Well, one possibility would be that Sten's opponent will be best positioned for the general if (s)he can get a good chunk of the voters in the primary. With two moderately strong people in the anti-Sten camp, the anti-Sten vote will be split between them. If there was only one challenger, then they'd come out of the primary with 40%+ percent, which would let them tell potential funders that they are viable and electable, and that a little more $$$ will get them the rest of the way.

Instead, they will be forced to tell people that even though they only got 30%, they can still defeat Sten. That's how I read her comment--the more votes the anti-Sten candidate gets in the primary, the stronger they are on the fundraising front.

It's not possible to read what she wrote that way.

Burdick needs a diverse coalition of support if she's going to keep Sten from hitting 50 percent.

* * * * *

If he's going to serve as more than just Sten's best friend -- the guy who sucked votes away from Burdick and let Sten eke out a May victory

She's quite specifically saying something different from what you've said.

I agree with your point about fundraising, but I don't think the reporter understands the primary-general election system.

Anna wrote:

"the guy who sucked votes away from Burdick and let Sten eke out a May victory"

There are no "two ways to read this". Choosing between Lister and Burdick will have no effect on whether this election is decided in May.

Anna is either spinning for Burdick or she grossly misunderstands how the primary election process works.

Whatever disagreements we may have on policy, your command of electoral math and probability is right on here. What is Anna talking about?

I have heard other people call Lister a "spoiler." He could steal the runoff spot from Burdick, but he can't hurt the chances of there being a runoff.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here. I don't support Burdick, but the Stennies really are proving themselves to have quite the vicious streak. They must think the runoff issue is a close call, but I don't think they're going to pick up too many more votes with long stretches like those.

If anything, I'd think that Lister's presence makes it more likely for there to be a runoff, not less likely. With only one viable candidate (say, Burdick), people choose between the incumbent and the opponent, and unless the opponent is really compelling (or the incumbent really stinks) they will just go with the devil they know. With two viable challengers, you've got more issues to tempt you away from the incumbent.

Yeah, she is covering it as if it is a conventional highest vote total wins general election.

I would hope that the O's political reporter understands how primaries work and just did a really poor job writing; I could see a case that Portland is too liberal for the right wing Lister to win, so if he actually finishes 2nd then Sten wins easily as enough Burdick voters switch to him in the general election. But if that is what she meant she should have said so more clearly.

Lister finishing 3rd doesn't help Sten at all, as you'd expect virtually all of his support to go to Burdick in the general.

Correct. Even a vote for Emilie Boyles is a vote against Sten, and for those who support him and those who want him out, that's all that matters at this point.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here.

That second one is rich, Jack. They are saying that because Burdick accepts contributions which people can later deduct from their taxes, that she is somehow just as guilty as Sten when it comes to receiving taxpayer campaign money? Unreal. Talk about splitting hairs.

Not just as 'guilty' Dave, just hypocritical.

Not just as 'guilty' Dave, just hypocritical.

That's a stretch, and you know it. Sten is taking $150,000 in taxpayer money from a system he designed and refused to let people vote on. Burdick is allowing people to donate money to her, money that they can then claim as a deduction, something that has been in place in Oregon since 1969, and that could have been repealed at any point. Furthermore, she is technically correct: Sten's money is taken from tax revenues, while Burdick's is taken from individual incomes, and then deducted. Sure, it may reduce overall revenues, but the money itself is not drawn from the general fund, as Erik's is. As long as the Stenies want to split hairs and parse things down to the letter, they should think about that.

While we're on the subject of twisted logic, check out the more malicious versions here and here. I don't support Burdick, but the Stennies really are proving themselves to have quite the vicious streak. They must think the runoff issue is a close call, but I don't think they're going to pick up too many more votes with long stretches like those.

"Malicious"? Me? Surely you jest?

Burdick's campaign manager ADMITS she is taking taxpayer dollars. Are you going to add his statements to the pretzel as well?

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that "Stennie" is a bad thing--at least here. But then I'm not suffering from a case of "Lister"-ine, so the way I see it its a push.

