Is the party over for Gordon Smith? I've thought all along that he might skate by to his re-election, but it looks like he may be a victim of a Democratic surge that is building nationwide and could affect down ballot voting. I now think there is a greater than 50% chance Gordon Smith gets the boot (and deservedly so).

I think GS will squeak this one out yet again.

Gordon hasn't put up as many lawn signs as Merkley, thats for sure.

I think it might come down to a Florida like situation. The Republican party HATES Oregon's ballot by mail system. They will take it to the Oregon Supreme Court and beyond if necessary (if it gets to the Supreme Court it's over for our progressive voting system).

I think VBM will stand up to any challenge.

Gordon Smith has thumbed his nose at his consertive base for years. It will come back to bite him. Cya Gordon.

What's going to really bite him are the people looking for change. A poll for OR shows Obama leading by 14 points and I'll bet Obama does even better than that when the votes are all tallied. Merkely has had several polls showing he's up by 3-6 points, and I think a lot of Obama voters will also be voting for Merkley. I think Merkley should start advertising on all the things he and Obama agree on.

With that said, I still think it's 50/50. It's tough to beat an incumbent and Gordon has had a pretty good strangle hold on OR for a while now.

GS by 2%age points in the end.

I am unimpressed by Gordon Smith. Acting in our name, he has done a couple of good things and a whole lot of really dumb things. As our Senator, he cast deadly votes for war and led some really evil partisan moves. Perhaps, over the next few days we will make a nice long list.

If I had to pick one thing that the local media largely missed it would be this: Smith has been stubbornly filibustering against a bi-partisan bill that would grant full citizenship rights to the citizens of Washington D.C.

"Gordon Smith (R-OR) chose to block an up or down vote on the bill – the first filibuster of voting rights legislation since the days of segregation."

Blue Oregon

Almost 600,000 people live in Washington D.C.

Imagine if the entire population of Alaska was denied full representation in Congress.

Imagine that every person who lost their job in the first 8 months of 2008 was arbitrarily singled out to be excluded from our democracy.

Washington D.C. is a very diverse city with a high percentage of minorities. Read that quote again and you will have a much clearer view of Senator Gordon Smith.

He and John McCain are both on record against the right to vote for over half a million Americans.

He's going to be getting a lot of help here in the next coupla weeks. Basically, the Republican party is having discussions right now about how they might prevent Democrats from getting a fillibuster proof majority.

It's over for McCain. They are gonna need people like Smith to negate people like Wyden.

If Smith loses, it's a two-fer one deal for the Dems. Not only do they get the seat, but Wyden is no longer negated, so that's two favorable votes, more of the time.

Just watch where the money goes. They will spend double big time, play the dirtiest pool they can, to keep those strategic seats in play.

I'm gonna go give the Dems some money. Some at the party level, some at the local race level.

Maybe you guys should consider doing the same.

a bi-partisan bill that would grant full citizenship rights to the citizens of Washington D.C.

What exactly don't the citizens of DC have and why is Smith opposed to granting these missing rights?

I've always wondered this too.

Seems to me, not being represented with a voting representative isn't a whole lot different than the territories.

Why the opposition?

My gut says, adding those representatives would mean changing the structure of the electorial college, and the majority numbers and balance of power in the house and senate.

Things are tight right now. Any shift at all could further weaken the already weakening Republican party.

What exactly don't the citizens of DC have and why is Smith opposed to granting these missing rights?

Great question.

"Voting rights in the District of Columbia, that is, the city of Washington, D.C., United States, differ from those of United States citizens in each of the fifty states. In particular, the more than half a million citizens of the District of Columbia have only a non-voting delegate in the United States House of Representatives and no representation in the United States Senate."

Wiki

"The DC Voting Rights Act is the bipartisan consensus bill sponsored in the House by Representatives by Tom Davis (R-VA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) that would grant District residents one voting member in the House."

