As with all very early polls with an unknown challenging an incumbent, we shouldn't take these numbers seriously at all. Two things are worth noting. At 35%, he's got a shot. the real issue is that 43% said they had no opinion of Huffman, and those 43% will ultimately be definitive. If he runs a good and credible campaign, these numbers could put him in contention. On the other hand, a bad campaign would mean that 35% is a ceiling.

So now we wait and see.

It doesn't help with the base that Merkley signed onto that letter to Reid, and Wyden hasn't yet. Wyden's modus operandi has been to be "moderate" but he's got to energize the base to avoid falling further.

Quotes like the following about Sen. Evan Bayh's decision not to run for reelection don't exactly give the impression of energy on Wyden's part:

"What I think Evan has been trying to communicate is that politics cannot be seen as a zero-sum game where one side wipes the floor with the other side," Wyden told me. Until this happens, he said, "I think you're going to see more good and thoughtful people say that they're going to find other things to do."

I mean, it's one thing to inveigh against scorched-earth policies, but Bayh viewed the liberals in the Democratic Party as more of a threat than the Republicans, and I'm not exactly sure where in the past three years of Democratic control of Congress that Democrats in the Senate have wiped the floor with anyone except some of their own constituents.

I was walking through the waiting room of a clinic at Kaiser on Interstate yesterday and overheard a conversation between a couple of guys. I just caught a couple of sentences, but one of them was telling the other about this guy who'd just decided not to run for office again. "And you know what?" he continued, "He gets to keep all the money he raised for reelection." I don't know where on the political spectrum either of the guys was, but it sure didn't sound like they approved of someone like Bayh who'd clear off with his $13 million campaign chest. Maybe "good and thoughtful" people ought to give that some thought.

I have looked at the crosstabs for the Rasmussen poll and there is nothing particularly unusual there. Two things caught my eye: (1) virtually no gender differential in the head-to-head and (2) the two are almost even among nonaffiliated voters.

The first doesn't surprise me too much. Although much is made of Republicans so-called gender gap, I think that really is more candidate specific than partisan. I remember the first polls after the 2006 primary, there was no gender gap between Saxton and Kulongoski. Then Saxton started delivering a harsher message in his ads, particularly on the anti-illegal immigration issue and the gender gap opened up and continued through the election.

On the non-affiliated voters, I think that is consistent with the anti-incumbency (and therefore anti-Democrat) attitude among non-affiliated voters generally and this year particularly. This mirrors a lot of the anti-Bush/anti-Republican attitude among nonaffiliated voters in 2006 and 2008.

In short, Wyden should definitely take this seriously but I honestly don't believe this is as much about the overall political climate.

Finally: You guys are whistling past the graveyard if you don't think Jim Huffman is a serious candidate.

Jack:

If you'd post the cross-tab info here in comments, that would be great information.

Jack:

If you'd post the cross-tab info here in comments, that would be great information.

What? After all the moralizing you guys have done about Matt Wingard and his supposed "theft of intellectual property" you want me to post crosstabs made available only to subscribers?

LT - The questions are online, and I have to say, they look pretty standard.

"And you know what?" he continued, "He gets to keep all the money he raised for reelection." I don't know where on the political spectrum either of the guys was, but it sure didn't sound like they approved of someone like Bayh who'd clear off with his $13 million campaign chest.

That is, of course, entirely untrue.

Campaign money stays in the campaign fund. It cannot be converted to personal use. (Don't remember when, but I'm pretty sure that law changed sometime in the 1980s.)

Bayh could, of course, donate the money to other federal candidates or committees. He could hold it for a presidential run (or a comeback to the US Senate.) If Indiana law allows, he could convert it to a state campaign fund to run for Governor in 2012. He could donate it to a charity. Or he could return it to his donors.

But he can't pocket it.

LT - Be that as it may, the tax questions came well after the horse-race questions in the survey, so they wouldn't affect those results. There's a lot that has been made of Rasmussen and their methodology recently, Nate Silver had a good hypothesis last month. I'm not saying the results are right on, just that the question wording seems pretty standard.

Campaign money stays in the campaign fund. It cannot be converted to personal use. (Don't remember when, but I'm pretty sure that law changed sometime in the 1980s.)

You're right, Kari. It was changed not long after Jim Weaver raised a significant amount of money to run against Bob Packwood in 1986, then dropped out and took the money.

It didn't help, by the way. Not too long after that, he filed for bankruptcy.

