Democratic Party Screw-up

Part of why a GOP led by a Donald Trump wins elections is that Democrats can be stupid.

That doesn't just happen at the DNC. It can happen at the local level, right here in Jackson County, Oregon.

The Jackson County, Oregon, Democratic Party leaders read a series of anonymous and retracted emails and Facebook posts with discredited accusations and took them as true or maybe-true, or possibly true, or not totally impossible, who knows??

Then they did something monumentally irresponsible. Monumentally foolish. Monumentally unfair to one of the candidates for Oregon's Senate District 3 Democratic primary, the election for the person to take the place currently held by retiring Jeff Golden.

Denise Krause was their victim.  

As this plays out, the real victims may be her campaign opponents, because it may look like they, or their campaign volunteers, were in on the foolish rush-to-judgment smear. But the biggest victim is the local Democratic Party. They look like idiots because they acted like idiots. 

In the interest of "transparency" they prepared and sent a press release that suggested that Krause's campaign was somehow unworthy -- something that got picked up in the headlines of the news stories that resulted. Why maybe unworthy? Because she had not caved to the demands of the writers of anonymous email chain letters and unproven decades-old accusations. The local Dems turned what should have been questions about dubious rumors, spread as part of all-too-familiar internet trolling we see at election season, into a press release with a red-flag warning. They did this on the day that ballots were received in local mailboxes.

It was malicious or stupid. I hope it was merely stupid.

There is a lesson here about mob-rule and group-think panic over what people rumors and allegations spread on social media. One approach is to assume all bad rumors are true, or at least believed by somebody, so they need to be treated as factual. One local Democratic leader told me all Krause needed to do was cave to the group-think. "My personal feeling is that Denise could put this issue to rest if she quickly severed her relationship with [the campaign consultant.] Boom. End of story." 

To her credit, Krause said no. Good for her. It is a bit of a test of character, and she passed. Her letter is below.

 

An anonymous email account that has since been deleted circulated vicious rumors against one of my campaign consultants over the last few days. This was followed by an anonymous user posting these same inflammatory statements. Then, a small group of party activists reacted to a series of malicious emails and Internet rumors with a press release. 

My political opponents have created a pressure campaign to force me to fire someone I strongly believe has been wrongly accused. I looked further into these allegations and found them to be unsupported and untrue. The original article was retracted, but not before being circulated widely and, thus, eventually picked up now — 25 years later. 

If I had any real evidence that this information was true, then I would act decisively to terminate. But my opponents are weaponizing unfounded allegations to shift focus from the issues of this campaign and trying to win an election not on merit, but on sensationalism. I’m expected to succumb to mob rule based on the malicious spread of bad rumors of forwarded emails and Facebook postings that have been picked up and spread by opposition campaigns. 

I will not react rashly to unproven rumors or false accusations that circulate on the Internet. I will not be a senator who will be manipulated and pushed around by anonymous Internet bullies or opponents hiding in the shadows. 

This is an example of why so many people are completely fed up with the political establishment and dirty politics. I'm seen as a threat because I'm a political outsider running to bring integrity to politics, so we can get to the business of working for the people on very real problems. A legislator in Salem will be tested by corporate lobbyists and threats from Republican opposition ads. I will not compromise my commitment to the people of District 3.

Trump has reach. It is as bad as I feared.

"Making a list
Checking it twice
Gonna' find out who's naughty and nice"
     Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie, 1933, popularized by Eddie Cantor and hundreds more.

Donald Trump is coming to town.

On Tuesday morning I wrote "Every Republican is Trump unless they say to the contrary. And they don't."

Tuesday evening proved me right, alas.

It's Trump's GOP.

By now I presume most readers know what happened in Indiana. Eight Indiana legislators refused to go along with Trump's demand that Indiana reconfigure congressional districts to squeeze two more seats from the current 7-2 split, making it a 9-0 delegation. The senators said that the overwhelming opinion of their constituents was to keep their current districts and they would stand with that opinion. 

