Congress Poll: Schrader losing over Bruun

Congress Poll: Schrader losing over Bruun
From Scott Bruun Campaign

Yet another poll shows Congressman Kurt Schrader posting weak numbers and provides encouraging news for State Rep. Scott Bruun. The recent poll taken for the American Action Network shows voters in Oregon’s 5th district are increasingly dissatisfied with the first-term incumbent and are inclined to favor a Republican candidate in this year’s election.

Here are the key take-aways from this poll:

– Only 32% of voters are inclined to re-elect Kurt Schrader, while 44% say they favor giving a new person a chance.
– Undecided voters favor a new person 40% to 2%.
– Independent voters favor a Republican candidate 30% to 23%.
– The generic ballot among “absolutely certain” voters provides Republicans a wider margin 40% to 35%
– Voters undecided between Bruun and Schrader favor a Republican by better than a 2 to 1 margin.
– Support for Bruun is also likely understated in that the poll failed to list that Bruun is the Republican and Independent party nominee.

“These reports continue to show what we’ve known for some time—Oregonians are tired of Democrats’ out-of-control spending and don’t want to settle for the reckless agenda of this Congress. Kurt Schrader has failed to bring much-needed jobs to Oregon and instead has worked right alongside Nancy Pelosi to strap Oregonians with debt that will take generations to pay off. Voters will make a choice this November, and numbers like this prove that extending Pelosi’s reign of irresponsible spending and failed policies is not the choice that Oregonians will make.” –Alee Lockman, Scott Bruun for Congress spokeswoman

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

Posted by at 11:29 | Posted in Measure 37 | 23 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Anonymous

    In Bruun just a word to the wise; beware of Bruun and his support of a Sales Tax for Oregon which could translate into supporting a National VAT tax. You’ve been made aware.

    • The Bill Post Radio Show

      “Bruun and his support of a Sales Tax for Oregon”.
      Hmm…that was a wonderful rumor at one time, since debunked multiple times.
      Scott Bruun has, on MANY occasions, as recently as last week on my show, said AGAIN, IF Oregon were to remove the other two legs of the tax stool, Income and Property tax, THEN he would be for a sales tax.
      He has NEVER said he is for a sales tax in addition to current taxes.
      I will be glad to provide the audio, please provide the proof of what you say he says.

      • Anonymous

        “Of course, nobody likes consumption taxes, including me. But isn’t a tax paid by choice, like a sales tax, inherently better than an income tax in which we really have no choice?”

        Scott Bruun, The Oregonian Stump @ 12-17/12-18-07

        Sounds like Bruun was advocating for a sales tax.

        • The Bill Post Radio Show

          And so your point??? Did he not right in that quote say “BETTER THAN AN INCOME TAX”?
          sheesh, sometimes ya really gotta point out the obvious.
          As I said, he wants the other two legs of the three legged tax stool removed first THEN he’d be for a sales tax. This is a dead issue. Let’s ask Kurt Schrader where he stands on taxes…

          • Anonymous

            My point is this Post, A true Conservative does not want a sales tax in Oregon under any circumstances and that Scott Bruun supported the concept of a sales tax.

            If you’ll read my first comment that’s what I said without qualifying the circumstances.

            You said, “He has NEVER said he is for a sales tax”……he’s too cute by half with the “stool” bit.

            Beware of Bruun and his interest in a consumption tax.

            Just curious, did Bruun support the recent increases in DMV fees?

  • Russ Kelley

    Generic ballot lines and highly specific cross-tabs in September? How useless. Where’s the head-to-head? Assuming it’s not so good since you didn’t provide it.

  • Anonymous

    BTW, I don’t give a damn about Schrader, I already know he’s liberal and can’t be trusted. It’s guys like Starr & George (Bruun) who vote to raise DMV fees and gas taxes that concern me.

    • valley p

      I would not worry about it. If Bruun gets elected he will be a very junior member of a very radical, irresponsible political party that is against any tax on anything for any reason. Scott and the Republican party in Congress are about as likely to raise taxes as a fish is likely to grow wings and fly.