What? After all the moralizing you guys have done about Matt Wingard and his supposed "theft of intellectual property" you want me to post crosstabs made available only to subscribers?

You mean like a bunch of the rest of the information that's widely available on the internet?

If you're seriously wanting to have a conversation about the difference between plagiarism (what Wingard did) and posting information that lives behind a subscription wall, then there's a serious intellectual integrity problem to overcome. And it's not from me.

That is, of course, entirely untrue. Campaign money stays in the campaign fund.

Well, sure, Kari, I know that, and you know that — and for all I know, the guy I overheard may have gone on to explain that to his buddy after I walked out of earshot — but do you really think that the relatively minor difference between a politician keeping campaign funds he raised for re-election for personal use or for a campaign for a different office is going to be explained on talk radio? He may have been misinformed and angry but he may have known exactly what Bayh could do with the money and still have been angry. All I know for sure is that he was angry and it really doesn't matter if he believed in death panels and thought Bayh could use the money to throw a Senate retirement blowout party for himself or if he didn't like the fact that Bayh resigned a day before the filing deadline and could pass the money along to whoever the Indiana Democrats picked to run in his stead or if he believed that Bayh could use the money to join Joe Lieberman on a Unity Party presidential ticket in 2012.

Carla, the terms of the subscription requires that you not republish the information. That's why you can't find the crosstabs anywhere else. Their information is explicitly copyrighted. I went as far as I believed was appropriate in summarizing a couple of the findings. I intentionally did not include the actual numbers even then because I believed that would violate the terms of their subscription agreement.

My definition of intellectual integrity includes keeping the commitments I've made and not asking others to break theirs. If you have a different definition, then I feel sorry for you.

Jack: Since there was no way I could be aware of the terms of the Rasmussen subscription (since I don't have one), I can't be expected to know that information.

Had you said that, rather than try to equate posting the information to Wingard's plagiarism, the intellectual integrity question wouldn't be on the table. Unfortunately, it now is.

Jack: Since there was no way I could be aware of the terms of the Rasmussen subscription (since I don't have one), I can't be expected to know that information.

Come on, Carla, you stated in your original post that the cross tabs were available by paid subscription only. You asked me if I would take information that was being sold and post it on your blog so that it would be available to you and your readers for free. You didn't have to know the exact terms of the subscription agreement to know that was just plain wrong.

If someone had a subscription to the Bend Bulletin website, would you encourage them to cut and paste articles otherwise available only to subscribers and post them on BlueOregon?

I've said this before and I'll reiterate it again: One of these days Kari is going to get sued because of your recklessness. Which is too bad, because I think he does an excellent job of running a first class political site (whether I agree with what stories he chooses to emphasize or not).

Come on, Carla, you stated in your original post that the cross tabs were available by paid subscription only. You asked me if I would take information that was being sold and post it on your blog so that it would be available to you and your readers for free. You didn't have to know the exact terms of the subscription agreement to know that was just plain wrong.

Oh please, Jack. This is such utter crap. You've tried to equate plagiarism (as committed by Matt Wingard) with cutting and pasting firewalled information on the internet. The two things are completely not on the same level. You know this..and still arguing essentially to the contrary is simply rank intellectual dishonesty.

It's like saying downloading firewalled music to your ipod is the same as recording someone else's song for money without their permission or attribution. One is a common practice (downloading) that is done as a matter of course because of the stupidity of the industry and the other is outright stealing of intellectual property.

You made claims about the crosstabs that the rest of us can't see and so we can't know if you're characterizing the information appropriately.

If we can't even agree on that very basic, simple principle--then there's simply no way to go further here.

I've said this before and I'll reiterate it again: One of these days Kari is going to get sued because of your recklessness.

Riiiight...like when you tried to bully me over "defamation" of Hasina Squires. Another thing you clearly know very little about.

It's like saying downloading firewalled music to your ipod is the same as recording someone else's song for money without their permission or attribution.

You're a little confused here, Carla. What you wanted me to do was the equivalent of taking music I've downloaded for a fee and posting it on a website so that so people can access it for free. Are you oblivious to the many lawsuits that have been brought by the movie industry over this?

On the other hand, Matt Wingard did not plagiarize. He simply read a text pieced together from a several sources--all of which are readily available for free on the internet. He did not claim to have written the words or claim that they were original. He simply stood up and started reading them.