Trump vowed retribution for their disobedience. He urged they be voted out in the primary election held on Tuesday. He wrote on Truth Social on election eve:

Good luck to those Great Indiana Senate Candidates who are running against people who couldn’t care less about our Country, or about keeping the Majority in Congress. There are eight Great Patriots running against long seated RINOS — Let’s see how those RINOS do tonight! President DONALD J. TRUMP.

It worked. Six Republican Trump-endorsed challengers defeated incumbents; another won an open-seat primary. Only one of the eight survived.  

After the election the defeated incumbents said they followed the wishes and interests of their constituents and lost because of it. State Senator Jim Buck, a 30-year member said, “My district told me overwhelmingly to vote no, and that’s what I did.” State Senator Linda Rogers said, “I don’t regret it. I followed the wishes of my district.” 

My Tuesday blog post was more partisan than I like to be. I warned readers that state and local candidates are not independent agents. Candidates for Oregon governor Christine Drazan and Chris Dudley, incumbent congressman Cliff Bentz, and local state senate candidate Brad Hicks are not individual, independent voices, with their own roots, histories, and points of view. They may want to be such, but Trump has blasted through the normal barriers of a federal system. Trump has a national agenda, and he reaches down into state legislative districts. He has access to a giant fundraising apparatus and he puts it to work. Notwithstanding all the problems in the country, he retains personal appeal with his MAGA base.

Oregon's 2nd District U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz has good reason to fear Trump. Bentz holds office at Trump's pleasure. He holds committee seats at the pleasure of House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Johnson holds power because of Trump. Bentz is on a string that leads to Trump's finger. 

Oregon faces issues that come to Trump's attention: ICE raids in Portland and at farm sites; timber harvest levels; funding rural hospitals; vote-by-mail; and, if the  Oregon vote is anywhere close for the office of governor, a U.S. Senator, or a Member of Congress, then the outcome of that election. Trump reaches into local issues and demands a result "at all costs." Forget local constituents and local interests. All politics is national, and it needs to serve Trump's agenda.

If a Republican officeholder tries to be independent of Trump, they aren't independent for long. Even a weakened, unpopular Trump has political power and he knows how to use it. We saw that in Indiana. They may not look like Trump, but do not forget that when it is something Trump cares about, Christine Drazan is Trump; Chris Dudley is Trump; Cliff Bentz is Trump; Brad Hicks is Trump.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.

Do endorsements help?

Which is better?

Tonia Moro, with a endorsement by Jeff Golden, our current state senator, or 

Kevin Stine, with an endorsement by three former Medford mayors, Lindsay Berryman, Al Densmore, and Gary Wheeler, or

Denise Krause, with endorsements by a variety of unions and membership organizations, or

Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba, with endorsements by the Oregon Nurses Association and several school board members, or

Jim Crary, who said "I didn't seek endorsements because I think my message is more important than endorsements."

Southern Oregon readers who are plugged into local media know that Jeff Golden's endorsement of Tonia Moro is front and center in her campaign.

It may well be dispositive. People in Senate District 3 have twice elected Golden to the state Senate. He was a familiar voice on Jefferson Public Radio's morning news and opinion talk show. He is known to be liberal, an environmentalist, and someone now publicly describing his frustration with Oregon's Governor Tina Kotek. She and Democratic leaders have been trying to soften Oregon's reputation for being anti-business with some policy moderations, particularly as regards accommodating high-tech facilities in the "Silicon Forest" area west of Portland. Golden voiced his unhappiness with Kotek's changes.  He endorsed Moro alluding to that policy shift, saying that "some of the trajectories of Salem policy are headed in really troublesome directions."

Is Golden's endorsement of Moro a more valuable endorsement than three former Medford mayors' endorsement of Kevin Stine?

Maybe, maybe not. Three is better than one, but Golden is in political traffic now, while these mayors are from the past. Golden's vibe is liberal policy. The mayors' vibe is nonpartisan good government. Stine's service on the Medford City Council for 11-plus years, along with his Navy service and his participation in veterans events including formal flag presentations, are consistent with Stine's good-citizen image. Stine has a strong Medford vibe, as contrasted with the strong Ashland vibe from Golden and Moro. Golden would probably disagree, but it is not clear to me that Stine has significantly different policy positions than Moro or that he would be any less a policy advocate than Moro, but they do communicate different cultural signals. 