      No taxes and no real plan or will to cut spending on anything important adds up to continued federal fiscal irresponsibility. Its the antithesis of conservatism, but this is what the Republican party is all about and Scott Bruun will unfortunately fit squarely into that slot if he knows what is good for him, if not the nation.

      • Columbia County Kid

        I agree that no plan to either raise taxes or cut spending is the antithesis of conservatism (which is surely what we need, don’t you agree valley p?) and federal fiscal responsbility. So what do Schrader and the Democrats plan to do about it – they’re in charge right now – where’s the spending cuts or tax hikes? Are they also radical and irresponsible?

        Despite the rhetoric, the truth is that Congressional leaders of both parties are irresponsible. I’d rather give someone new a chance then keeping someone who’s already proven his unwillingness to buck party leadership or think for himself.

        • valley p

          The evidence is that at this point in time the Democrats are more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. First, the only president to submit and run balanced budgets over the past 30 years was a Democrat. Second, when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they deficit funded the whole thing. When Democrats passed Obamacare they raised more in taxes and cut more in spending than they added.

          The spending cuts and tax hikes are coming. Democrats have advocated letting part of the Bush tax cuts, which created the deficit mess, expire. Republicans are of course against this. If democrats remain in power they will raise other taxes to pay for government. Democrats will not cut much spending other than for winding down the wars. But neither will Republicans, and if anything they want more wars (Iran).

          I know Scott Bruun and I think he is a good guy and a decent politician. But don’t fool yourself. You are not electing someone new or different. You are adding one more Republican vote for irresponsible Republican budgeting. Bruun is not going to buck his party either.

        • eagle eye

          Things seem to go best with a divided government — e.g. the Reagan and the later Clinton years. Seems to make everyone behave more responsibly and with more consideration of the approximately other half of the country.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Anonymous:*

    “Of course, nobody likes consumption taxes, including me. But isn’t a tax paid by choice, like a sales tax, inherently better than an income tax in which we really have no choice?”

    Scott Bruun, The Oregonian Stump @ 12-17/12-18-07

    Sounds like Bruun was advocating for a sales tax.

    *Bob T:*

    No, it sounds like he was simply explaining why a sales tax is the best of the three main
    taxes used to obtain revenues. Why would he say that it’s “better than an income tax”
    and imply that it’s “better” to have both than just the one? You make no sense. But
    then, you got straightened out by Mr. Post and you won’t admit it.

    Bob Tiernan
    NE Portland

  • Bob Tiernan

    *valley boy:*

    First, the only president to submit and run balanced budgets over the past 30 years was a Democrat.

    *Bob T:*

    You seem to forget that a major, perhaps THE major player in getting those budgets
    on the road to being balanced, was congressional budgeting leaders like John
    Kasich (soon-to-be governor of Ohio). No president has enough say or knowledge
    of the details to be able to submit such a detailed budget. And what he “submitted”
    had to be restrained by what he by then knew was Republican guidelines regarding
    reining in spending over a period of x-number of years in order to bring it in line’
    with projected revenues.

    This nonsense about Clinton being the sole player and reason we had a balanced
    budget is ridiculous.

    *valley boy:*

    Second, when the Republicans passed Medicare Part D, they deficit funded the whole thing. When Democrats passed Obamacare they raised more in taxes and cut more in spending than they added.

    *Bob T:*

    More nonsense. Taxes for ObamaCare start this year whereas outlays don’t start for
    several years. The OMB report, which had to based on the data supplied, reflected
    this rather tha a ten-year period in which both outlays and revenues exist.

    No surprise that you were fooled by this kind of shell game and parlor trick
    nonsense that the mainstream media (plus Air America type shows) never
    challenged.

    Bob T

    • valley p

      Oh no…he called me “boy”! I am devastated by this. Knocked over by a rhetorical feather.

      So John Kaisich is responsible for balancing the federal budgets during the Clinton years? That is your story? I could make an argument here, but given my diminished status as a mere “boy,” and given the level of delusion that would credit a single Congressman of the opposite party for such a feat…well I don’t know where to begin. Its like telling a Schizoid that those voices in his head are not real. They sure seem real to him.

