Oregon Governor's Race

A recent poll from Moore Information is stirring up interest in the Oregon Governor's race. Democratic incumbent Ted Kulingoski is term-limited and will step down in 2010, and with two Democratic senators in the state several big-name dems are vying to take over the Governor's mansion. So far, four names are getting most of the attention.

If former Governor (Oregon only limits consecutive terms) John Kitzhaber gets in the race, he'll likely be the frontrunner. He's got name recognition and he's proven winner, which donors will like. He also looks vaguely like a aging gunslinger movie star, which doesn't hurt in conservative Eastern Oregon. His announcement for the office would likely scare at least a couple candidates out of the race, but it's uncertain he'll run.

Peter DeFazio, Congressman from Oregon's 4th District, could also jump in. He's fairly well known and quite popular, but he'll have a tough opponent for his current office in Sid Leikin. That might make him less likely to run for Governor if the DCCC asks him to the seat safe.

Bill Bradbury is a sure thing for the race, and he’s got a lot of influence. The former Secretary of State is the only Oregonian in history to win more than a million votes in a contested statewide election. With that kind of resume you’d think he was the favorite, but he will likely be playing catch-up against heavyweights Kitzhaber or DeFazio.

Steve Novick is the real dark horse in this race, but it's a position he's comfortable with. He came out of nowhere and nearly upset Jeff Merkeley for the U.S. Senate nomination with a ferocious grassroots effort. Of course, Merkeley's embarassingly disjointed campaign didn't hurt. Still, Novick's spunk and tenacity could really make some waves in next few months.It would be foolish to count him out at this point.

Citi's Sketchy Political Manipulation

Citigroup is using manipulative tactics to trick unsuspecting college students into opposing President Obama’s plan to overhaul the student loan system. The company, which received $45 billion in federal bailout money, sent an email to its student loan customers (myself included) encouraging them to write their representatives in opposition to the proposed reform.

The current system allows private banks to lend students money for college without any risk, because the loans are insured by the government. Banks make bank with this system, since without any risk the interest is pure profit. Obama sensible reform proposal is to cut out the middle man and have the federal government lend directly to students. Naturually, companies like Citigroup oppose the measure because it would take money out of their pockets and give it back to students.

It’s bad enough that Citigroup is using taxpayer money to foster opposition to banking reform program; the company is also doing it disingenuously. The email is formatted to look like a financial statement email–it’s sent from an email address at the same domain name, it has the same logo, and it has the same footer inviting me to check my statement. The only reason I opened the email was to check my accountable balance. Plus, the arguments in the email are straight up wrong:

May 7, 2009

Dear NICHOLAS ROBINSON,

Thank you for the opportunity to help you obtain the education of your choice. As a student loan provider for the past 50 years, Citi has provided financial aid assistance to millions of students and parents nationwide.

Given the challenging economy and continued increases in the cost of higher education, it is critical that the U.S. student lending system serves the best interests of students and their families. If you believe that competition and choice among student loan providers is valuable, you have an opportunity to make your voice heard.

Why Get Involved?
The government budget outline proposes offering federal student loans solely through the federal government’s Direct Lending Program starting July of next year. While this proposal will not impact a borrower’s ability to obtain a federal student loan, it will eliminate your ability to choose a student loan provider. It will also substantially increase the national debt since each and every federally-insured student loan will be funded by the Federal Treasury through the issuance of treasury securities. This proposal impacts you as a citizen – both as a taxpayer and as a borrower.

Why Does Competition And Choice Matter?
Without private lender involvement through the Federal Family Education Loan Program, students and their families will not enjoy the benefits that competition has made possible for more than 40 years. This competition has provided not only a choice of lenders, but also innovative products and services, such as:

* a variety of borrower benefits that lower your cost of borrowing
* financial literacy programs that educate you on how to borrow responsibly
* web-based tools and resources to advise you about your financing options
* default prevention services to help you pay back your loans

Competition also has driven increased customer satisfaction as a result of the responsiveness, personal attention and on-campus support that student loan lenders have provided to borrowers and schools nationwide.

Make Your Voice Heard
If you value the ability to shop for, evaluate and choose your student loan provider, make your voice heard by contacting your Members of Congress and by signing one of the online petitions that support borrower choice and competition in federal student lending.

Sincerely,

The Student Loan Corporation

Citi highlights four benefits to allowing the private market to suck away student loan customer’s money. The first, that competition produces “borrower benefits” that lower costs, is just a lie. Private banks lend money to make more money; the federal goverment isn’t interested in turning a profit on loans. Who do you think will charge you more for a loan?

Second, Citi says competition encourages companies to offer “financial literacy” programs. The only financial literature I’ve ever received from Citigroup are invitations to sign up for credit cards. Perhaps financial education should be left to institutions that don’t have a financial stake in brainwashing customers…

Third, Citi says they offer convenient web-based tools. The government doesn’t know how to use the internet?

Finally, Citi says they offer default prevention services. I fail to see how the government could possibly offer less help to student borrowers than a giant, multinational conglomerate. Citi should focus less on twisting the truth for political gain and more on managing their company. If they did, we might not be in this mess.

Oklahoma Senate Race

Could Oklahoma's Senate race be competitive in 2010? Probably not. A few eyes of turned to Oklahoma in recent weeks as a possible pick-up for the Democrats next cycle, but it ain't gonna happen.

