Stay Classy

 

Election recap.

Denise Krause has almost certainly won.
It's a matter of math.

Chris Beck won.
Voters liked his voters pamphlet resume.

Denise Krause was one of five candidates for the Democratic nomination for state Senate District 3, the seat held by retiring Senator Jeff Golden.

Chris Beck was one of six candidates for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Representative in Oregon's 2nd congressional district. It is now likely that he had it won from the very beginning. The voters pamphlet won it for him.

It is theoretically possible that Tonia Moro could catch up with Krause, but I think it is nearly impossible. I don't know how many outstanding votes there are still to be counted, but it is likely a small enough number that it would take a massive shift of opinion in those final ballots for Moro to win. Candidate Kevin Stine reminded me of the likely number of votes outstanding:

--  In 2018, there were 16,212 Democratic voters that cast a ballot, amid a 49 percent turnout.

--  In 2022, there were 17,013 Democratic voters that cast a ballot, amid a 52 percent turnout.

--  In 2026, there are 17,215 Democratic voters tallied so far, amid a 54 percent turnout.

It looks like the overwhelming majority of the ballots have already been counted.

The post office delivered to the Jackson County election office all ballots they had as of election day. Let's imagine that there are as many as 1,000 votes still to be counted.  Likely about 30 percent of those will go to one of the other three candidates --  Ruvalcaba, Stine, or Crary -- the pattern of the currently counted votes. Only if those 700 remaining votes broke 450 to 250, or 65 percent to 35 percent, would Moro pick up the 210 votes needed to win. I am aware of no development that would change an essentially dead-even race into that kind of landslide among that group of voters who, in the last day or two of the election, decided to mail the ballot instead of dropping it off. 

Krause is smart to be patient and stand with the position that all the votes be counted before announcing victory, but behind the scenes she should be preparing her general election campaign.

Chris Beck won big, and he won nearly everywhere, even in places where he had a minimal campaign. 

He narrowly lost in the home counties of two of his opponents, but Beck won 18 of the 20 counties in the district, and won the two biggest ones, Jackson County by 19 points and Josephine by 14. He made himself visible across the district with some social media and a brief visit to each county, but the broad sweep of his win makes me think that the campaign was probably won on the day he filed and submitted his voters pamphlet material. 

Voters saw Democrats sharing the same essential message on policy matters and picked the candidate whose background shows some experience in government. He could mention having worked for John Kitzhaber and Barack Obama. He could mention degrees from Ivy League Brown University and Harvard's JFK School of Government. He had related job experience.

New York Times election coverage

He could have blown his advantage. His presence tailgating the town halls of U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley gave him some Eastern Oregon exposure, even in his short campaign. He has videos on social media showing him in Eastern Oregon settings. Those probably inoculated him from the charge that he had little current physical connection to the district, and none of his opponents hammered on this point. His home is now in the city of Phoenix in Jackson County, the largest county, and the one he did best in.

If any opponent had a chance to overcome the experience advantage reported in the voters pamphlet, it might have come from an opponent with a campaign highly focused on a popular issue for Democrats. This might have been a campaign like that of Republican gubernatorial candidate "Ed No Tax Diehl."

I don't know Diehl's overall policy goals -- I presume he is a typical Republican -- but at least a voter has clarity on one, clear, mentally sticky idea. If you know nothing else, you know that Diehl is anti-tax. Hate taxes, vote for Diehl.

Perhaps a Democratic opponent could have joined the other candidates in the usual policy array for Democrats, but concentrated his or her message on a singular idea that let voters "send a message." Perhaps the candidate would be the focused "anti-Iran-war" candidate, or the one stopping data centers that hog the region's electricity, or the one opposing the slow death of the region's hospitals because of diminished federal reimbursements. Could Mary Doyle, or more likely Rebecca Mueller, have won had she been understood by voters to be the expert on Medicaid reimbursements, and said that we had a crisis because Congressman Cliff Bentz's votes were putting Asante, Providence, Sky Lakes Medical, and St. Charles Medical out of business and it was literally a matter of life and death. Vote: Rebeca "Save our Hospitals" Mueller! It becomes an implied message: Vote Rebecca to save our hospitals. That approach might have firmly branded her to some meaningful outcome, refocusing attention away from who had experience in government, Beck's strong point. As it was, Beck had a point of differentiation in experience, revealed in the one piece of campaign material seen by every voter, the bare-bones voters pamphlet that leads off the description of each candidate with objective criteria of education, occupation, and prior government experience.