      The Democratic Congress under a Democratic president passed a major tax raise in 1993 without a single Republican vote. Republicans, presumably including so-called conservative Kaisich, boldly predicted this tax raise would destroy the American economy. In contrast, we had the best post war sustained growth since the 60s, revenues went way up, spending was held down, with the Clinton Administration being the only one in recent memory that ended with fewer federal workers on the payroll at the end then at the beginning (I was one of the ones who left). No question Clinton and the economy got a bit lucky with the kicking in of the high tech economy. Nevertheless, facts are facts, and smart people turn luck into profit. One president out of the last 5 balanced the budget, and he was a liberal Democrat. 3 out of 3 Republicans ran enormous deficits, including that hero of conservatives, Ronald Reagan. The other Democrat ran pretty mild deficits amidst a deteriorating economy.

      “More nonsense. Taxes for ObamaCare start this year whereas outlays don’t start for
      several years. The OMB report, which had to based on the data supplied, reflected
      this rather tha a ten-year period in which both outlays and revenues exist.”

      I think you mean CBO, not OMB. Nevertheless, facts are facts. The 10 year projection is that Obamacare is a net plus to the federal budget. The out year projections for Obamacare show even greater surpluses than the first 10 years, which negates your argument about cooked books. Medicare Part D, the Bush-Republican program, is projected to run a net $400 billion deficit over 10 years. Thanks to Obamacare, which got rid of a wasteful private sector subsidy within Medicare put there by Republicans, this self-inflicted budget hole is now closed, along with better delivery of drugs to seniors. Medicare solvency has been extended 10 years further thanks to Obamacare. This is what happens when you put a party in charge actually interested in delivering government services to the people efficiently.

      There is no empirical evidence…none…that the Republican party is more fiscally responsible than the Democratic Party. There is plenty of empirical evidence in the other direction. The only parlor trick is Republican rhetoric about trusting them next time. Its nonsense. Read the fine print on the label “Bobby”. Name for us a single thing Republicans will cut if and when they regain a measure of power. SSI? No way. Medicare? Not a chance. The military? No again. TARP? Too late. Its already being paid back, including te auto bailout loans. Stimulus? Already spent. Regulations? Until the next salmonella outbreak. Agriculture subsidies? A few Midwestern Republican senators might have something to say about that. Boondoggle projects in Alaska? I doubt it, unless they are dumb enough to elect Miller and cut their own throats.

      So do yourself a favor and do the math before you vote.

      • eagle eye

        The “boy” stuff seems to be catching on here. True colors? Take a look at the thread under the latest Lars Larson piece.

        For the rest, alas, you are delusive on the economy.

        • valley p

          I am “delusive” or Bob is?

          I’m empirical. I’ve seen zero evidence over the past 30 years that Republicans are economically conservative. I’ve seen some evidence that Democrats are. Show me otherwise. I’m open to a fact based argument.

          • eagle eye

            You are delusive on the economy. The effects of Obamacare.

            The spending restraint in the Clinton years was a joint effect of the Republican Congress and the President. Of course, the tremendous economic boom was responsible too. When the internet bubble burst, it was good-bye surplus.

            Actually, the entire period 1981-2000 was one long boom, punctuated by a couple of small recessions. It might have gone on until 2008, if not for 9/11 and the damage that did to the economy, the war, all the rest. The economic policies initiated by Reagan — tax cuts, spending restraint, responsible money — were in effect the whole time, until Bush II let go of the spending restraint. Reagan got elected largely because of the horrible mess the economy was in. Of course, he initiated large deficits, but that was with a deliberate, cunning plan. Gradually, the deficits were reduced, first under Reagan, then Bush, then Clinton. Again, the policies were pretty constant. Reagan drastically lowered tax rates. Bush continued with these, and so did Clinton. The Clinton tax increases were not that big, they didn’t really change the overall picture. And, don’t forget, Clinton also lowered capital gains taxes, largely ameliorating the effect of the income tax rate increases.

  • Anonymous

    *valley boy:*

    So John Kaisich is responsible for balancing the federal budgets during the Clinton years? That is your story?

    *Bob T:*

    Read it again. You’ll clearly see that I used a plural for congressional leaders.

