Governor’s race a close one

New Moore Information Poll, see details here.

Poll shows Oregon’s governor’s race to be tied!!!!

Ron Saxton, Rep. 38%
Ted Kulongoski, Dem.38%
Mary Starrett, Const. 3%
Richard Morley, Lib. 1%
Joe Keating, Pacific Gr.1%
None 3%
Don’t know 16%

Folks, we have a tight race before us. What does this mean? How did the race get so close? Is this poll too early to matter? What needs to be done for each candidate to break and hold the lead? Who are these “don’t know” people?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:13 | Posted in Measure 37 | 24 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • qw

    16% don’t know. Does that mean ‘undecided’ or ‘never will know’ or ‘don’t care to know’?

  • Anonymous

    This poll doesn’t match the last polls done by national polling organizations (Rasmussen and Zogby) which showed Ted far in the lead. Will be interesting to see what they come up with next time out.

  • JTT

    New Rasmussen poll has the race at 47/38…why is that?
    http://www.pollster.com/polls/?state=OR&race=governor_race

  • Captain An-on

    it is interesting there is such a large disparity. I do see that the Moore Information Poll was conducted FOR the Saxton supporters, so maybe that plays a roll in it.

  • Chris McMullen

    I have to admit, even though I’m a Saxton supporter, it doesn’t look good for Ron. Teddy’s approval is dismally pathetic — Saxton should be kicking Ted’s butt.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=150a5eb0-77d1-45a4-b2ec-3aefd0122eca

    What gives?

    • Anonymous

      Saxton hurt himself at the outset with his stupid plan to fire all the state employees. Then he dropped this “plan”. Then he couldn’t make up his mind about Measure 48. He’s against it, but he won’t explain why, and he says he can live with it. Then, in today’s Oregonian, a story about a “rainy day fund”. Ron says he’s in favor of one, but says he has no plan, but it should be no problem. On the other hand, Ted has a very specific plan. Like it or not, he acts like a guy who can make up his mind and has a real plan for governing. Saxton acts like he’s in a fog.

  • Let us remeber that Mannix was over 20 points down at Labor Day four uear ago and closed to within a few points by election time.

    Anywhere inside of 10 points this early is an indication of a winnable race. So whether you like Rasmussen or Moore, Ted is in deep trouble.

    At least the Republicans Governors Association must think so, because suddenly Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are showing up in Oregon at Saxton fundraisers.

    Ron’s ads using Sleepy Ted’s own words about not raising taxes is powerful to a state that squashed Measure 30 like the ugly bug it was.

    Now, Ron just has to keep reminding people of Ted’s stance on M 30 and watch him do a little exteminating at Mahonia Hall.

  • Anonymous

    We shall see. It all depends on how they do in the debates once they get going. I thought Mannix was impressive on that score four years ago. I really hoped he would make it, but it was not to be.

    In his public appearances and ads, Saxton just does not impress me. (Not using apostrophes because the comments editor does not seem to allow them, does anyone else have this problem?)

  • Capt An-on

    *Anywhere inside of 10 points this early is an indication of a winnable race. So whether you like Rasmussen or Moore, Ted is in deep trouble.*

    I don’t equate winnable with deep trouble. i think saxton has gained ground, but considering the field is already cleared out (Mannix still had other challangers 4 years ago when he was 20 down) i wouldn’t say Ted is in deep trouble. Especially since he hasn’t started running ads yet (Not that i’ve seen anyway) and the state leans demo. But i’d say the race is closer

    • Anonymous

      It will come down to who seems the better of two unimpressive people. Given the advantages of incumbency and being in a Democratic state, I don’t see Ted losing it unless Saxton starts to look clearly more impressive. And I just don’t see it. He’s far less articulate and focused than Mannix four years ago, and Mannix just squeaked within range. And that was when Ted was just a candidate, not the incumbent.

      I predict Ted wins by 8 points.

  • sally

    it means rinowatch and starret will need to re double their efforts to get kulongoski relected and send their “message”

    a message no one will hear

    • Anonymous

      If Saxton doesn’t win, he can only blame himself and not starret or anyone else. It will be because he wasn’t able to connect with enough people and have views a majority of the people support. responsibility needs to be taken, not the blame game.

      • Joe12Pack

        I know plenty of hardcore pro lifer’s and most (well, more than 50% anyway) are bright enough not to discard their votes on the Constipation Party candidate. Hell, might as well just vote Ted.

        These brilliant folk would have you believe that there’s not a lick of difference between reelecting Ted and voting for the Republican nominee. If you buy that, I’d like to talk to you about purchasing a few priceless items from me.

        These honyocks are the old Oregon Citizens Alliance folks wearing different outfits. I’m no fan of abortion or queer marriage either, but there’s a whole bunch of other stuff we need to get a handle on besides the department of vice & virtue. At days end, are you fool enough to vote for Starrett? Her slogan should be “Vote Ted By Proxy”.