[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.]

At some point, even Republicans realize that Trump has gone too far

“​There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. . . .

In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”

          John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, 1939

John Steinbeck was writing about crushing dismay at watching food be destroyed in the midst of hungry people. The offense that something good, the product of America' fertile land, was being destroyed when it was needed. The crime beyond denunciation was cruelty of loss to so many for the benefit of so few. For Steinbeck, it was food in front of hungry people. For us it is the lingering memory of a great country based on the rule of law, one fought and died for, one that aspired to be an uncorrupted, democratic city on the hill and an example to the world, now openly, shockingly corrupted by a president.

Donald Trump has finally, finally, gone too far.

There is a context, of course. Gasoline prices, the war with Iran, midnight posts, the conflicts of interest with his family businesses, the crypto sales, the tariffs, the prosecutions of political opponents, the purges within the GOP.  Those all add up, but they were not the final straw of total capitulation to corruption. There is a one-two punch, coming together.

The ballroom is the physical manifestation of the craziness, the golden palace, Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It triggers every image of "let them eat cake" cluelessness of the wealthy and powerful, of grandiloquent third-world dictatorships with phony medals of grandeur, of French kings, Scrooge McDuck, the Simpsons' Montgomery Burns, of Captain Queeg, of Captain Ahab, of mad kings.  

The final straw though is the utter corruption of the Justice Department enabling a theft of public money for a secret slush fund that allows Trump to pay off his friends and allies in whatever way he wants. And, more amazing yet, a statement from the Justice Department and IRS never to question, investigate, or audit Trump, the Trump family, or Trump's political friends. What a deal.

Even the Wall Street Journal admits that it stinks of corruption.

By today readers would have learned the mechanism for this open theft. Trump makes a ridiculous legal claim against the Internal Revenue Service for an action an employee took while Trump himself was president. Trump-the-person sues Trump's own government. Trump's own compliant Attorney General makes a settlement with Trump for $1.776 billion dollars, for use any way Trump's appointees, serving at Trump's pleasure, wants, specifically including rewards and payoffs to people who participated in Trump's attempted coup. Trump's commission can pay people who give him campaign contributions. It can pay people to "find" 11,000 votes or to refuse to certify elections that a Democrat wins.  

Even Republicans who live in fear of Trump endorsing a primary opponent see the corruption here. By corrupting the Justice Department -- bad enough on its own -- Trump gets to help himself to free money from the Treasury, and he does it openly. He can, so he does.

This is what the Republican party officeholders and candidates have to swallow and defend. Candidates face a dilemma. Defend it and admit total capitulation to corruption or oppose it and face the wrath of Trump and his MAGA base.

Chris Beck, who handily won the Democratic primary election for Oregon's 2nd congressional district has been offered an enormous gift. Republican incumbent Cliff Bentz mumbles in inobtrusive but consistent support of Trump. He does as Trump directs. Will he oppose Trump's open theft of $1.776 billion? Is there any act of corruption that would cause Bentz to speak up?

Republican members of Congress exist in relative obscurity and get re-elected in red districts by inertia of party loyalty. But sometimes an issue breaks through. Fifty-two years ago Watergate created a blue wave. Thirty-two years ago Hillary Clinton's health proposal, along with the House Bank overdrafts, created a red wave. This is bigger, far worse, and visible. Trump is stealing from us. And it comes on top of the shiny gold ballroom.

This could be a wave year when Democrats get elected in red districts.

[Note: I make a request of Republican readers. Write a guest post defending Trump's deal with his Justice Department. Explain why is is good, reasonable, and not corrupt. I may well publish it.]

