The Beaver State has oscillated as wildly as any state over the past twenty years. In 1988 the state voted for Michael Dukakis. Over time it came back to the Republicans, and was pretty much at the national average. Since then it has gone back to the Democrats. It is still the most Republican of the West Coast states, but it is certainly a Democratic state on balance. The President carried it easily and Democrat Jeff Merkley knocked off moderate Republican Senator Gordon Smith.
In 2010, most of the action here should center around the open gubernatorial race. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden is up as well, but he seems invulnerable. Republicans need to get a better foothold here, and perhaps the Governor’s Mansion is the place to do that.
President - 7 Electoral Votes
2000: Al Gore (D) 47%, George Bush (R) 47%
2004: John Kerry (D) 51%, Pres. George Bush (R) 47%
2008: Barack Obama (D) 57%, John McCain (R) 41%
It’s hard to remember that George W. Bush only lost Oregon by 6,775 votes in 2000. The state is only about three to four points more Democratic than the national average however. Democrats continue to dominate Portland and Republicans still dominate Eastern Oregon. The difference has come in increased Democratic margins in the suburbs and in non-Portland Western Oregon. The state would probably go Republican in a good Republican year, but it is not really a battleground state since the Democrats would almost certainly win it in an even election.
Governor - Ted Kulongoski (D)
1998: Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) 64%, Bill Sizemore (R) 30%
2002: Ted Kulongoski (D) 49%, Kevin Mannix (R) 46%
2006: Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) 51%, Ron Saxton (R) 43%
Kulongoski cannot run for reelection. Bill Bradbury has already announced his candidacy for the Democrats. Representative Peter DeFazio may run as well. Republicans are hoping to get either Gordon Smith or Representative Greg Walden to run.
In Oregon, Democrats generally start out with a small advantage. Smith or Walden would be good candidates. In fact, Smith beat Bradbury for Senate in 2002. This race is a tossup as of right now, until the candidate situation crystallizes.
Senior Senator - Ron Wyden (D)
1992: Sen. Bob Packwood (R) 52%, Les AuCoin (D) 47%
1996 special: Ron Wyden (D) 48%, Gordon Smith (R) 47%
1998: Sen. Ron Wyden (D) 61%, John Lim (R) 34%
2004: Sen. Ron Wyden (D) 63%, Al King (R) 32%
Wyden is likely invulnerable, and Republicans really do not have a candidate, so it is hard to see this being much of a race in 2010.
Junior Senator - Jeff Merkley (D)
1996: Gordon Smith (R) 50%, Tom Bruggere (D) 46%
2002: Sen. Gordon Smith (R) 56%, Bill Bradbury (D) 40%
2008: Jeff Merkley (D) 49%, Sen. Gordon Smith (R) 46%
Merkley did not really impress anybody in 2008, but he couldn’t lose an election in Oregon in a year like 2008. I would expect him to be targeted in 2014 if Republicans have recovered some basic competence by then.
House 1 - David Wu (D)
2004: Rep. David Wu (D) 58%, Goli Ameri (R) 38%
2006: Rep. David Wu (D) 63%, Derrick Kitts (R) 34%
2008: Rep. David Wu (D) unopposed
Wu survived charges of sexual misconduct a few years ago and is now totally safe in this Democratic leaning suburban Portland seat.
House 2 - Greg Walden (R)
2004: Rep. Greg Walden (R) 72%, John McColgan (D) 26%
2006: Rep. Greg Walden (R) 67%, Carol Voisin (D) 30%
2008: Rep. Greg Walden (R) 70%, Noah Lemas (D) 26%
This overwhelmingly Republican district will stay with the GOP even if Walden leaves.
House 3 - Earl Blumenauer (D)
2004: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D) 71%, Tami Mars (R) 24%
2006: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D) 73%, Bruce Broussard (R) 23%
2008: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D) 75%, Delia Lopez (R) 21%
The bow-tied Blumenauer can ride his bike to the Capitol as long as he wants.
House 4 - Peter DeFazio (D)
2004: Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) 61%, Jim Feldkamp (R) 38%
2006 :Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) 62%, Jim Feldkamp (R) 38%
2008: Rep. Peter DeFazio (D) unopposed
DeFazio is safe, but this Eugene/Southwest Oregon seat would be a total tossup if he leaves.
House 5 - Kurt Schrader (D)
2004: Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) 53%, Jim Zupancic (R) 44%
2006: Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) 54%, Mick Erickson (R) 43%
2008: Kurt Schrader (D) 54%, Mike Erickson (R) 38%
This Portland/Salem seat would be a good target for Republicans. They need to get a better candidate than Erickson, but if they did Schrader could go down in a more GOP friendly political environment. If I had to bet, though, I’d stick with Schrader.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
State of the Day - Oregon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
76% OF OREGON VOTERS SUPPORT A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER 2008 POLL
A survey of 800 Oregon voters conducted on December 16-17, 2008 showed 76% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 82% among Democrats, 70% among Republicans, and 72% among independents.
By age, support was 67% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 82% among 46-65 year olds, and 76% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 81% among women and 71% among men.
By race, support was 87% among whites (representing 89% of respondents), 59% among African-Americans (representing 3% of respondents), and 80% among Hispanics (representing 2% of respondents), and 69% among Others (representing 6% of respondents).
see www.NationalPopularVote.com
Post a Comment