Surprise! OR turn-out down. Obama down. Plus SOS-Tres. poll

The Statesman Journal reports that voter turn-out is down. Turn-out at 24% compared to 30% (2004). Multnomah County is down 8%.

Sec. of State: Kate Brown = 38%, Rick Dancer = 32%
Treasurer: Ben Westlund = 39%, Allen Alley = 28%

Gallup poll has Obama up +2%
Rasmussen poll has Obama only up +3%

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

Posted by at 07:11 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Sagano

    Why is Dancer so close and Alley behind when Alley is a much more polished candidate and has raised more, spent more, has more signs and traveled more, recieved more endorsements than Dancer. Is Dancer running a shadow campaign or something or is it his darling looks? What gives?

    • Alan

      Consider that people have not seen any campaign ads for Kate Brown. They may be there,but me and my neighbors have not seen a single one compared to the Primary

  • Bob

    And Nate Silver points out the decrease is bigger in Republican counties. Ouch.

    • Annoyed

      Screw 538. It’s for libs and by libs. I know both of the guys, Nate Silver and Sean Quinn. They’re Rat-boinkers for the DNC.

  • Sagano

    Yet Multnomah County is down higher than the state average. That is the biggest county in the state and among the the most blue.

  • John Fairplay

    Frankly, if I were a pollster, I’d be pretty embarrassed about releasing a poll as “news” that showed “undecided” leading all candidates.

    My guess is that Dancer has done a better job – somehow – of reaching out to Republicans. Brown, Westlund and Dancer appear to have their partisans on board, but not much of anyone else. Alley is viewed a bit skeptically by the Republican base, but I expect them to come around by election day.

    • Alan

      The pollsters will be embarassed if they are wrong. Otherwise they get a free pass up to election day.

      • kenny

        pollsters never get a free pass. They can only make so many msitakes before their reputation is ruined.

  • Crawdude

    Its is still going to take a miracle for McCain to win. On top of many other foolish decisions, he chose to only use public funds after Sept.

    Obama raised 604 million, McCain had 84.3 million becauise of his bad decision. On top of that Obama just went back on his pledge not to use public money and just applied for it.

    Obama’s people have been 2 steps ahead of McCain for the entire election, why he is further ahead is dumb founding.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Exactly, and that is the silver lining of an Obama win – it will most likely be by a fairly small margin. If so its remarkable. He is outspending McCain by orders of magnitude and has a press that wont report on anything that would tarnish his campaign, yet will have front page stories about Palins wardrobe. Combine this with the fact that McCain wouldn’t go on offense until the last debate and thus is about as close to a second string candidate as the Dems could hope for. I mean he has Bob doles people running his campaign for gods sake, and Obama can only manage a few point lead? Wow!

      So, that’s what I am taking away from this, even with a perfect storm economically for the Dems, the press, and outspending by huge amounts they will in all likelihood win by single digits.

      That says a lot about the strength of their ideas. But even better, that says a lot about the post election process. The Dems will be just giddy that they finally control everything. When did this last happen? Well, the closest was 1992, and look at how nutty they got then? Gun control and National Health care, immediate tax raises for everyone two weeks in and new taxes on the way. Remember way back when with the BTU tax, when we were going to have fuel coloured every colour of the rainbow?

      Well, that’s what’s going to happen upon a Obama victory. They will overplay their hand and the public will spank them pretty good for it. Its going to be 1994 all over again.

      Predications – wow, really going out on a limb here – watch the sell off from election day until Jan 20th. You think people are going to wait to be hit with Obama’s new raised capitol gains taxes? Wow, and gee, economic dunces like Obama will be scratching their heads:

      “Ah ahhhh Ah, I don’t understand it…..ah Ah…how is it you can raises tax rates…ah…. and see decreasing revenues as a result…ah..Ah?”

      “Because Mr. President, “social justice” don’t pay the doctor bills, you know when you have some old cars up on blocks in your front yard?”

      “Ahh ah ahhh….. I wouldn’t know about that…Ah…ah that’s always been below my pay grade”

      “Work with me… do you think you will sell more cars if you raise the price on each one or lower it”

      “Ah… ahh.. let me think…ahhhhhhh…. would the answer be lower it, because people will then see you are selling cars that people can afford… they will….ah Ah…. want to buy from you because you are obviously interested more in peoples needs rather than the injustice of high profits?”

      “I think I am beginning to see the reason for all those “Ahhhs” Mr. President”

      “Ah.ah…Sometimes complex thoughts like I have require a little patience”

      “Yep, it aint like running a lemonade stand is it?”

      “Ah…ah.. I never could make that work for me, lemons…water…cups…Im supposed to add all that up on the fly and…ah.a….Ah…somehow make more on every cup every time…Ah…. that sounds like the same old tired ideas of the past eight years…. ”

      “Right on Mr. President… Right on… you’re too complex for that sort of work”

      “Ah…ah…. Power to the people right back at yah…”

      “Ok, I’m outta here Mr. President……..”

      “Ahhhhh….Chloe…… Ah…ah….we’re done in here….Ah. ah…. could you send in Mr. Ayers?”

      “Ah…Ah…right away Mr. President”

      “Ah…ten four Chloe…..ahhh… by the way I asked you to stop doing that with the ah’s…”

      “Ah… Ok Captain president…anything you say…Ah…. I’m down with the struggle”

      “Power to the people Chloe”

      “Power to the people too your magisty!”

    • Kenny

      money can’t buy love

  • Anonymous

    I suppose it is possible for MCain to eek out a popular vote edge and Obama win by electorate. With all of the scenarios previously yammered on and on about voters may end up voting for McCain.
    But Obama seems to have enough states to easily take the electorate count.