If you're really looking for a pretzel, look no further than one who worries about what goes with the Bush Administration's disastrous policies and yet advocates for an individual that voted for him--twice.

Want some mustard with that?

"I must be missing something"? You're being way too kind, Jack.
There's a name for this in the newspaper business. This is what they call a "screw-up."

The big difference between Sten and Burdick on the taxpayer funding vs. tax credits is that the taxpayer is not required to claim the tax credit that Burdick touts. If you don't believe in this form of taxpayer funding, don't take the credit. Under Sten-Blackmer, every taxpayer, water, and sewer customer is forced to pay for Sten and Fritz's campaign whether they believe in taxpayer funding or not.

That's irrelevant, GW. Burdick says in her ads that they're not paid for by tax dollars. Her campaign admits that is not in fact the truth--they are.

Burdick says in her ads that they're not paid for by tax dollars. Her campaign admits that is not in fact the truth--they are.

100% of Sten's money is taxpayer money. Some percentage of Burdick's is taxpayer money, but we have no idea what that % is. In order to claim that "tax dollars" paid for her ads, you'd have to know the exact amount of money contributed to her that was later deducted, and then you'd have to be certain that this money bought the ads.

Another thing: since Sten apparently feels that Burdick is robbing the tax coffers by accepting donations that are later claimed as deductions, will he admit that the tax abatements he wants to give Homer Williams are taking money directly from the schools??

Dave J--
as long as we all agree that percentage is greater than zero, she cannot say it WAS zero--which is what she said.

As far as I know, Sten hasn't even commented on this aspect of her ad, so I think you're creating a strawman on that one.

An aside here about the Lister campaign. I have a very highly placed Democrat in the county party who is wholeheartedly supporting Amanda. When I asked her about the other race, she shrugged and said, "Sten." She registered extreme distate at the prospect of voting for Boyles and stated categorically that she wouldn't vote for a candidate who systematically placed their lawnsigns in the public right-of-way, as have the Lister campaigners. I noted that I hadn't seen the illegally placed signs anywhere other than in SW, but she corrected me and said they are all up and down Powell Boulevard in SE, too. Her final word on it? "If he can't be troubled to follow the law, he ain't getting my vote." And she absolutely hates the VOE concept.

Moral: Don't piss off the motivated voters with egregious violations of the campaign laws. They'll revolt and they'll tell everyone they know about it.

As far as I know, Sten hasn't even commented on this aspect of her ad, so I think you're creating a strawman on that one.

Of course not, he'll let his followers sling the mud. I mean, George Bush never commented on the Swift Boaters, did he? ;)

Two things:

1. Lister pulling votes away from Burdick doesn't help Sten reach 50%. All one can say is the obvious, i.e., that both Lister and Burdick have to pull votes away from Sten for either to win, first in the primary, then the survivor of the two in the general.

2. For Sten to imply that the deductability of donations to Burdick means that she is taking public monies just like Sten is taking public monies in his VOE scam I mean scheme is downright disingenuous. So much so it seems desperate.

2. For Sten to imply that the deductability of donations to Burdick means that she is taking public monies just like Sten is taking public monies in his VOE scam I mean scheme is downright disingenuous. So much so it seems desperate.

(Jack, I promise this is my last post today!) Rusty, you'll love the Stennies other claim, linked by Jack in an above comment: that because Burdick has exceeded the $150K mark by $18K, she has forced Sten to claim another $18K from the VOE fund, thus she has deprived the city's fund of $18,000 that could be better spent on cops and parks. I'm not kidding. It's unreal.

They're clowns. Just like their hero.

Moral: Don't piss off the motivated voters with egregious violations of the campaign laws. They'll revolt and they'll tell everyone they know about it.

That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate.

