting a very satisfied smile).

Time to start on the campaigns for 2010!

Just kidding, but I will turn my attention back to our youth issues and especially our public schools.

If the Democratic leadership isn't thinking about 2010 then all of this year's gains are threatened. The Republicans won't give us a pass in 2010 like they did this year.

Look at the mixed bag of results from this year. Sure we picked up six seats but some of those were pretty narrow wins even though hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on them. And, Eberle lost against Bruun and Adamson lost to a convicted child abuser even though a million dollars was spent on those two races alone.

Everyone should take a little time off and decompress but don't let your guard down. The Republican party may be in the minority but they are not run by knuckleheads and they will mount a vigorous challenge in 2010...and the Democrats will give them all of the ammo they need. With a huge budget shortfall the legislature will either raise taxes, cut services or do both. And with a likely continuing economic slump people will be mad at the party in power that cut their services or raised their taxes.

I'm celebrating all of our victories this year but call me chicken little if you like, I'm worried about 2010.

I'm going to decompress by doing all of my yard work that I couldn't do while campaigning, completing my third year of law school finding a job.

Here's a nice solution

Solution (take 2)

Voter Registrar education.

Vote monitoring.

Writing about it.

In 1982, after a hotly contested primary, friend Susie said it was time to return to normal life "whatever that was".

A friend and I had planned in advance to go see a movie 3 days after the primary, when we knew we would be well rested.

Posted by: carla axtman | Nov 6, 2008 9:00:34 AM

Well...I'm a total lost cause.

Just got off the phone with a friend and progressive compatriot. We're setting up a long-term strategy meeting for the next battle.

I know...pathetic. ````````` Carla, that is not pathetic if it includes input from around the state, incl. the campaign volunteers/ staffers for those who won/lost. And an honest assessment about what worked and what didn't work.

Jim Hill and Rocky Barilla didn't win in this district because people said a year in advance they would win. Or because someone outside the district picked it as a winning district. As I recall, incumbent legislators were startled when they heard Jim Hill had been elected first Democrat (as well as first black) to win in this highly Republican district. Rocky had to survive a contested primary (which included a candidate recruited by the majority leader after Rocky had filed). And those of us whose candidates lost should be in regular communication with the person who won. "What is important to us" is for individuals to decide, not a legislator to tell us what is important. And how do they explain their vote on.....

One of the previous state rep. campaigns in this district prior to Jim Hill's victory was one of the best volunteer operations I have ever seen. Yes, it lost a Republican district, but it mobilized a volunteer army such that when the candidate's wife announced (to a party in their home) that she was running for school board, the ready made volunteer army helped get her elected.

Let's not forget how much effort was put into the Brading campaign in 2006 but he lost anyway. There is no shame to anyone who fought a hard campaign and lost. Sometimes that happens (as when people involved in local funding measures work very hard and one passes but another fails).

Willie Brown (former mayor, Speaker of the California Assembly, speaker to a state Democratic dinner in the 1980s) was once asked to name the most effective campaign tactic--phoning, canvassing, speeches, neighborhood coffees, etc.

"Do it all and hope it is enough!" he said.

And a bit of humility might be in order. Voters can and do think for themselves, and people vote for a variety of reasons (inspired by or disappointed in, for an old friend, for someone who once did them a favor, for the person their friend is voting for, for someone who makes more sense than the other candidate, against someone who once alienated them, etc.)

Phrases that cropped up this year like "low information voters" don't win elections--personal contact does, esp. at the legislative and local level. Treat all voters with respect--you never know when they might tell 5 friends how they are voting in a race and why.

Richard, thanks for all your hard work and your comments.

It's not time to rest on your laurels. You have succeeded in electing your less evil/less insane candidates, but if you want change, join the November 5 Movement.

Don't take too much time off -- Portlanders with integrity (I hope that's most of us) need to get to work on stopping the corporate-welfare, New Urbanist sports stadium deal in the works as we speak.

Do you care about this one?

Bob Tiernan

Don't take too much time off -- Portlanders with integrity (I hope that's most of us) need to get to work on stopping the corporate-welfare, New Urbanist sports stadium deal in the works as we speak.

Do you care about this one?

