Democrats jostle to repeal and replace Walden

McLeod-Skinner

Jamie McLeod-Skinner won the Democratic nomination for 2018.   She will face Greg Walden this November.

Jennifer Neahring is still around.

The campaign for the nomination for 2020 is underway.  Really. 

Jamie McLeod-Skinner proved a point in the election this May. She showed that early organization and a knowledgable, forceful candidate can win handily in a crowded Democratic field, securing 43% of the vote against second place finisher Jennifer Neahring with 24% of the vote. 

Dr. Nearing presented herself as a newcomer with a mission and expertise regarding health policy, and she had a bit of money to present herself to the public via TV and mailers. 

Why am I writing about Nearing? She lost. Yes, but she isn't going away. 

2nd Place

Neahring just published an op-ed in the Bend Bulletin occasioned by the most recent school shooting in Texas. She has every right as a politically engaged American. Indeed, I commend her. She is staying in the news, staking out positions, doing what citizens do. She has every right.

Other readers may notice what I saw.  

1. She calls for Americans to "take honest actions that will make a difference," and describes background checks and bump-stocks for rapid fire. The Texas shooter used a shotgun and handgun. Neahring's positions are are the current Democratic party solutions based on national polling.

2. She never mentions the name Greg Walden, who is an A-rated NRA supporter, who gets significant campaign money from them. The best, most direct way to change gun laws would be to replace the fellow you ran to replace.

3. She does not urge voters to support her former opponent. Instead she says voters should vote for change generally: "Responsible voters have to rise up and say 'enough is too much,' and vote for change in Washington."

4. She essentially announces her ongoing candidacy--at least for some public office: "I may have lost the primary, but I have not lost my passion to drive for change."

Click: Bend Bulletin

5. The op-ed isn't her voice. The op-ed article is perfectly reasonable, and she has every right to adopt it and sign her name to it, but the article was not from Jennifer Neahring's knowledge base. My judgment here is subjective and based on conversations with Neahring, but I am confident it was written for her, written by someone who followed politics for decades and who can place gun legislation into the context of Nixon and revenue sharing and the reduction of money for schools. It reads like a national column, with a paragraph added at the end to localize it. The voice is not Neahring's, and the perspective and expertise isn't hers. There is nothing whatever wrong with Neahring having staff or friends write articles for her approval and signature. I approve of it. She delegated a task.The important take-away for me is that this is what Neahring is very evidently doing--getting knowledgeable people to keep up her public presence.

What this all means:  Jennifer Neahring is running for Congress in 2020.  


Neahring needs to be careful, lest she make trouble for herself.This op-ed failed to mention and praise McLeod-Skinner. So, too, did her election night Facebook post, which thanked people and spoke of going "Onward!", but did not thank and acknowledge McLeod-Skinner by name. 

Election Night Facebook

Neahring needs to fix that.  Jennifer Nearhing needs to acknowledge a simple fact, that Jamie McLeod-Skinner won, fair and square. She needs to look like a gracious good sport, and the best way to look like one is to be one. 

It won't hurt. It will only help. Few people voted for Neahring who actually disliked McLeod-Skinner, or vice versa. The McLeod-Skinner fans will like hearing it from Neahring, and the Neahring fans won't be unhappy.

Publicly Neahring needs to be an outspoken advocate for McLeod-Skinner's election. Faint praise and general comments will not be enough, and indeed they would be interpreted as sabotage for McLeod-Skinner. People will be watching suspiciously. They will think the worst.

Neahring can fix this. She should say nice things about McLeod-Skinner and look like she means it. Really look like she means it.

McLeod-Skinner could win, in 2020 if not 2018. If McLeod-Skinner can make the case that Walden betrayed his District on taxes and healthcare, then she has a shot at winning in 2018. It will be a challenge because Greg Walden is both lucky and skilled. The repeal and replace bill failed, so Greg can only be criticized for trying to take away health care, not for doing it, and he threatened rural hospitals, but the news stories are not about their crisis.  Failure served him. His advertising is in full force already, making the point that he is a big supporter health care for the District. Walden sells a different story than he in fact votes in the Congress, but McLeod-Skinner will have difficulty making that case. He looks earnest and well meaning.

McLeod-Skinner's best shot is to run and surprise Walden and the District pundits by winning, or at least coming close to winning in 2018. If the House switches to Democratic and Walden is no longer Chair, his joys of being a Congressman diminish, and perhaps he will welcome becoming a respected and very well paid lobbyist. Walden may join the Republicans resigning from Congress.

McLeod-Skinner and Jennifer Neahring would each have their shot at the open seat, but Walden has stymied the ambitions of Republicans for two decades, so I expect strong Republican candidates, even if it isn't Walden. If McLeod-Skinner does very well in 2018 then I suspect that nothing Neahring does could make her competitive in a Congressional primary. But if McLeod-Skinner gets less than perhaps 45-46% of the vote, then another meme will circulate, that McLeod-Skinner is not the one. Neahring is positioning herself to be the candidate on deck.

This is a delicate time for Neahring. She could blow this. If it looks to people like Neahring was anything other than an enthusiastic supporter, then Neahring could become the scapegoat, not the heir apparent.