Our hero--the wind beneath our wings. LMAO

Seriously..Burdick's own campaign says they're taking tax dollars. How tough is that to understand? LOL

Garage Wine,

The tax credit comes packaged with the abandonment of secrecy. Burdick could get donations from mystery sources where no tax credit is claimed, and is unverifiable via the revenue department, then neither disclose the amount or source. ( NAACP v. Patterson 357 U.S. 449 membership list )

Sten could claim to have standing in court, rather than the City itself, to try to discover the amount of secret money spent so as to then deliver the info to the City for submission of a claim for a match. (Would he spend it upfront, with private borrowed dollars, and gamble that he would win in court and thus not be tossed for exceeding the spending limit.)

I've read that piece, Dave--where does it say she forced him? It says she ENABLED him, allowed him, and incentivized him to do so, in so many words--but nothing about forcing. If Burdick were concerned about money being spent by VOE, why is she making further expenditures possible?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Because it's her right to raise and spend as much as she wants. You know, the way it's always been done, here and elsewhere, for centuries?

Now the Stennies are going to guilt-trip her after he took his full campaign cost from the public till, without a public vote? Only in the Incompetent Socialist Republic of Portland. It's laughable.

It's Saltzman's right, too. Somehow he's managing to restrain himself.

Why try to make this about Sten, Jack? He's not being a hypocrite. He believes VOE is a GOOD expenditure of money. It's Burdick who keeps talking out of both sides of her mouth. It's hypocritical to make the cost of VOE a campaign issue--and then trigger increased VOE costs.

You're right. The posts I linked to from the Sten camp are so ridiculous that they really didn't deserve the traffic that my comment may have gotten them.

Good night.

Re: the Lister signs in the public right of way, I'd say that's a rookie mistake. (Imagine what would happen if he got the Water Bureau...zounds!)

Seriously, though— Lister's run a pretty good campaign for a first-timer. I'm expecting him to score surprisingly well. Even though I disagree with him on a lot of specifics and probably his, um, "worldview" as well, I hope he builds on this.

It's hypocritical to make the cost of VOE a campaign issue--and then trigger increased VOE costs.

Therein lies the beauty of this whole scam. It is absolutely tailor made for incumbents. If an opponent limits themself to 150K from VOE, then they and the incumbent are on a level playing field. Only, they are not on a level playing field, because the incumbent has the natural advantages that come with the office.

On the other hand, if the opponent refuses VOE, then the incumbent can either use aforementioned advantages of office to raise a ton of cash, or can take VOE and then get all the additional money when the opponent goes past the 150K mark.

It really is absurd. Why should she be forced to limit her spending to the incumbent's level? That will just hand him the game, as he wins on name recognition alone. So she refuses VOE, and is then condemned when she must raise additional funds to unseat an incumbent? Good lord.

I've seen plenty of Sten signs in the public right of way. It's not a rookie mistake, more like a calculated risk (turn on more people than you turn off).

Jack is right about the math. Every additional challenger increases -- not decreases -- the chance of a runoff as long as the challenger takes even one vote away from the incumbent.

Sten is our Bush.

In regards to Dave Lister's signs. I just have a problem believing that a candidate has total control over who and where the campaign signs are posted. Stating that you won't vote for a candidate because someone put their sign in a public right of way seems a little over the top to me.

Signs in the right-of-way is an old-time, long-time Firefighters' tactic. You needn't bother keeping track of who is doing what with signs in rights-of-way. It's no rookie mistake. It's the Firefighters. The Firefighters are for Sten.

My Lister sign was placed inside my property line but "someone" moved the sign into the public right-of-way. I wonder who would do a thing like that???? Gee, I'm not going to vote for Lister now-he should have a sign patrol constantly on the lookout for such infractions.

I don't about that analogy, Jack. If Sten = Bush, we would at least have invaded Gresham. Which would be awesome!

I'll agree that it's a rookie mistake, but once made, and notified, action should be swift and thorough to assure that it does not reoccur.

It is indeed a tactic to place other folks signs in illicit spots, but that really only works with early sign placement. By the final week plus of the campaign, having the sign in a high visibility placement may be a positive. Both strategies can backfire.

Lister still has my vote, but he needs to reign in whoever is managing his sign placement.