  • I was actually suprised by Starret only having 3% thought she would have more with the pro-life croud being an important voting block. Personally I would like to see more pressure for her to back out, I know that we have to allow her to do her thing but we all know that nobody with 3% now can win but she can certainly cost Ron the election. Also there are a lot of voters still in the “dont care” group. I imagine a lot of those are GOP members. Nationwide there are huge tides of anti-GOP sentiment. If we calm those fears we win hands down.

    • Capt An-on

      Again, it’s Ron’s race to lose or win. He has to have a platform that meets the the constitutes beliefs and values. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t win, it’s as simple as that.

      And the truth of the matter is, there are A LOT of one or two issue citizens out there. some who will vote solely on a single issue or maybe two. Back in the 80’s, tons of pro-lifers would vote for anyone who was a staunch pro-lifer. Or those who wanted to stop the homosexual agenda. There are still tons of those types of voters. So, to them, since Ron is Pro-Choice, and also Pro-gay rights, they don’t see him as a viable canidate. Saxton is the exact same as Ted on several issues and if those are your bread and butter issues, those individuals won’t vote for either. That’s why it’s Ron’s race to lose, not Starret playing the spoiler. On another note, there are a ton of voters who vote only on the property rights issues. they dont’ care about the others, so they will vote for anyone who’s staunchly private rights. or gun rights. the truth is, the vast majority of the electorate could care less about all the issues – they focus on only a couple and vote solely on that. Just like the AARP voting for anyone who secures Social Security and helps them pay for perscriptions.

      Another twist is that many conservatives who are public employees normally would vote Republican. But since ted and ron are the same on gay rights and abortion, their sole issues becomes pers and treatment of public employees. And in that arena, lots are switching to ted because Rob has been very anti-public employee and has virtually declared war on them… just like the ads say. In fact, many have posted in these forums indicating they would vote for Ron but for his stance on firing all employees, gutting thier retirement, slashing thier wages etc.

      • state employee and once-Republican

        I agree, except I don’t see how it’s Ron race to lose. He’s not ahead. It’s Ted’s to lose at this point.

        You are absolutely right about public employees who would otherwise vote Republican. Like me. If Saxton is to win at all, it will be close. He needs every last vote he can get. He may have fatally wounded himself before it started with his foolish talk about firing all the state employees and hiring them back at lower compensation. He’s still talking about getting them to “agree” to this. How exactly is he going to do that?

        • Chris McMullen

          You do it for the good of the state. Layoffs and pay cuts happen all the time in the private sector, why should public employees be immune to this — just because you have a union contract on your side?

          PERS is bankrupting our state and we have a huge government class to take care of. Saxton is correct in trying to reign in public employee salaries, benefits and pensions.

          It amazes me how public employees seem to think they’re entitled to their job. They should be subject to the same dynamics found in private employment.

          • Anonymous

            It’s amazing to me you can’t get it through your skull that PERS HAS been changed Dramatically!!! In 2003. if you did a market analysis of public employees, i’m sure their salaries would be at or lower than the average. But it seems your theory is we should pay them as little as possible. why? why shouldn’t they get a decent living and benefits package? only in oregons economic crash were people complaining. they weren’t during the economic boom of the mid to late 90’s!!! PERS has been fixed and over time, will impact the state little. Health care is the biggest strain – but that’s not just for public employees, that’s for everyone.

            As for public employees feeling entitled: They SHOULD feel entitled to thier job if they are performing as they are supposed to. Just like you should get to keep your job if you are. How dare you assume the majority of public employees are morons and lazy. they are just like you or me, except that thier jobs are under intense scrutiney where as you can slip under the scope of the public eye no matter what mistakes you make. everyone is human, even public employees. get over it.

            I want to say one last time so hopefully it registers: *PERS WAS WHOLESALE CHANGED IN 2003. SINCE THEN, NO NEW EMPLOYEES ARE IN PERS, AND ALL MOENY PUT INTO PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENTS NO LONGER GOES INTO PERS.* Got it??

          • Chris McMullen

            PERS reformed? That’s rich!

            You call paying the equivalent of 23% of worker’s salaries for state pension benefits reform? Washington state pays 6% by comparison.

            Did you know the Oregon Supreme court overturned PERS reform rulings to the tune of $900 million?

            And maybe all state agencies should run internal audits — something they don’t do currently. Maybe some departments are way overstaffed. Did you ever think about that?

            I can’t wait until Saxton gets elected and initiates some privatization policies.

          • ex Oregon Republican

            Chris, there’s such a thing as a CONTRACT. One side to the CONTRACT cannot unilaterally change it. Not the governor, not the governor + legislature, not the union either.

            As for the 23% — you might not like the deal that was made, but it has been interpreted by the Oregon court as a CONTRACT. For the most part, it was upheld by the court. Not all, but most. Now Oregon is stuck paying it off, like it or not.