    Fact is that this sort of news or data is boring to most people, and just as boring to
    journalists. But people like journalists, and you, are stuck on this simpleton notion
    that presidents deserve total credit for balanced budgets or surpluses, or blame
    for deficits, as if both houses of congress have members and committees and
    back door dealmaking that has no effect.

    You’re also stuck on the idea that deficits and surpluses and revenues are
    based solely on specific tax rates on what I gather is a set number of
    people being taxed. But the fact is that economic activity generates
    this regardless of what specific tax rates are, and in the late 80s and well
    into the 90s the economic health of this country (as a revenue source for
    government, for this discussion) had a lot to do with Reagan’s policies
    in that investments for retooling and startups and all that were making
    their impact. But I guess people like you think that a president’s
    influence on an economy ends with a couple of months after leaving
    office. Smart people know otherwise.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • valley p

      “Actually, the entire period 1981-2000 was one long boom”

      Your memory is not backed up by facts. The recession that began under Reagan did not end until November 1982. Then there was another recession under Bush 1. Describing that period as a long boom with a few small recessions is nonsense. First, the entire history of the American economy can be described that way. Growth is the norm for 8 years out of 10. Even the Great Depression was mostly economic growth, but back up a long steep hill from a very severe drop.

      Spending restraint under Reagan? I missed that. Regan’s spending at the end of his term was higher than Carters as a percentage of GDP.

      The deficits were “reduced” under Regan? he started with a deficit of 2.5% of GDP. He ended with one that was 5% of GDP. And it got even worse under Bush 1. So what was reduced?

      The only time over the past 30 years the deficit actually got reduced was under Clinton, and that was after a significant tax raise passed without a single Republican vote. Keep calling me delusional, but this is reality. Yes, both Clinton and Congress “restrained” spending. But that same Republican Congress immediately stopped restraining itself once Bush 2 was elected. That suggests they had no real appetite for cutting government. Only a few parts of government they hated, like financial and environmental regulations. Medicare Part D added to the welfare state for seniors. Cynical at best.

      It is true that Reaga’;s tax increase, after his tax cut, was larger than Clintons. Its also true that in both cases economic growth followed tax increases. So much for supply-side theory.

      Bobby writes: “But people like journalists, and you, are stuck on this simpleton notion
      that presidents deserve total credit for balanced budgets or surpluses”

      I don’t know about people like me, but speaking only for myself no, that is not what I believe. That is why I said Clinton was in part very lucky to be President when the high tech boom kicked in. Presidents surf economic waves and troughs, they do not and cannot create ocean conditions. They lack that much power in our system,, which is a good thing. They can only work with what they are handed and craft policies that affect things at the margins. Nevertheless, the margins are important because they mean a point or 2 on inflation and a point or 2 on unemployment and GDP. And politically, the margins mean a lot because whether fair or not, Presidents are given full credit or blame for economic conditions every 2 or 4 years.

      “But I guess people like you think that a president’s
      influence on an economy ends with a couple of months after leaving
      office. Smart people know otherwise.”

      So tell me oh smart person…what are the current effects of the Bush legacy? What great things did he leave us with? And is the current unemployment rate the fault of Obama? Or do you absolve him?

  • Bob Tiernan

    *eagle eye:*

    Actually, the entire period 1981-2000 was one long boom

    *valley boy:*

    Your memory is not backed up by facts. The recession that began under Reagan did not end until November 1982.

    *Bob T:*

    Oh, so it was 82-00 instead? i8 instead of 19 years? How terrible.

    But anyway, you’re playing your game again with recessions and the
    presidents who may or may not have “caused” them. Under Carter
    towards the end, extremely high inflation and interest rates (interest
    reached 20% at one point, and inflation was in the teens) had a
    terrible effect on the economy even after he left. If I recall
    correctly, there was a six month “growth” period about the time
    Reagan came in, and tnen it sank again before Carter’s final budget
    (with Carternomics) ended in Sept, 81. Neither Reahan nor
    anyone else following Carter could have done much to prevent
    the 81-82 recession.

    *valley boy:*

    So tell me oh smart person…what are the current effects of the Bush legacy? What great things did he leave us with? And is the current unemployment rate the fault of Obama? Or do you absolve him?