Moro has more money than Stine, so she is getting her endorsement ads out there more than is Stine. That may be the difference.

Denise Krause is from Ashland. She could easily have lined up endorsements from prominent individuals since she is a well-practiced grass-roots organizer, but she chose to show endorsements from membership organizations, not individuals. Those suggest her policy interests and areas of support.

Large public employee union

She also listed Ironworkers Union #29, the North Coast States Carpenters Union, the Teamsters Joint Council #37, Pro-Animal Oregon, an animal rights group, and Nurses and Friends for Single Payer, a healthcare advocacy group. Her support from unions is probably helpful in a Democratic primary. Krause's support from blue-collar building trades unions projects broader appeal than the climate-conservation message we get from Moro. College-town Democrats have lost ground with blue-collar America, so this is a good sign for Krause -- or maybe not. Democrats who vote in mid-year primaries may be the ones in the liberal-all-the-way environmentalist-Jeff Golden-public radio segment of the Democratic base. Moro is probably picking up support there.

Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba lists the Oregon Nurses Association, his primary patron, as an endorser. He also lists three members of the Medford School Board, an Ashland School Board member, and four out-of-area state legislators, plus other local citizens. He is endorsed by the Southern Oregon PAC of the Oregon Education Association and by the LGBTQ Victory Fund. The teachers PAC is a big one. There are lots of teachers and they are in the habit of voting. Ruvalcaba is signaling something by having gotten and then displaying the LGBTQ endorsement. He got that endorsement; the others did not.

Jim Crary is simple: no endorsements.

I know Jeff Golden well enough both to respect him personally and to figure that he wants a successor who will continue his efforts to slow Governor Kotek's progress in moderating state policy. I suspect he sees it as "backtracking" or giving ground on progress. Two years ago Golden considered running for the state treasurer position, and in his conversations with me while  soliciting a contribution he told me his platform would include Oregon divesting of oil stocks. He said he wanted the treasurer's job to have a distinct environmental agenda. Unlike Jeff, I am OK with Kotek is moderating somewhat if it leads to stronger economic growth. It might put her in better sync with Oregon voters, which I consider necessary and good. And I don't vilify energy companies. I have a car and a truck that use gasoline. I consider it hypocritical to drive a car, but condemn the people who sell me its fuel. I don't think it is immoral to own oil stocks. I own some. They are a good inflation hedge, and those companies manufacture and sell a product that will be essential for several more decades. Let's not kid ourselves about that.

I will happily admit that Jeff is a "better environmentalist" than I am. Probably Moro is, as well. 

For many Democrats, it is a positive that Jeff identified the candidate he considers the environmental champion. For me it is a small net negative; environmentalists are too often at odds with the interests of working people who want jobs and affordable housing. Some environmental positions are luxury positions of the well to do. I have some empathy for people who are trying to get by. If Democrats keep losing those voters we will be stuck with Trump and people like him forever.

I like all the candidates in the race, and will surely vote for the winner in November, but voting is choosing. I went back and forth between Denise Krause and Kevin Stine. I am sure all five candidates are more liberal than I am and all will pretty much follow standard Democratic orthodoxy. I am trying to nudge Democrats back toward centrist positions. I spent too much time doing business and farming to be as impractical as I think Democrats sometimes are. 

I voted for Kevin Stine. He is sort of a Boy Scout and good-government patriotic guy, a bit less a partisan warrior, maybe, but I am OK with that. Yes, he has political ambitions. I like ambitious young people, and want more of them in public office.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.

Every Republican is Trump, unless they say to the contrary. And they don't.

Republicans are under Trump's thumb. 

If Trump says "jump," they must jump. Or else. 

Trump is an enforcer. 

Oregon voters have their ballots in hand. Remember as you vote: 

Governor candidate Christine Drazan is Trump. Governor candidate Chris Dudley is Trump. U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz is Trump. State Senate candidate Brad Hicks is Trump. 