            Perhaps the State of Oregon would like to declare bankruptcy? It has a lot of assets it could sell off to pay off the CONTRACTORS.

            Anyhow, dream on about electing Ron and firing the state workers. My betting is he killed himself before it even began with his crazy talk.

          • Capt An-on

            Chris,

            Honestly, you need to look at the facts. PERS was changed dramatically. No new employees since 2003 have been admitted into PERS. They have a new system that is dramatically different. No guaranted 8%, no variable account, etc. It’s a personal savings type of account similar to a 401K, which i’ve seen you advocate on here numerous times.

            As the ex Oregon Repub guy said, it is a contract – one that NO ONE SIDE CAN UNILATERALLY CHANGE. Like it or not (which you obviously don’t), you can’t change it without the ok from both sides. Just like when you buy goods from a store on a debit card, they can’t suddenly raise the price on you, nor can you suddenly only ok half the payment. The way it works, is *over time* PERS members will be phased out. Long term, PERS is over. However, currently, the state will uphold it’s end of the bargain to those currently retired and those who were under the system.

            but again, all new employees *ARE NOT ON PERS*. Got that? They are not on PERS. get over it. you can’t retroactively cut someones wage or employment package. you can only change from the present forward – which has been done. PERS has been completely changed. Do you understand this now?

            I don’t care what Washington or California or Florida pays for pensions. I don’t live there. if you like it better, seriously, move. you complain so much about Oregon it’s a wonder you choose to live here. You have the ability to choose to live here or move. If it’s so doomsday and you can’t live with it, well, thank God you have the ability to change your situation. Many don’t.

            Internal Audits? Yes, i agree, they should do that. Perhaps even outside audits. But please, you have no idea if they are over staffed or understaffed. Did you ever think of that? you’re not working in all the departments so all you have to go on is partisan tripe about government being over funded and over staffed and under performing. but the truth is, you have no evidence of any. it’s all a gut feeling to you. and because you hate government, and hate government employees, you look at government through your tinted glasses and assume they are overstaffed. Well, i have a feeling most departments are understaffed. There is a backlog at the State crime lab of DNA testing that will take years to catch up to; the Oregon State Police have fewer troopers now than they did in 1975, and the populaiton has what, doubled? State social workers have over 100 cases per employee. you think they can adequately protect the children they are assigned and asked to manage? The state has about 3 employees working on the thousands of Measure 37 claims. How many claims are there now? 2500? that speaks nothing of the local situation…. where most jurisdictions have been going through 3-6 straight years of cuts.

            Saxton wouldn’t be able to privatize half of what he wants to, if that. Contracts won’t allow him to. State Law won’t allow him too. We all saw what happened when the Portland Public School District (of which he was a board member i believe) broke a contract with thier janitors. service plummeted in the schools AND the district lost a costly legal battle because they broke the law and ended a contract that was legally binding. how much did THAT cost tax payers? Millions

            it would be nice to privatize some things, but let’s be real: most functions served by the government should not be privatized. Privitization would bring in more corruption, back room deals, and less services than we have now. And, the lawsuits would cost us millions.

            Saxton still hasn’t given us ANY plan on how he plans to reduce costs by 10% while maintaining the same levels of service, reducing waste AND increasing funding to many programs. Sorry, he hasn’t shown ANY proof that what he promises is even Feasible.

          • Brian Mullen

            *You do it for the good of the state. Layoffs and pay cuts happen all the time in the private sector, why should public employees be immune to this — just because you have a union contract on your side?*

            It seems to me cutting back services and employees would hurt the state – not be for the good of it. As it is, there was an article in the paper just the other day that indicated businesses don’t like to locate to oregon because of the education system.

            And yes, contracts are just that – contracts. they can’t be broken. we need to respect them. I personally think people need to stop being so selfish and realize that services require funding. Taxes pay for parks, recreation, streets, administrative fees etc. If government were like the private sector, they would start charging what it really costs to run things – which they don’t do. few departments charge what they should to recover costs. and if they did, the citizens would go crazy.

            Chris, if we need to do things for the good of the state, then perhaps start by paying extra to the state to help cover the losses and funding gaps perhaps? If everyone contributed, then it might help

          • Anonymous2

            I think it is time for a change, and while Ron has ticked off some folks, he still represents a higher level of integrity than the incumbent. Sleepy Ted promised to work within the existing state budget, and furthermore that he would support no higher taxes, but it appears he has broken both promises numerous times. I’m on PERS, have been a public employee for 35 years, and can’t see how Ted is doing any better than Ron could.

  • Don

    I agree. He shot himself in the foot with me when he pulled that stunt. And as said before, with he and Ted so similar on issues, i’ll vote for Ted because i think it is unfair to fire us public workers because you dont like our contracts. it doesn’t work that way. an agreement is an agreement. keeping that is called integrity.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)