[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.]

Election results. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

Too close to call.

In the Oregon Senate District 2 contest to choose the Democratic nominee to replace Jeff Golden, Denise Krause has a 209-vote lead over Tonia Moro.

Krause, from her campaign website

Moro, from her campaign website

Here is the latest updated election tally. Votes are tallied and announced as they are processed.

Results at most recent count

Votes that were counted earlier in the night showed Krause ahead, but by a larger margin. Moro is catching up with her.

Progress report count

The first vote count was announced at 8 p.m. when the polls closed. That tally consisted of votes from early voters. Those earliest voters showed Krause with fewer votes counted but a slightly larger percentage lead. 

First announced result

There is no need to imagine a conspiracy to explain that Moro appears to be catching up. Some people vote early in the two-week balloting period. (I do.) Those ballots had their signatures and bar codes checked as they came in and they were ready to tally and announce. A great many people wait until later in the cycle to vote. They see the two week flurry of advertisements on TV and social media, and direct mail. It does not surprise me that Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba, a little-known political candidate at the beginning of the campaign, but who had a giant media blitz funded by the Oregon Nurses Association, did better with people who voted late in the cycle. The ads persuaded some people. They brought his vote percentage up from 14.9 to 17.7 percent. 

Tonia Moro kept advertising throughout the period -- more than did Krause from my casual observation -- and her percentage of votes increased among people who voted closer to election day, but only slightly. It grew from 33.34 to 34.09 percent.

The real story, for people like me who overthink these things, is that:

-- The electorate that votes early is very close to the electorate of later voters. The pattern is set early.

--  The advertising and effort spent in the last days of the campaign do matter. Kevin Stine, who was well known from his long service on the Medford City Council got early votes, but he did not have money for ads, and he did not do as well among late voters. His percentage dropped from 11.38 to 10.26 percent when the later voters were added into the mix.

  

-- It appears to me that Ruvalcaba's votes from people who saw his ad blitz came from people who, earlier in the cycle might have voted for Krause. Moro's percentage didn't change much as Ruvalcaba's grew, but Krause's dropped.

 

-- In close races, tiny changes matter. I expect Krause or Moro to win or lose by a few votes. Those extra 10 doors knocked on, or that last-minute mailer, something earned a vote that will tip the balance.

I personally prefer Krause to Moro, but based on the pattern of later voters I think it is likely that by the time the final votes are tallied, that Moro will win. Krause partisans should not celebrate early. If Moro wins, I won't cry foul and complain that Krause lost only because a losing candidate, Ruvalcaba, "took" her votes. They weren't Krause's votes; they were the citizen's votes. I don't anchor mentally on Krause being ahead and somehow deserving to win. 

This close election is a bit of practice and preparation for the midterms. Donald Trump complains bitterly about every election he loses, starting with an Iowa caucus vote in 2016 against Ted Cruz, and again in 2020. I fully expect him to claim that some early lead by him or a political ally is the "real" outcome in the 2026 midterms, and that later votes counted for an opponent are fake or illegal. He will try to void those votes and come up with pretexts for it. Don't fall for it. Early leads are not the end result. Don't anchor on early leads. We count all the votes. 

[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.]

For better or worse, Republican candidates are stuck with Trump.

 "Massie is a complete and total disaster as a congressman, and frankly as a human being."

          Trump, campaigning against Rep. Thomas Massie

Trump is making an example out of Massie.

Today is election day in Oregon, too. 

There are no polls in the hotly-contested races that I follow in Oregon: the Democratic nomination for the state Senate seat held by retiring State Senator Jeff Golden. and one for the U.S. representative in the 2nd District.

In the state Senate race, political newcomer Cristian Mendoza Ruvalcaba has raised and spent some $180,000 in direct and in-kind contributions, most of it from the Oregon Nurses Association PAC. That is three times the money raised by his two well-established opponents with active campaigns, Tonia Moro and Denise Krause. We will find out if money can equal long-established networks of supporters. 