    *Bob T:*

    I’ve never given any good marks to Bush for economic policies, but I do recognize that he and all other modern presidents have operated in an economic structure that is too heavy with controls that squash growth in many areas and in many individuals in ways that can never be measured. So we go from recession to recession while economic liberties are curtailed because government wants to
    get credit for everything. Even when we have growth, I see the US economy as too un-dynamic and distorted due to government.

    The housing bubble was a huge cause of our current woes (and it started, at least this phase, under Bush who of course wasn’t paying much attention sicne he’s a member of one of the two major parties that have screwed things up), but I’m wondering if you attribute any of the cause of the current mess to people like Sen Dodd and Rep Barney Frank (and many Repubs) who kept
    Fanny and Freddie going (good intentions or not), knowing that they’d escape blame from
    most peiople because they’re just mere legislators who’ll get credit for good news but no
    blame for bad news (and a huge cushy pension either way). US gov’t policies for housing
    has been a net negative in many ways, because most of the lawmakers are economic
    morons. How did this policy help homeowners (or would-be homeowners) when the prices
    of houses kept rising higher and higher? Gee, how’d that help? That really worked!
    It would have been better to let housing sales be what they would be under real and not
    warped market forces. But then, politicians wouldn’t know how to get votes from that
    policy.

    As for Obama, he is an economic illiterate, and I blame him for not knowing what to do these past 18 months, thus making things worse in many ways.

    Bob Tiernan
    NE Portland

    • valley p

      No Bobby…is was not 18 instead of 19 years. There was a recession under Reagan that lasted 18 months, and another under Bush 1 that lasted nearly a year, and another right after Clinton, making for 3 in a 20 year period. Counting the most recent one, 4 in a 28 year period, or 1 every 7 years, which is about the average for the entire history of the US.

      (You can fudge the recession interval by starting at the end of the Reagan recession and ending your period before the start of the Clinton-Bush 2 recession. That way you had an 18 year period with only 1 recession, so it looks real good. But all you did was manipulate the start and end dates).

      Yes, inflation was high under Carter. it was also high under Ford and Nixon. Oil price shocks and the decline of the dollar resulted in inflation. Carter appointed Volker and he jacked up interest rates. Reagan stayed with that program until inflation was controlled, at a very high price in unemployment by the way. The 81-82 recession was not inevitable. it was a policy choice. The recession could have been delayed or lessened by choosing to live with a higher inflation rate, but bankers hate high inflation rates, even though they are good for most workers as long as they don’t get too high.

      “I’ve never given any good marks to Bush for economic policies”

      OK that is a start. Now tell me what the current crop of Republicans are proposing that is any different than what Bush proposed and implemented. Deregulation, tax cuts at the upper end, and a phony restraint on “spending” that will never materialize. Fool me once…..

      Modern presidents operate within a “controlled” macro economy because when it was uncontrolled it was far worse for people’s lives. And the people decided a long time ago they did not want to live with an Ayn Rand economy. Republicans and so-called conservatives make free market noises but they do not believe in it for a New York minute. We live in a semi-free market, semi government managed economy. That is reality. We just experimented with fewer controls and that did not work out so well in the 1930s, nor did it work in the 2000s.

      Do I attribute the housing bubble and bust to Dodd and or Frank? No. They were both out of power during the entire run up. Their influence was near zero. Would they have done any better had they been in power? Probably not. The housing bubble was a great way to mask the big problems in the American economy. Everyone felt richer for a few years. It was like a frat kegger. Who would walk into a frat party and say….”hey you guys, what about the way you will feel tomorrow?” Only a dork who would not be elected to anything.

      The American government, both parties, have been subsidizing the American dream of suburban home ownership since the end of WW2. Pointing at FMAC is fine, but you can also point to tax write offs on mortgage interest, the GI bill, the Interstate highway system, substandard loans and a lot of other policies that promoted home ownership. The core problem was that for a while housing because easy money, so to much investment flowed into assets that lacked the value. Tulip mania. Capitalism does this sort of thing with or without government. If it was not housing it would be Amazon.com (1990s) or commercial real estate (1980s) or gold (happening as we speak).

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)