And, to be fair, where I first saw misplaced Lister signs, there was a Sten sign there first. On public property, next to a high traffic count street, with no parking to obscure nor background distractions. The Sten campaign should know better. The Sten sign disappeared before the Lister signs did. They are all gone now. Seemingly, they are reappearing elsewhere.

Is that Lister sign on the exact east end of the Ross Island Bridge still there? Totally public property.

Of course, last time around, I counted dozens of Randy Leonard signs on public property and he knows better.

If Lister scores in double digits in this election, I'll have to shave my head, sit on a flagpole for 30 days or something else weird in deference to Jack and this blog. But it's more likely Sten wins it outright. You may find this odd, but most Portlanders actually like what Sten has been doing the past ten years, especially people who have met him.

Sten is our Bush.

I certainly don't mean this as a compliment but... Sten isn't that bad.

Libertas' observation that Sten would have invaded Gresham is pretty funny though... but maybe Beaverton would be better. Nike = oil?

Sten has already participated in the Battle of Gresham. See photos here, here, and here.

As an observer and hoping for the future of Portland which is the economic driver of the region to be headed up and not down, I am hoping that Lister does well, and there is also a part of me that likes Sten. Each of these guys in there own way is important and I am glad they are both running and speaking out on the issues. I have been a footsoldier knocking on doors in east county to get votes for various measures to fund programs for kids, parks, and transportation. This last time out I felt really guilty, as I believe East Portland is getting a raw deal, but it took getting chewed up and spit out by the local cronies before my eyes were opened and I began to see just how things worked in this town, Jack, thank you also for your educational blog. If you look at the tax structure, and cash flow from the neighorhoods and neglect of the infrastructure (streets, parks) of the common folk especially in East County it makes you ill. I was in council for another issue when that old fellow from East County made his case again for some kind of credits for stormwater runoff, because they pay for such a disproportionate amount of the bill, when they don't contribute to the problem. The Gateway UR district didn't fund any million dollar parks like SoWhat, roads in East County are in awful shape.

It is good that Lister is giving those folks a voice, and I hope for the future of Portland, that he does well so that those folks feel like they have a voice that can be heard and don't give up. Portland needs all its citizens engaged and some honest debate not just the ones who march to the same drum beat, and drown out the concerns or call any one who questions that agenda so that it more fairly represents all the folks in Portland.

If Burdick outshines them, then it also sends a message that the money and strings of the powers that be are as tightly controled as ever, and I don't think that bodes well for Portland. I was so disappointed at WW endorsing Saltzman over Fritz, and Cogen over Lew Fredrick. I hope that the people of Portland will defy the print media and vote for character and independence of these people. It would make for a much livlier November election if this happens, lord knows we will all fall asleep at a Sax-Kulo Governors race.

Hinckley wrote: "That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate."

PLEASE tell me you're not serious. That's f'ing ridiculous.

Dave Lister has run a good campaign. For the shaved head crowd and The Oregonian this fact: 30% of Portland voted for George Bush. Dave Lister is fically responsible, but socially moderate, live and let live. So, the math works this way. Sten screwed up, so says Willy Week, so says Dave's lawn signs, wherever they are. Burdick is a two-faced phoney: Burdick's voter's pamplet piece doesn't mention or say the word business once, not even under occupational background, nor even "I care about small business." Yet, on the campaign trail and in forums she shovels her business shtick off of the pavement day after day. Center/right folks are fooling themselves if they think Burdick will change the status quo at all.

Sten 40%, a nod to encumbency and his feverish supporters; Lister 35%, center/right, who know better than trust wooden Burdick, and knowing center/left voters who want more bang for the buck, and want voters to trust city government again; Burdick 25%, cynical downtown types, center/left who don't care she is selling her sole to the Portland Business Alliance, center/left that are hoping Burdick will betray the PBA once in office.

Sten 40%
Lister 35%
Burdick 25%

There is flexibility here which spells optimism for Dave Lister:
Sten 35%
Lister 33%
Burdick 32%
Hows that for a close race!!!

Lawn signs.... let's not get to self-righteous on behalf of any candidate here, folks. This happens a lot and it is often the doing of over-eager campaign volunteers (I don't know about the firefighters, those lawn-sign kings). You aren't even supposed to plant the things in your own parking strip, since it's city right-of-way.