 

President Trump's first term was a learning experience for him. This term Trump himself decides what is true and what is legal. He appoints and supports people who do things his way.

Trump purges Republicans who show independence. The world is full of Republican roadkill examples: Vice President Mike Pence, Senators Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, and Thom Tillis, U.S. Reps. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

I have been critical of my congressman, Cliff Bentz, who dutifully fell in line to disallow counting of the 2020 votes from Pennsylvania, and then voted to help Trump hide the Epstein files. Bentz voted to substantially reduce medical insurance for the working poor (though this district is the third most reliant on this benefit of the country's 435 districts); and he remains silent when Trump's tariff policies conspicuously injure the district's wheat farmers. Bentz is a toady for Trump. Perhaps I should be more kind. After all, he is under orders. If he voted his conscience he would be "primaried." 

Officeholders must obey the Trump script, or else, even when they know better. 

Click: YouTube clip

Republicans learned a script. Say that "Joe Biden was inaugurated," but never utter words that would contradict Trump's claim that the 2000 election was stolen. The script is a signal to Trump and Republicans. It demonstrates forward-looking obedience and fidelity to Trump. 

An election today in Indiana will show whether GOP primary voters will confirm the defenestration of eight Republican state senators who decided that the existing congressional maps in Indiana were reasonable and fair, and thus did not consent to the mid-cycle partisan re-draw that Trump demanded. We won't know the voter's verdict until tomorrow, but we know the conditions for the vote now. Trump condemned those eight state senators. Trump called them "WEAK" and "PATHETIC" and RINOs.

Voters frustrated with Oregon politics and potentially open to electing Republicans have a dilemma. Trump said, "We must keep the MAJORITY at all costs." Trump is demanding that Republicans take extraordinary steps, including this mid-cycle redistricting. He cited in a Truth Social post the pretext of a "Rigged Census" in Indiana. A Republican governor in Oregon could face a similar demand from Trump. A governor Drazen or Dudley might need to claim an excuse to void votes in Democratic-majority Portland. There are a million possible pretexts. As Trump said in Georgia, "Find 11,780 votes." Or perhaps more easily, disallow that many Democratic votes on a pretext. After all, win at "all costs."

A Republicans elected to the state Senate -- for example Brad Hicks -- would be under similar pressure. The local Republican Party voted for a resolution saying the 2020 election should be awarded to Trump. A Republican majority in the state senate might submit a GOP slate of electors for the Republican candidate, notwithstanding the actual vote. Really? Yes, really. That is what Trump demanded in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania and other battleground states in 2020.  Kim Thatcher, a state senator and former candidate for Oregon secretary of state, the chief election officer in Oregon, led the fight in Oregon to join Texas' demand to void the 2020 election. She was not condemned by Republican voters as a dishonest danger to democracy. She was re-elected, and is a state senator today. She has a future in the Oregon GOP.

If elected, would a Drazan, Dudley, or Hicks create a pretext for following Trump's orders? That is the experience: Cliff Bentz did exactly that, and he remains in office. Kim Thatcher did, and she remains.

Trump understands how to exercise power and enforce his will. No other president in my lifetime is anywhere close to Trump in the ability to force his will. Trump is decisive and cruel. He rewards loyalty by pardoning people who committed criminal acts on his behalf. He punishes opponents by prosecuting them. He purges and vilifies members of his own party who dare be independent. He is vigilant. He notices what takes place in state legislatures, county commissions, and election boards. He is keeping a list of who has been naughty and nice.

Could Drazen, Dudley, Bentz, or Hicks act with independent integrity? They could. It is possible. But I do not see any evidence than any of them shows the tiniest bit of independence from Trump. How can they? They are Republicans running in a Republican primary. 

Until Republicans free themselves of Trump, voters need to conclude that any Republican they elect would be a grave risk to democracy. We don't have to imagine it. We see it.

[Note: I do not disapprove of Republicans as a group. Many were clients. Many are friends. I disapprove of Republicans who consent to being compliant with Trump when is dishonest and does blatantly unconstitutional acts. Trump has destroyed the GOP, as both Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz warned a decade ago.]