Bob Tiernan

Go Timbers and bring MLS to PDX! It's a bond system that will be repaid by the Timbers through a tax system that has yet to be determined because it's still very early in the process.

It's a public work people. I love Portland. I also like sports. If the city spends a little coin (really it's hardly anything in the big scheme) to upgrade PGE Park and build a smaller baseball stadium in the Lents area it's good for everyone. Urban renewal dollars for Lents (a part of town that is kind of scary) and we get big league soccer. I'll be happy to guide anyone who questions if this city will support that to the first game of 2009.

Chris Lowe:

Hey Bob T., I care about it, but I'm going to find it easier to work with you on it if you lay off trying to smear New Urbanism with it.

Bob T:

It's not a smear, and thanks for noticing that I mentioned it because it's more of a reality than the oft-repeated fiction that it's an example of free markets in action. Keep reading.

Chris Lowe:

Actually sports stadium deals are pretty old-fashioned money politics.

Bob T:

That tells me nothing. While New Urbanism is a newer term, I'm saying that it has been folded into New Urbanist thought because, as with decades ago, appeals were made regarding the "image" and of the municipality compared to others (even if different language was used), coupled with the same alleged economic benefits. So a "real" city must have a real sports team, and another stadium, because it will elevate Portland (so they say), and the city will make money from a new parking structure, and heck, there'll even be a need for a new light rail extension and more riders to count!

I say that we should resist this appeal to the ego, to the envy issue. Too many have been wedded to this nonsense of the government doing something because "the market won't provide it" (yet another partial excuse for handing out this corporate welfare), but they fail to see that the market does just fine in this -- there's no rule that says a 90,000 seat stadium is necessary. If professional sports had never been handed money in the first place (someone needs to find or write a good article about the history of this), we'd still have pro sports but a more realitic level: smaller capacity parks and stadiums, lower payrolls, and so on. The TV and ad revenues make up for the rest. There's never going to be a shortage of people willing to get paid to play sports for a living, whether for $100,000 a year of $25 million.

The trick is to resist the temptation to fall for the old "give us a stadium or we'll re-locate elesewhere" game (a game happily played by government, with your money, so there's no reason to blame this on team owner greed. They can't get a dime without government help, often consisting of majority voter approval.

The conversation should go like this-- Owner: "I want public money for a new stadium or I'll relocate". Local Government: Bye!

Chris Lowe:

Ride your pro-pollution, pro-congestion cars-are-always best, blame mass transit for everything hobbyhorses all you want

Bob T:

I don't know where that comes from. I don't think cars are always best; I'm not pro-pollution (I don't even like pollution caused by burning coal to provide electricity to power light rail and electric cars, even if it is out of sight, out of mind); I'm not pro-congestion (tho' I wonder if you are, since congestion is not relieved by light rail and there's more congestion by densifying without increasing arterial and freeway capacity for the cars that definitely do show up with increased density, which also gives us more pollution because of the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, particularly when they have to go very slow to get where they're going); and I don't blame mass transit for much but do think that Tri-Met is a shitty agency that does little to put service first.

Chris Lowe:

but do it separately, would ya? 'Cause if you construct a campaign so that if I have to sign on to that kind of CPI crackpot agenda to be part of it, you lose me.

Bob T:

That shouldn't stop you from opposing a stadium and sports team franchise deal, but note that I want people to see the different forces behind thise kind of deal -- after all, the wonderful progressive Sam Adams (so called) is salivating over this deal. Is he a corporate welfare-granting corporate shill right winger, or someone trying to make Portland "the city it deserves to be"? See what I mean?

Chris Lowe:

Please note: this is not an inherent conflict. It's a choice of your very own to make about how to represent the issues with the stadium, or misrepresent its non-relationship to New Urbanism.

Bob T:

I represented it just fine. I mentioned both the New Urbanist forces and the older corporate welfare forces (which of course made the same arguments long ago).

Consider the reply that had followed yours (by Garrett). He's all for it. Like I said, so is Sam Adams. The progressives will do squat about this. It was probably a done deal, even before most of us heard of it. All I know is that Mr. Paulson can desire my money, but he won't get it unless Sam takes it from me to give to him. But somehow, Paulson will be blamed just for asking for it.

Bob Tiernan

<hr/>