None of the candidates for U.S. representative has spent much money on paid ads or boosted social media. All are newcomers to politics in this district. This is an utterly grass-roots, door-to-door, shake-hands-at-meetings campaign -- in a district of 750,000 people. I think the campaign will consist mostly of voters choosing someone based on the Voters Pamphlet. The winner will face incumbent Republican Cliff Bentz in a district with a 20-point Republican edge. Is he or she a sure loser? Possibly not -- and that is partly because of what is happening to Massie in Kentucky.

Bentz has been invisible and politically flat-footed over the past year. Trump is watching him. Bentz has been silent or mumbled on vote-by-mail, on the  National Guard in Portland, on ICE patrolling Oregon farms, on releasing the Epstein files, on taxes on billionaires, on making health insurance unaffordable, and on bankrupting rural hospitals in his district, Bentz has done as instructed. He is stuck taking the unpopular position, the one that presents as hurting the district rather than defending it.

Trump understands political theatrics. His attacks on Massie puts fear into the minds of potential independent voices in the GOP caucus. Trump can end careers, going back to Jeff Sessions, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake, and Mitt Romney up to the Indiana state senators and incumbent U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy last week, and perhaps Massie today.

Trump's purges give Democrats in Oregon an edge this November. Oregon's Democratic governor Tina Kotek is vulnerable. She comes across as a continuation of former governor Kate Brown, carrying Brown's Covid baggage. A  fresh, energetic, independent Republican would have a strong case. But a Republican candidate cannot contradict Trump on any matter of controversy, and any competent Democratic campaign will make that crystal clear. Kotek has problems, but she is more popular than Trump and a candidate carrying the specter of Trump.

Brad Hicks, the Republican candidate who will face whoever wins the Democratic primary for state Senate, has a central-casting look as a Chamber of Commerce tight-with-the-business-establishment candidate. Some will like it; some will think it far too cozy with his business funders. In either case it could be a local brand, not a national one. Not so in the Trump era. A decade ago a Republican in that district, Alan DeBoer, who won election over Tonia Moro, could offer an independent, reasonable-guy image. Friendly. Earnest. Not mean-spirited. It is a different era now. Trump puts demands on Republicans: He won the 2020 election; mail ballots are fraudulent; the January 6 rioters are patriots and deserve tax money; the war in Iran is a success; fossil fuels are better than renewables; the ballroom is a fantastic idea. I expect the Democratic winner of today's primary to have an easy target in November.

Could the Democratic primary winner in the congressional race defeat Cliff Bentz? Probably, statistically, under any conventional circumstances, no. The district is too red. But Trump is pulling Cliff Bentz down with him. Tens of thousands of district constituents will discover that their health insurance has become utterly unaffordable. Bentz is stuck and cannot free himself. Look at Cassidy. Look at Massie. About once every decade the country gets a "throw the president's bums out" election. We are due. If this is the year, Bentz will go down with the GOP ship. It could happen. 

What Trump is doing to Massie is hardball politics. He enforces a message: Obey; your future is tied to mine.

One more thing: It is just possible Massie could survive today's election. But even so, a Republican pays a price.

[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.]

I was wrong. We still need to enforce the 15th Amendment.

I have changed my mind: It isn't yet time to stop remediating racial discrimination.

There are problems with "reverse discrimination." Those problems are what I saw. But there are problems without it. I see that better now.

I was too optimistic about the state of the country.

Here is what I wrote back on May 2: 

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. 

I wrote that shaping districts with a majority of minority residents fuels White resentment against "reverse discrimination" and removes the likelihood that a White politician in the South has electoral reason to care about Black voters. Maybe, I wrote, if there were mixed-race districts with a White majority but a substantial number of Blacks, the White politicians would need to moderate on issues important to Black constituents to get votes in a contested election. 

I had my eye on the current rise of "White Power" as a reason to stop creating Black-majority districts. White people saw that there was advantage to identity consciousness for Blacks, women, and other identities. Instead of thinking of White people as the neutral, default, status-quo group, Whites, and especially White men, began defining themselves as their own aggrieved underdog group. Trump was brilliant in making this a point of grievance and political mobilization. Democrats ignored the growing White and male backlash, and made it easy for Trump.