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Play to win.

Someone made a one-hour loop of Trump saying "winning" repeatedly. 

Trump thought it appropriate to put it up on the White House site, and post it on Twitter/X.

Winning: Click

Trump surprises. Trump offends. He is tiresome, but never boring. There is something new every day. As the DJs of my youth said on KYJC and KBOY, the local AM top-40 stations, "The hits keep on coming."

It took Trump several months into his 2016 campaign before he made winning the triumphant finale of his speeches. In the fall and winter of 2015-2016 he talked about immigration while criticizing Obama and Obamacare. But by March, 2016, I described a rally in Boca Raton, Florida:

He ended his talk assuring people that "You will start to win if I am elected.  Win. Win.  Win. You will win so much you will start to tire of it. But we will keep winning. You will call out to me, "Let's stop winning so much, we are tired of winning,but I won't stop. I will keep us winning and winning."

Trump frames relationships as a transaction, with a winner and a loser. It isn't just the theme of his book, The Art of the Deal; it is fundamental Trump and Trump-ism. Trump's casual disregard for alliances and trade relationships that had been built over decades is explained by that frame. Trump doesn't value cooperation and win-win arrangements. Win-win means half losing. One left "money on the table." 

Our political system was not prepared for Trump, although the writers of the Constitution presumed that a Trump-like figure would come along, so the tools are in place to use if Americans dare. Other presidents have overstepped their power, but they did not really test the system because they did it in bits and pieces, tentatively, carefully, and hypocritically. 

President Biden's attempt to forgive some student loans was an example, something he declared and tried, then got shot down by courts, with Biden promptly succumbing. President Obama faced the situation of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric and high-level Al Qaeda operative. Obama arranged a CIA-led drone strike against him in Yemen on September 30, 2011. There was no practical way to stop al-Awiaki through normal criminal police apprehension, removal to the U.S., and trial. Obama argued that he was an "imminent threat" and was in the act of waging war against the U.S. and therefore a legal military target. 

Trump doesn't care about normative fair-play boundaries and therefore doesn't tiptoe and nudge. He blasts past former norms and dares someone to stop him. He doesn't obey in advance. He disobeys in advance and demands that the courts, Congress or anyone else confront him if they are to stop him. 

Foreign powers have done a better job than domestic ones in saying "no" to Trump. Iran did not obey in advance. They are still fighting, not consenting. Denmark and the countries of NATO who moved warships toward Greenland did not obey in advance. Canada, which immediately started making side-deals with China did not obey in advance. The House obeyed in advance on the Epstein matter until, finally, a fifth GOP member stepped up, which meant there was a majority when added to Democratic votes to demand Trump release the Epstein files. When Congress played the cards it had, Trump folded. 

There is a huge difference between Trump 45 and Trump 47. In his first term, Trump's top people obeyed the rules of the game. In his second term his top people obey Trump.

If Congress doesn't impeach and convict him, he will continue to do as he pleases on tariffs. He will make war on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Greenland or anyone else if he can get away with it. 

Trump will assure that Republicans win every race in the 2026 midterm election if he can get away with it. He will assert whatever pretext serves his purpose. States with GOP control will let him. Ones without full GOP control will resist. Federalism is a partial check on Trump. Congress is not. 

Trump can be stopped, but he doesn't stop on his own. He plays to win it all. It requires opposition to Trump to have a play-to-win attitude as well, otherwise he will steamroll right over opponents.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

How Democrats can win elections.

Group-think has destroyed the GOP. President Trump is a strict enforcer. Try to get a Republican to say aloud that Trump lost in 2020.

I don't want group-think to destroy Democrats. They can evolve, if they dare.

On March 28 I suggested areas where Democrats need to wake up and change directions. It is OK. It is necessary. After all, Democrats have so screwed up their brand that Americans actually voted for Donald Trump -- a felonious, narcissistic, grifting autocrat -- rather than vote for a standard-issue Democrat. Kamala Harris' problem isn't that she is a woman or dark-skinned. It is that she voiced policies that Americans rejected.