That said, there have been some egregious offenders out there. Bussey's supporters put signs all over the 39th and Glisan traffic circle a couple years ago. And just the other day, I noticed a Sten sign planted right by the Grant High School track when I was over for a softball game. I resisted the urge to relocate it.

Unless it's clear that there's systematic abuse, we should probably all find other issues to decide our votes.

I also think Lister will beat Burdick, but I'm predicting Sten secures another term in round one.

"Sten is our Bush"

I think I get what you mean here Jack. Bush won handily in '04 with the red state vote because the constituency in the United States of Nascar/NRA America mindlessly swallowed his conservative "family values" fear based gay bashing war mongering diatribe. For whatever reason the red state crowd ignored the incompetency and the lies because Bush was their boy and that's all that mattered. Similarly the majority constituency in the Incompetent Socialist Republic of Portland just can't get enough of their dear Opie. No matter the Water Bureau fiasco, no matter getting his butt kicked on the PGE deal, no matter the failure to secure anything meaningful for 99.9% of his constituency in the South Waterfront District while the fat cats make millions with the help of our tax dollars, no matter the Voter Owned Elections fiasco which was so poorly conceived that it basically turned a into a tax payer sponsored welfare fraud scheme. (i.e. you give me 5K, I'll get you 150K, and then you give me 15K). The Willamette Week's endorsement of Sten was the biggest journalistic blow job I have seen in a long time. "Hey...Sten's our liberal white knight. He says all the right things and hates the greedy corporations...who cares about the results?" Maybe all the Stennies can get together at Dignity Village and pat each other on the back when they win the upcoming election. Way to go guys...way to go.

Wow. Pre-emptive sour grapes!

Hinckley wrote: "That's my first method of eliminating a candidate from consideration. If lawn signs are planted where it's obvious that permission was not granted from the property owner, then I will not vote for that candidate."

PLEASE tell me you're not serious. That's f'ing ridiculous.

I'm totally serious. Two reasons:

(1) If a candidate has no respect for property rights when they're running for office, that demonstrates to me they'll have no respect for property rights once IN office.
(2) It's a short step between "I had no idea where my lawnsigns were being placed" and "I had no idea the tram was going to cost $55 million". Ignorance is no excuse.

BTW - on my way out of Portland this evening, I took note of the following candidates who had illegally placed signs: Borg, Fritz, Lister, Sorenson, and Sten.

So... have you shredded your ballot yet?

If you won't vote for a candidate with misplaced lawn signs... and there appear to be a lot of those (from most, if not all campaigns)... then it seems that you will have no one to vote for.

FLASH...: This Bullitin: The Multnomah Village Post, May, 2006 FRONT PAGE review of the debate co-sponsored by Southwest neighborhoods, Inc. and neighbors West/Norhtwest.

"Portland City Council Position #2"
"Dave Lister, the first candidate for City Council Position #2,... "

Pulitzer Committee: First newspaper story in Portland to lay out the story, make that emerging story of this race. MUST READ for people to see what a leading newspaper reads like when they report the story of the campaign trail and forums as they have been happening all month(s).

The Multnomah Post lays out in simple quotes what The Oregonian has been missing all season,
some would say: willfuly ignoring, what this campaign is about. They are so invested in their candidate that they seem to fail to report up to the best of their ability.

Jack I've read this paper for years and I respect their efforts to illuminate the issues in Southwest Portland as they see it.

Think of it this way, what would happen if the Oregonian was reporting this way, what would the race look like?

Read the the rest of the "POST" too.
The tram story is right next to a picture of Ginny Burdick's face.

Sten is Blair, thats Tony Blair, his government is on the rocks in England, Sten has hit the rocks here in Portland. And the Oregonian celebrates "weird" in their weird editorial today, Saturday. I think the writer popped a spring, as all their cherished notions are lanced like balloons. Their distortions of the candidates records particularly Burdick's shows the extent they are willing to go to throw the race to their favored candidates.