I thought it was better to stop competing over victimhood. I still agree with that sentiment, but I was naive, too. I ignored history and practice.

Historically, the South's successful effort to keep Black people from voting was about maintaining political control in a White-on-top society. When necessary to be deceptive about it, politicians did it with pretense and subterfuge: grandfather clauses, poll taxes, discriminatory exams, discriminatory policing, and informally sanctioned intimidation. It worked for them. Very few Black people in the South could vote, as recently as 1964.

The purpose was partisan control by the "White" party, i.e., Democrats until about 1966-1968, then the crossover realignment to Republicans as the party protecting White political power. 

When the Supreme Court said that partisan gerrymandering was OK, I neglected to see that maintaining partisan control wasn't incidental; it was the mechanism for confounding the 15th Amendment and empowering the White political party. I saw what happened as soon as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act: Southern states did not create my imagined multi-racial, elect-moderates districts. Silly, naive me. They redistricted to decrease the influence of Blacks as much as humanly possible. We are still in a Jim Crow world.

This Supreme Court protects freedom -- the freedom to speak and act on feelings of racial and religious prejudice. It is a freedom-of-conscience right, even if it is unlovely and contradicts our country's founding documents and creed. But the Court is asymmetric. They do not protect, as the 15th Amendment directs, the freedom to be protected against those acts. This gives Trump and the current GOP the power they need to return to the historic pattern of suppression of Black political influence.

So I was wrong. We have the 15th Amendment but we need to enforce it.

Trump understood the country better than I do. He panders to prejudices, and he found his constituency. It isn't everyone, but it is enough.

[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.] 

Field Report: Chris Beck last-minute push

Chris Beck, Democratic candidate for Congress in Oregon's second congressional district, takes stock.

Beck took a moment from the job of meeting voters to wonder: Will I win? What are my chances? 

(He says an opponent said Beck had a 98.5 percent chance of winning. Beck thinks that is wildly optimistic.)

A screen shot from one of his Facebook videos

Field report from Chris Beck:

I have been knocking on doors in Ashland, where the majority of Jackson County Democrats reside. People are friendly, and those who have time to talk will do so.  Some people open the door and exclaim, "I voted for you." I've asked a few people why, and they say my experience, my endorsements (Governor Kitzhaber and former Ashland Mayor, Cathy Shaw) mattered to them. Other people simply say they have voted, not indicating who they voted for, which may mean one of my opponents.  Alas. . . . 

  

The most repeated desires on the doorstep are about defeating Cliff Bentz. Bentz is deeply unpopular with Democrats, but the 45% of non-party-affiliated voters will need to be appealed to, a job I would enjoy taking on.   

 I've worked hard, dove into social media (with some good content I believe), and drove nearly 10,000 miles across the vast district. My late entry into the race has made it a challenge to meet as many people as I would have liked, so if I lose I will conclude that I might have done better had I entered in early January, rather than late February. Also, some voters are uncomfortable with the fact that I had not been living in the District boundaries, even though I have been an Oregon resident my entire life and have had a career that has often involved rural communities and economic development. If I had met more people and had deeper conversations, I am confident that my life experience in Oregon, as a legislator, as a committed public servant, including six years with the Obama Administration, would have allayed most of their concerns.   

Overall, I have a strong statement in the Voters Pamphlet demonstrating my deep experience, and this may be the only information most voters see, so that might be why I eke out a victory.  One of my opponents said they think I have a 98.5% chance of winning. I think that is wildly optimistic, and I'd say it's more like 50/50.  Other opponents bring other worthy lived experiences, as a medical doctor and teacher. It's an interesting stew of people and personalities. Soon we will know, and one of us will have the honor or taking on Mr. Bentz.  

 

[Note: I invite other candidates to send in a quick field report describing what is on their minds and what they are doing. If it is short and interesting, I will publish it. People are still voting. Send it to me at peter.w.sage@gmail.com]

[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.]