What changes???

--  It is OK for Democrats to say that transgender male-to-female people are just fine, live and let live, but that they should not compete in athletics against biological women. The principle is fair competition. People understand that performance-enhancing drugs destroy fair competition. People value fairness. The position isn't anti-trans. It protects trans people.

--  It is OK for Democrats to insist that immigrants come here legally. It is OK to say aloud that immigrant scofflaws should go home, which requires ICE to do its job, but do it while respecting good police practices. Come up with a formula of who can stay and who must leave. There will be lines drawn, and some will be in and some will be out; that is inevitable. The country is waiting for someone to do this. Come up with something, then having done it, then defend and enforce those criteria. People want to know there is enforced order.

-- It is OK for Democrats to say that fossil fuels are transitioning out over the next decades, but that we still need them now, because we have millions of Americans who own a gasoline-engined car and they need to get to work. Cars bought today will run for 200,000 more miles. When the country has inexpensive and plentiful green energy, then Americans will happily switch to it, and junk those cars, and that is what Democrats should encourage. But don't bash the fuel that people buy every week. It is hypocritical and bad politics. 

--  It is OK to recognize that Americans dislike race-based preferences in everything: college admissions, hiring, promotions, and voting. Yes, voting, too. The MLK formulation that people should be judged by character, not skin color, is better principle, better policy, and better politics. Carving out congressional and state "black districts" probably made sense 50 years ago, but now is creating a backlash bigger than its purpose of encouraging fair representation. It is a form of race-based segregation -- done, Democrats think, for a good cause -- but fuels the anti-DEI feelings, even among Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters. The goal was to help Black people elect one of "theirs." That isn't working in the big picture on race in America. Race-based carve-outs have reversed the public consensus that made the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s possible. Gerrymandering on race turns out to be as destructive to democracy as is the extreme gerrymandering we are seeing done now in the mid-cycle districting happening now. Wouldn't it be nice if there were both Black and White candidates who competed for votes of people from the other race? Maybe mixed-race districts are a good thing, not a bad thing. 

--  It is OK for Democrats to criticize members of their own party. Joe Biden had no business running for reelection. Say so. The DNC subverted democracy by forbidding a competitive 2024 primary contest. It was stupid and wrong. Say so.  Kamala Harris spoke in vague generalities, which made her look afraid of leading. Say so. Chuck Schumer (yes, yet another college classmate) is weak and blind to the geriatric look of the party. He needs to get out of the way of the next generation. Say so. It is not disloyal to Democrats to tell the simple truth, the truth that nearly every Democrat secretly believes. Seriously, is there anyone who thinks Chuck Schumer is an inspiring leader?

Democrats hate to admit it, but they could learn something from Donald Trump. I am not saying Trump is good; he is bad, very bad He is a dishonest autocratic sociopath. He is dangerous. But he constantly gets judged to be more honest than Democrats because he appears to speak his mind, let the chips fall where they may. What he says is often vile and disgusting, but he says it. People like his frankness and confuse it with honesty.

My suggestions are not vile, disgusting ideas. A Democrat can say them proudly, voicing both good policy and popular policy. But they are politically incorrect to Democratic orthodoxy. The issues I mention were "Republican talking points" because, in fact, Republicans identified areas in which Democratic orthodoxy is contrary to what even most Democrats think.

My suggestion is to stop defending the indefensible. Its OK for parties to evolve.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.

Oregon Senate, District 3: Who is raising money

Republican candidate Brad Hicks has raised the most money. 

Of course. Every four years the usual GOP PACS, business lobbies, upstate Republican candidates, and prominent local business leaders create million-dollar campaigns for their candidate.

The question is whether a Democrat has the credibility and connections to raise enough money to withstand the coming avalanche.  

Dan Ruby argues that Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba is that candidate.

On April 15 I published a snapshot of the money raised by the five Democratic candidates for Senate District 3, people hoping to take the place currently held by Jeff Golden (yet another college classmate). Money is an imperfect way of seeing who has a credible campaign, but it tells us something. We see who has an active, effective campaign. We see who has political allies and who they are.