The only people with standing to complain about this are the author's of the original work. To the best of my knowledge, they have not complained. He did not submit the speech for publication under his own name or charge anyone for the content. Despite assertions to the contrary, this was certainly not a crime and probably not even illegal.

I think he should have attributed the source but it was not as if he was submitting the work for school credit. He was reading the material to convey its substance, nothing more/.

As in the Hasina Squires situation, you don't know the law and you don't have the good judgment to know what you don't know. Hasina, being vastly more mature than you, simply let it pass. I, understanding the law, did not accept your invitation to violate the copyright of the Rasmussen Reports.

Someday you're not going to have other people with better judgment bail you out of your mistakes.

You're a little confused here, Carla. What you wanted me to do was the equivalent of taking music I've downloaded for a fee and posting it on a website so that so people can access it for free. Are you oblivious to the many lawsuits that have been brought by the movie industry over this?

I'm not confused at all, Jack. Do you know how many people do it anyway? It's extremely petty, especially relative to what happens to people who are convicted of actually recording someone else's music for money. Are you really sure you want to keep this going?

You're trying to make these things equal. We both know that this is absolutely not the case. Just stop it.

Not only did Wingard plagiarize, he tried to lie and obfuscate what he did. It says a lot about you that you'd make excuses for that kind of behavior.

Someday you're not going to have other people with better judgment bail you out of your mistakes.

Since I've never been bailed out of anything--this makes no sense whatsoever, Jack. I've never been in any legal jeopardy (or any other kind of jeopardy, for that matter) for anything I've written at this blog or any other place. So was it your intention to prove that you don't have any idea what you're talking about or is this just a happy accident?

Frankly, Jack and Carla, you're both in the wrong.

What Wingard did was plagiarism by any professional standard, Jack. He never mentioned that the words he was reading were from one or more sources until after he was caught. From "Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement: How to Avoid the Theft of Intellectual Property":

While it is acceptable either to quote or to paraphrase (put into one’s own words) information gained from a written work, one must acknowledge the original source in both instances since paraphrasing is equivalent to “borrowing” another person’s ideas, and a failure to attribute ideas to the original source is also considered plagiarism.

Remember Joe Biden and the 1988 presidential campaign when he stole Neil Kinnock's story about his forefathers coming out of the mines and playing football? He told that story a bunch of times mentioning Kinnock, but the time that (rightly) got him into trouble was when he embellished it and dropped the mention of Kinnock. And plagiarism isn't the same thing as copyright violation, although there's some definite overlap.

Carla, just because a lot of people jump off the cliff of copyright violation on the internet doesn't make it okay. Wingard's appropriation does constitute a copyright violation (although it might not be one that the original authors would pursue) as would Jack's providing the Rasmussen cross-tabs. Both are actionable legal issues. Wingard's plagarism, while potentially damaging politically, is no more of a legal challenge to him than putting the data online would be for Jack (who'd be the one on the hook viz Rasmussen) and the Rasmussen people would likely be more inclined to pursue a copyright case for disseminating information they want to get paid for than the climate deniers who are trying to spread their lies as far as possible.

Frankly, Jack and Carla, you're both in the wrong.

What Wingard did was plagiarism by any professional standard, Jack. He never mentioned that the words he was reading were from one or more sources until after he was caught. From "Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement: How to Avoid the Theft of Intellectual Property":

While it is acceptable either to quote or to paraphrase (put into one’s own words) information gained from a written work, one must acknowledge the original source in both instances since paraphrasing is equivalent to “borrowing” another person’s ideas, and a failure to attribute ideas to the original source is also considered plagiarism.

Remember Joe Biden and the 1988 presidential campaign when he stole Neil Kinnock's story about his forefathers coming out of the mines and playing football? He told that story a bunch of times mentioning Kinnock, but the time that (rightly) got him into trouble was when he embellished it and dropped the mention of Kinnock. And plagiarism isn't the same thing as copyright violation, although there's some definite overlap.

Carla, just because a lot of people jump off the cliff of copyright violation on the internet doesn't make it okay. Wingard's appropriation does constitute a copyright violation (although it might not be one that the original authors would pursue) as would Jack's providing the Rasmussen cross-tabs. Both are actionable legal issues. Wingard's plagarism, while potentially damaging politically, is no more of a legal challenge to him than putting the data online would be for Jack (who'd be the one on the hook viz Rasmussen) and the Rasmussen people would likely be more inclined to pursue a copyright case for disseminating information they want to get paid for than the climate deniers who are trying to spread their lies as far as possible.

darrelplant, Wingard's reading of other people's writings could render him liable to the people who's words he used, not to listeners or to the public at large. This was not the same as turning in a plagiarized paper for school credit, that could result in being flunked or expelled.