DC Vote

Citizens of D.C. were not allowed to vote for President or Vice President until 1964. The blocked legislation only sought to put one Representative in the House.

Currently, there is only a "shadow delegation" to Congress. Yes, even in 2008 they regularly use that rather insensitive term. This small group of representatives can only make suggestions. They have no vote on the floor of either the House or the Senate.

I see no logical reason why Eleanor Holmes Norton should not have a full vote in the House. She has served with distinction on several important committees, and has shown great leadership in spite of the limits of her power. The value of a voice for D.C. has been solidly proven, but Gordon Smith is firmly set against it.

Nobody should be against this. I wonder what Smith is using to oppose this with? DC residents have guns now and we can't trust them?

I'm gonna go give the Dems some money. Some at the party level, some at the local race level.

Money can do great things, but volunteering is almost always the most valuable resource one can give to a local candidate. In interest of getting 60 folks in the Senate, I would suggest that an infusion of cash would have the most impact at the national level. The DSCC has done a fantastic job in Oregon with television spots. On the other hand, the local Merkley media campaign has been -- to be charitable -- spotty.

The race against Novick was messy to say the least, and it left many Oregonians wondering what exactly made Merkley the stronger candidate. In hindsight, I think that Novick would have had the same bounce that Merkley has found with a tanking economy. He also would have benefited from a "change" election. The difference might be the backlash from the utterly tasteless "rape" spots that Smith ran ad nauseam.

During the primaries, when I was weighing the benefits and disadvantages of Jeff and Steve, I felt, and I still feel that Merkley was a powerful force in Salem that should have stayed put. We needed an outspoken fighter without weakening leadership in local government and Novick would have fit the bill to a tee.

My biggest disappointment so far in Merkley came when a perfect chance to hammer some local issues was squandered at the Democratic National Convention. He had a massive friendly crowd, the spotlight, the airtime and the opportunity to feed a yummy soundbite or two to the big networks.

Did that somewhat dry speech include a reference to Oregonians who have been left with nothing in the last eight years, or a plea for our ever shrinking middle class?

Did it talk about or pay tribute to the many local heroes who have been injured or killed in these wars, or call for college funds, better benefits and healthcare for local veterans?

Did it scream with the voices of thousands of family farmers who have been proactive and willing to make changes for the environment, yet some still had to get water from the Feds at gunpoint?

Did it include a word-scape or colorful prose about the unique beauty of this state and vehement opposition to timber deregulation, strip mining and off-shore drilling?

Did it warn of the dangers of nuclear power with references to the most radioactive river outside of the Ukraine?

Did it make passing mention of Enron?

Did it discuss the Chinese coal plant pollution and widespread species invasion that globalism has brought to our state?

Did it celebrate the many efforts of local alternative energy pioneers in biodiesel, solar, geothermal and wind generation?

Did it focus on the abuses of power than eroded the Constitution, or criticize the system that disappeared at least one innocent Oregonian, or mention the local office of a front that based rendition planes at our airports?

Did it address the historical implication of a Presidential candidate winning a state that once had a Democratic party that passed and enforced a law to kick people out for their skin color?

Did it praise the best election system in the country?

Did it concentrate for a moment on the overall success of the Oregon Health Plan?

Did it reflect even the broadest and most basic feelings of folks who live around this state?

No, it was just a stumbling series of criticisms that mentioned the name Gordon Smith over and over to a partisan crowd that could care less. Yes, we all know that Smith is a proven patsy in a maverick suit, but what about Oregon?

I like Jeff Merkley a lot. He has done many good things in Salem. I want him to succeed. I think that he and Wyden can be effective in the Senate. I just feel that our best House members -- like DeFazio and Blumenauer -- are still gonna be the most powerful voices for Oregon on Capitol Hill whether he wins this November or not. I know he has the tools and I really hope he proves me wrong.

Forgive my tangent, but I have thought about this for quite a while and had to spill it.