Yesterday I received an email from Ashland, Oregon, school board member Dan Ruby. He wanted me to know that his favored candidate, Ruvalcaba has raised the most money. He said it was a sign of political capability, and that political capability is the safest way for local Democrats to decide who should be the Democratic nominee. 

I agree that political capability is important. I think all five Democratic candidates -- Ruvalcaba, plus Denise Krause, Tonia Moro, Kevin Stine, and Jim Crary -- have approximately the same political agenda. All want to "fix" health care. All want to stop ICE from employing brutal police tactics. All care about climate and the environment. All support reproductive rights. All care about public schools. All want Southern Oregon University to survive and thrive.

Dan Ruby (left) with Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba

Ruvalcaba has a patron: Oregon's association of nurses. He does not yet have a wide network of individual local donors. (That is the strength of Denise Krause, who organized the campaigns to reform county government in 2022, and made a lot of friends doing so.)  Nurses are a special-interest group --which is a negative -- but it is a good one to have if you are going to have a single big patron. The public likes nurses. We feel they are a "safe" group, basically "good people" in a helping profession. It is very different from how most people feel about the business PACs that fund GOP campaigns, e.g. the bank lobby, the car dealer lobby, the agricultural chemical lobby, and the timber industry lobby. We suspect predation from them; not from nurses.

Ruby put a good face on Ruvalcaba's campaign: Ruvalcaba has credibility with people who write large checks and that is necessary to win a general election. He has credibility with the right people, the nurses lobby now, and presumably other unions and policy associations later. Critics, of course, can put a negative face on Ruvalcaba's campaign: He doesn't show broad support from individual local donors, at least not yet.  But Ruvalcaba met an important threshold at a time of backlash against immigrants from Latin America and Asia; he shows that a sophisticated political gatekeeper thinks that a candidate with Ruvalcaba's name and background is electable. It is a signal.

Dan Ruby was the 2024 Democratic and Progressive Party nominee for U.S. House of Representatives and currently works as a strategic consultant for healthcare, climate, and housing initiatives. 

Guest Post by Dan Ruby

I am very invested in who will replace retiring and beloved public servant Senator Jeff Golden. This particular election is especially critical. Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba is my choice to be our next senator.

Doing the job of a legislator is one thing, but the job of getting elected is another entirely. I recognize that the Republican challenger is extraordinarily well-funded by corporate PACs and wealthy business-owner donors. Even with a district that is tilted slightly toward Democrats in registration, winning in the fall will require effectively motivating a new base, younger people and people of color. Cristian is proving that he is a capable campaigner who reaches folks who have been difficult for traditional Democratic candidates. We know that winning the general election means being able to match Brad Hicks’ money machine, at least within an order of magnitude. We see that Cristian is the only one that comes close.

The ORESTAR results are as of Thursday morning (4/30) and include the previous-year funds raised for each candidate, rounded to the nearest dollar. I didn’t disaggregate cash and in-kind.

Candidate Name	Days Since Filing	Receipts	Expenses	Cash on Hand	Raised per Day (Avg)
Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba	52	$107,720	$85,967	$21,753	$2,072
Denise Krause	143	$51,747	$36,286	$15,461	$362
Tonia Moro	64	$38,762	$3,023	$35,739	$606
Jim Crary	52	$15,850	$7,608	$8,242	$305
Kevin Stine	66	$8,125	$5,757	$2,368	$123
Brad Hicks	197	$257,952	$62,562	$195,390	$1,309

The best representative will be someone who understands intimately the problems faced by the people in this area, through academic and career practice and lived experience. It will be someone who knows that the more diverse brains and histories you have in the room, the better the chances of success. And someone who is proving his electability by his extraordinary success in rounding up personal and financial support from experienced people in the Oregon legislature and his fellow nurses in the Oregon Nurses Association, who have contributed over $87,000 so far toward his campaign.

Cristian can win the election and work for us over the next four years. That’s why I endorse Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba for Oregon State Senate, District 3 and urge others to give him your vote as well.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]