Of course, if voters wish to hold this against him, they can. Newsflash: They won't.

If I had posted the Rasmussen crosstabs, they could come after me, but they could also come after BlueOregon for inviting and knowingly publishing material that is copyrighted without permission. As Carla admits above, she knows this is illegal but figures everybody does it and therefore it is okay.

By any legal or ethical standard, what Carla was asking me to do was worse than what Matt Wingard is accused of doing.

If I had posted the Rasmussen crosstabs, they could come after me, but they could also come after BlueOregon for inviting and knowingly publishing material that is copyrighted without permission. As Carla admits above, she knows this is illegal but figures everybody does it and therefore it is okay.

If you had posted Rasmussen crosstabs and they wanted them off, they'd send a take down notice, Jack. And then they'd be taken down and that would be the end of it.

I also jaywalk sometimes, Jack and Darrel (the horror!) The posting of the Rasmussen crosstabs is the essential equivalent to jaywalking or a parking violation. Could I get a ticket? Sure. Then I pay it (or fight it if I think it's unwarranted--which I've actually done before) and move on.

Plagiarism (what Wingard did) is a much higher infraction-as would be the penalty should a court find him in violation. It's completely and totally dishonest to try and put them on the same level.

So Jack, post the crosstabs (or email them to me and I'll post them). If Blue Oregon gets a notice from Rasmussen, I'll pull it personally and take all responsibility with Rasmussen if they take legal action. You feel free to stand up and read a speech in public, on the record and videotaped that's almost entirely written for word on someone else's work. I (and I suspect you and everyone else) will gladly take a pass on that.

Btw when Huffman loses to Wyden (which he will--I'd say the odds are better than a Rasmussen take down notice) and the GOP once again loses the governorship in Oregon--what then, Jack?

I wouldn't post the crosstabs in any event because of my own standards of personal integrity.

If Republicans lose all the statewide races yet again, I will still have my beliefs, my principles and my integrity.

I can like Jim Huffman without disliking Ron Wyden. I can be friends with Peter DeFazio and with Sid Leiken, as well as with both Kurt Schrader and Scott Bruun. As Jack Kemp used to say, "The Democrats are our opponents, they aren't our enemies."

I can honestly say without hesitation that if Republicans were jumping on a first-term Democratic legislator who did exactly what Matt Wingard did, I'd be calling BS on them, too. Politics isn't a bloodsport and we demean it as well as ourselves when we treat it as such.

I'm sure you've never jaywalked or had a parking ticket in your life, Jack. Personal integrity being what it is, and all.

Personal and intellectual integrity is about honesty, to me. You've not engaged in that on this thread, frankly.

I can honestly say that if a first term Democratic legislator stood up in the well of the Oregon House and plagiarized a speech--I'd call them on it. If they lied about it--I'd hammer them more. Just like Wingard. And I sure as hell wouldn't be trying to make it the equivalent of posting information that lives behind a firewall.

I've certainly taken Dems to task for bad behavior before at this blog.

I guess your idea of integrity and mine are not the same, Jack.

Is there something in the water this week? Or maybe the unexpected surplus of Vitamin D exposure combined with pollen? With everything else going on in Portland, the state and the country at the moment, I'm both baffled and, honestly, distressed at the uncharacteristic nastiness of posts among folks whose contributions I generally enjoy here over what seems to be pretty petty shit. Can we turn it down a bit?

Dan, you're right.

So let me just direct one final comment to Kari before dropping the whole matter:

Is it really the policy of BlueOregon to invite people to post copyrighted matter here that you know is only available by subscription with the understanding in advance that you will take it down if the copyright holder complains?

Jack: Let me direct one final comment at you before dropping the matter:

Is it really your personal policy to excuse blatant plagiarism on the part of Oregon State Legislators and brush it off as nothing, not even worthy of a slap on the wrist?

Is it really your personal policy to excuse blatant plagiarism on the part of Oregon State Legislators and brush it off as nothing, not even worthy of a slap on the wrist?

Yes, and if you watch carefully, I believe you will see that nothing will come of this because there is nothing to it.