    A funny outcome this would be. The messiah gets elected with a minority popular vote?
    What say the pundits about the country wanting socialism?

    • Rupert in Springfield

      If McCain died of a heart attack tomorrow, and Palin was lost on an ice shelf hunting moose so that Obama ran unopposed. And if it came to pass that with no opposition Obama won the election by one vote from a dead person in Chicago, the press would go on and on about the incredible mandate he has.

      Mark my words, you will be hearing “the public wants this president to succeed” so much your ears will ring.

      • dean

        Well duh! Of course the public will want its newly elected president to “succeed.” If THEY succeed, i.e. peace, prosperity, security….then WE succeed. Its true whether Obama wins by a minor landslide or McCain wins by a squeak.

        Beyond that my personal betting line is still open. Today the spread is Obama by 5 points and 50 electoral votes. When McCain is barely ahead in his own state, he is in trouble. When he needs to win Pennsylvania to prevail, he is in even bigger trouble.

        And a question for you to consider Rupert. What if Obama wins, the Dems gain strong majorities in the House and Senate, and they enact the following:
        1) Expanded health care access to near universal
        2) A modest tax raise on the over $250K fortunate ones
        3) A modest tax cut for nearly everyone else
        4) A cap and trade system
        5) A big investment in alternative energy
        6) A big investment in infrastructure
        7) A phased withdrawal from Iraq

        And what if…2-3 years hence…our economy is recovering, our budget improved, jobs gained, health care access has improved, income for most increasing, we are gaining ground on energy, and Iraq has managed to hold itself together. Under this scenario, would you consider supporting Obama in 08? Or will you go for Palin?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Sorry, there is no point in arguing the economy with someone who

          A) Thinks the dollar is weak, as you did a few posts back.

          B) Phrases government spending as “investment”, but only when done by his party.

          C) Thinks tax cuts, such as under Bush, lead to deficits rather than increased revenue, as you have remarked several times.

          All of that points to an economic illiteracy of such a profound nature that discussion would be fruitless, and consideration of your views pointless.

          • dean

            Rupert…its just like you to not let facts interfere with your beliefs.

            A) The dollar is presently trading at about 75 cents to the Euro. In 2000, it was trading at 1 to 1. Its true that it got as bad as 60cents to the Euro earlier this summer and has recovered somewhat, but to characterize the dollar as anything other than weak is ignoring history.

            B) Some Government spending is investment and some isn’t. Spending that increases national productivity, like for education, roads, bridges, and so forth is investment. Spending that is essentially consumption, i.e. bullets and bombs that go boom and then are gone, is spending. Doesn’t matter which party. Does matter what they spend our money on.

            C) You seem to be the last person left who fails to recognize that under Bush, we doubled the national debt (and counting) after LOWERING taxes, while under Clinton we ran annual surpluses after RAISING taxes. You are stuck on the Laffer Curve, which even he disavows at this point. Lowering taxes DOES NOT increase revenues EXCEPT when they are lowered from a very high rate. Deficits are revenue minus expenditures. If you lower revenues and fail to lower expenditures you increase your deficit. Not hard to get.

          • Crawdude

            You all deserve yourselves, I have only pity for you. You represent nothing any longer. You have attained obscurity. Good luck!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            As I said, discussing economics with you is pointless as you lack of knowledge doesn’t add anything. If you are ignorant of the fact that revenues rose after the Bush tax cuts you simply are just blathering.

            I think you were doing better when you were spouting off your ugly racialism. In that regard you are unparalleled.

            We are done here.

          • dean

            Rupert….avoidence of debate is your best strategy. You should stick with that.

            Rupert said about Dean:
            “C) Thinks tax cuts, such as under Bush, *lead to deficits* rather than increased revenue, as you have remarked several times.”

            Dean said:
            “under Bush, we doubled the national debt (and counting) after LOWERING taxes”

            Revenues went up under both Bush and Clinton. Deficits went up only under Bush. Give us your interpretation of this Rupert. And tell us which of these 2 presidents was a better manager of the national economy and how you come to your conclusion.

          • dean

            Not to rub it in Rupert, but here are some economic numbers for you to toss and turn over.

            Reagan comes into office in 1981. Federal receipts were $517 billion and spending was $591 billion for a deficit of $73 billion. By the time he left office in 1989, taxes were $999 billion and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $153 billion. As a share GDP he cut taxes from 19.6 percent to 18.4 percent, while he cut spending from 22.2 to 21.2 percent, increasing the deficit from 2.6 percent to 2.8 percent. The annual deficit went to 5% of GDP during (conservative) Reagan’s term, and, the national debt grew by two thirds.

            Bill Clinton by contrast cut spending from 21.4 percent of GDP to 18.5 percent. He also raised taxes from 17.6 percent to 19.8 percent of GDP, ending with a LOWER TAX AMOUNT than the government took when Reagan left office. And miracle of miracles, Clinton left office with an annual surplus that would have eventually eliminated the national debt had we elected Gore instead of Bush.

            Doesn’t this record comparison just frazzle yer noodle?

            As for your persistent claim that tax cuts lead to HIGHER revenues, none other than Gregory Manikew, former Chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, gives us the following:

            “To what extent does a tax cut pay for itself? This question arises regularly for economists working at government agencies in charge of estimating tax revenues. Traditional revenue estimation, called static scoring, assumes no feedback from taxes to national income. The other extreme, illustrated by the renowned Laffer curve, suggests that tax cuts can generate so much economic growth that they completely (or even more than completely) pay for hemselves. Most economists are skeptical of both polar cases. They believe that taxes influence national income but doubt that the growth effects are large enough to make tax cuts self-financing.”

            As my mom might have said…put that in your pipe and smoke it.

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)