The speculation started in earnest after Tom Coburn's Q1 fundraising numbers came back at just over $17,000. That's less than we're spending on the school board race I'm running. Is Coburn retiring? Maybe. Will it make Oklahoma in play? Nope. Democrats have three monumental problems:

• Oklahoma is trending red. As Pablo has pointed out, Oklahoma was the single most Republican-friendly state in the country in 2008, a Democratic surge year. Part of the reason was that Oklahoma's economy was relatively untouched by the early part of the recession, but even as economic hardship sets in Okie's will stay true to their hyper-conservativism.


• Republicans have a deep bench. It looks like Mary Fallin is running for Governor, but almost every other big name Republican is thinking about jumping in. Tom Cole, former head of the NRCC, will probably be the front-runner if he chooses to run.


• Democrats have more appealing targets. My guess is that the DSCC is still stinging from the beat down Coburn gave rising star Brad Carson in 2004. With sumptuous targets in Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida (all Obama states), national money won't be flowing into the Sooner State.
  

The bright spot for the Democrats is that Brad Henry might decide to run. He's a popular, term-limited governor who won't have much to do after 2010. But Henry has a structural disadvantage: if Oklahoma's economy remains relatively prosperous, voters probably won't see the need to vote for a change of party in the Senate. But if the economy tanks, Henry gets blamed for it as the sitting governor. Lose-lose.

The other possible candidate is Rep. Dan Boren. Boren has the advantage of being named Boren, but aside from that he isn't a very appealing candidate. I'm skeptical he'd put up much of a fight against a seasoned veteran like Tom Cole.

Oklahoma Republicans Rub It In

If you look at the maps of the US showing the November 4th results, you'll find a pattern of counties that alternate red and blue with one significant exception, Oklahoma. My home state went entirely red. Every single county voted for John McCain over Barack Obama. The state went so Republican that the Republicans gained seats in both chambers of the legislature. The state Republicans could have been gracious (and accurate) and credited racism, or a booming oil economy, but instead they decided to claim the credit and rub it in. Watch their cute flash animation here:


Some Commentary from former Oklahoma Governor (D) David Walters*:

What's the Matter with Oklahoma?

I waited three days in the hopes that my fuming at Oklahoma's counter performance to the collective heave ho that the rest of the nation gave to the Republicans would subside.

It has not.

Amending the title of Thomas Franks' insightful book about how conservatives won the heart of Kansas … "What's the Matter with Oklahoma?" Did we really just do this?
We're the winner of the national championship for the highest McCain/Palin margin at 65.6 percent; the only state where Republicans gained ground in the state house, senate and statewide offices; and the only state in which McCain/Palin carried every county.

Not one of our 77 counties went democratic, not a single blue dot (see chart). Sen. Obama polled 10.8 percent in Beaver County. This was not out of 100 votes where percentages are easily distorted, but out of 2,462 votes cast.

Now you are thinking that we cannot expect much progressive thought out of a county best known for its cow-chip throwing contest (two tries if you lick your fingers after the first). But I have been to Beaver county and met good people and don't understand how 89.2% decided Sarah Palin should be vice president of the United States.

It's not just our friends in Beaver scouring the landscape for aerodynamic cow patties. Twenty-one counties fell below 25 percent for Obama and 39 counties, more than half of the 77, fell below 30 percent.

The top bastion of democratic performance? Cherokee county, where they used to spray for Republicans, held McCain/Palin to "only" 56.percent. The heart of our most democratic county only allowed Obama to get within 12.2 percent of a single county victory. Howard Dean called me as I was looking at these numbers. He wanted to say, "thank you" … for what I have no earthly idea.

I unloaded about our local results, but Howard didn't take the bait. His politically correct language has been finely honed from thousands of scathing attacks on each of his utterances. He opined that the economy is much better in Oklahoma than most states and that many other states have a sizable portion of their population that would normally be concerned about leaders who are "different" than they are. But in those states the economy and the need for change overwhelmed their normal reticence to select someone "unlike" them.

Man that guy can talk.

While I am fuming, foaming, uttering and mumbling obscenities, he sounds like he just graduated from The Obama School of Cool. So should we do anything?
Of course we should. Not just for competitive partisan reasons, but because it's not good for Oklahoma to run so counter.

One national media service recently said based on the polls, the future of the Republican Party lies with "old white people and hayseed states." I don't believe that, but much of the nation does and we don't need to be in that category.

Another pundit said that to understand the current Republican Party one has to "understand the unique culture and politics of Appalachia."

Are you kidding me? Hayseed states and Appalachia! Call your local chamber and ask them if they think this is somehow good for us.

From a national image it's a disaster. From a local basis can you imagine how this emboldens republicans in the state house, now firmly in control of the legislature. Do you think we are going to hear much about education, health care and jobs -- or are we simply going to get a double dose of Guns, God, and Gays?

Gun sales in Oklahoma skyrocketed immediately prior to the election and particularly afterwards. The vast majority of these Oklahoma voters really believe that Obama -- in addition to not being a Christian, being affiliated with terrorists and intent on doubling our taxes -- is also going to take their guns!
What was that comment during the campaign about clinging? So what do we do?

Before we start shouting and stepping all over each other like the national Republicans, we should first calmly talk about process. How do we determine what are the highest contributing factors to this unusual trend in Oklahoma. Let's assume that we can identify with polling and focus groups the top 20 contributing factors, and then perhaps we can identify that half of these we cannot do anything about … but a plan to address the other half may have merit. I have lots of ideas … but I really have to cool off first.

* This was sent in an email which refers to a blog post, several people confirmed that it was David Walters, but I could not confirm.

###
Cross-posted at Poli-Think