I think Novick would lose to Smith handily. He was too extreme and I found his personality to be a turn off.

The Democrats had two very good candidates. I voted for Novick, but I like Merkley too. I wanted Jeff to be a part of a growing movement in Salem. So, losing some real clout and steady leadership in the statehouse to gamble on a Senate seat was a fair trade-off for you. What led you to that conclusion?

The Democratic Party decided to choose sides before the primary, throw their money at one horse and declare Merkley the winner. I am a bit of a fuddy-duddy. I like votes to decide things, not national arbiters of power and purse strings. It is all water under the bridge now, but it smelled like Danish fish and backroom cigars.

Perhaps Novick would not win an election among the rows of flatscreens and Ethan Allens that line the Tualatin, but that is not where this race will be won or lost. In our current situation, any Democrat with a deep dedication, a connection to real people and a strong economic message could win folks over on the banks of the Deschutes, Snake and John Day.

By and large, the constituents a Senatorial candidate would be representing in the district will never have a manicure. They sweat on the land for a living, and some even lose limbs to hard work. Among that crowd, Novick could have been a populist with far greater ease than Merkley.

The fact that Novick would have been willing to go after Smith hard every single day, but smart enough to make local issues his top priority would have been a strength, not a weakness. Rural folks like a brainy fighter in tough times. His irascible wit, unwavering spirit and genuineness are not a liability among folks with less artificial sophistication. Running against an empty suit like Smith, and using a growing war chest, I believe he would have fared every bit as well as Merkley under the circumstances.

Jeff Merkley is a good man, and a fine candidate, but so is Steve Novick. Either way, I believe that Gordon Smith would have had a real race on his hands. A race that he could very well lose in November to Jeff Merkley and a strong campaign.

I didn't consider the fact that Merkley's clout would be missed in Salem. I looked at who had the best shot to beat Gordon Smith, which is a higher priority to me than the issue of losing Merkley at the state level. The reason I felt Merkley had the better shot to beat Smith is that Merkley would reasonate with the moderate Dems that have supported Smith.

I'm with LS. I voted for Novick - actually met him once, and was very impressed - and the tone of campaigning he exhibited during the primary made it clear that he would have campaigned against Smith fiercely. Smith would have not been able to use cheap-shot campaign ads like the one with Merkley eating a hot dog without appearing insensitive to Novick's physical handicaps. I'm still sorry that Novick isn't the Dem's candidate, because I think he would have been just as capable (perhaps more so) at possibly defeating Smith, and I think the Senate could use a firebrand like Novick to shake things up.

Seconded on volunteer time.

I just cannot give any. This year has been ugly. The time I was able to give was great. Just wish there was more of it.

So, it's dollars. Seems I always have one or the other, but not both!!

"I think the Senate could use a firebrand like Novick to shake things up."

Edselehr, I could not agree more with your point of view.

Missing, getting that last minute voter registered was the kind of small time investment that pays big dividends if everyone is willing to try. I am also glad you feel moved to share dollars too.

"Seems I always have one or the other, but not both!!"

You are not alone in that my friend.

I, too, voted for Novak, but I really didn't think he'd garner much support from others. I hope he runs for another office someday (but not Wyden's! ).

Novick needs to build his resume at the state level, then try moving up. Congress or the state legislature seem a good fit for him; I don't envision him in an executive branch.

"Smith for Senate press secretary Lindsay Gilbride said: "They [the Ayers calls] are not taking place in Oregon and Senator Smith does not condone these sort of calls. Negative robocalls are not appropriate and have no place in campaigns."

Huffington Post

Really Senator Smith? $93,648.23 is pretty good chunk of change for robocalls. Since my house was among the many thousands who recieved a call that smeared Jeff Merkley, I guess you have a predictably whopping double standard.

Karl Rove and FreedomsWatch are just dandy, so long as they do not mention Barack Obama to Oregonians? Mister Smith, I think you had better pick a good sized box or two. You will need them to clean out your desk.