Ridenbaugh Press

Mike Erickson

Kevin Mannix

The hottest Oregon race at this moment is a U.S. House hot enough to break through to the national political dialogue, and hot enough that the Oregonian seems to suggest one of the two main contenders drop. Whichever is in the wrong, that is.

The 5th District Republican nomination race - contenders being businessman and 2006 nominee Mike Erickson and former legislator and state office candidate Kevin Mannix - has become nearly unpredictable. It could take another twist, of course, if one of the candidates turns out to have a teflon shield against the newly-dropped bomb. But . . .

The bomb was Mannix’ release of an e-mail, and followup statements (supported by the writer of the mail) saying that Erickson (who has run on a strong pro-life campaign) in 2000 impregnated a much younger woman and paid for her abortion; there are subsidiary charges (such as cocaine use) as well. Erickson has denied the substance, and argues Mannix is releasing the material because he is behind in the polls (which he seems to be); otherwise, he has maintained a low profile since the story broke. Mannix said he wanted to show what kind of person Erickson is. Mannix met with the Oregonian on Tuesday, and the paper said in an editorial today that “for the moment he appears to have the superior credibility.”

A few thoughts. (more…)

Jeff Merkley

Steve Novick

The big battle this morning over at Blue Oregon has to do with the latest polling results - two of them - in the U.S. Senate Democratic primary.

The Portland Tribune and KPTV-TV poll (Davis/Hibbits poll, 4.8% MOE) has attorney Steve Novick leading House Speaker Jeff Merkley 29%-23%. The other, third in a series of SurveyUSA polls (MOE 4%), has Merkley moving in a lead (after being behind previously), 31%-27%.

Two things jump out from both of these polls.

One is the high percentages still being attributed to the other, lesser-known candidates. Candy Neville has turned in some solid debate performances, but she doesn’t have a large-scale campaign, and we’d be stunned if she got the 11% SUSA now projects (Hibbitts’ 3% seems closer to the mark), and the others aren’t likely to reach much past a percentage point each.

More striking is the large number of still-undecided voters - 43% according to Hibbitts, 24% according to SUSA.

Bearing in mind the margins of error, the high votes for the other candidates and the massive undecideds, the take-away from these polls seems obvious: No one knows what the hell is going to happen.

Can’t pass this one up. The Hill newspaper at D.C. asked all of the U.S. senators - all but the three running for president - what they would say if asked to join a ticket and run for vice president.

A few suggested that, sure, if asked, they’d probably do it, or at least give it serious thought. (Great answer from Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Isakson: “I would not be so presumptuous as to think I’d even thought about that. And I’d have to talk to my wife. Hey, that’s an honest answer.” And it doubtless is.)

Senators Gordon Smith of Oregon and Mike Crapo of Idaho simply dismissed the prospect; Patty Murray of Washington said she would be “honored” but figure the prospect unlikely. Maria Cantwell of Washington: “Does that include any sports picks or anything like that? … I would certainly consider it.”

Ron Wyden of Oregon had a more involved answer: “I have a unique perspective on this. I am the only senator to have announced I am not running for president because there should be someone here to serve as the Senate’s designated driver. I intend to stay in that position. The Senate needs a designated driver to stay behind and work on healthcare.”

But first place for top answer goes to Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig (whose recent background surely needs no description here). Succinct: “I would say ‘No, Hillary.’ ”

The three-week mail-in stretch for Oregon voters, the period from when they get their ballots to the deadline for submitting them, has subsidiary effects, including the difficulty of running a hard last-minute attack on one’s opponent. Those 11th-hour bashings usually depend on the opposition getting little chance to respond; but what do you do when voting takes place over a three-week window?

Kevin Mannix, and his Republican primary opponent in the Oregon 5th House District, Mike Erickson, may find out. Today, Mannix released an e-mail (though only the first name of the sender) who alleges that Erickson used cocaine during wild boat parties several years back, and also paid for the abortion of a woman he had impregnated. Mannix says his campaign checked out the information and stands by it. Erickson says it simply isn’t true.

The primary election deadline is a week from tomorrow. Ballot returns so far are estimated at 13%.

The release comes just as polling seems to be showing Erickson moving decisively ahead of Mannix, who had been the presumed frontrunner.

This has been a stunningly roughhouse Oregon primary season. And this big of roughness may set the new mark.

We’ve suggested in a few posts that the 5th District Republican contest, which has been broadly assumed to be lining up for legislator and gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix over rerunning businessman Mike Erickson, may be turning. The weight of Erickson TV ads, mostly aimed hard at Mannix, could be having effect.

There’s not been a lot of polling, but a SurveyUSA poll from April 13-15 put Erickson at 44% and Mannix at 40%. That was within the margin of error. But SUSA was back in the field last week (through Thursday) and putting Erickson at 49% and Mannix 41%, right at the margin of error. With not many votes left undecided. With polling happening during the early part of actual ballots cast.

This could turn into a nailbiter.

There’s a commonplace in looking at election polls: They’re a snapshot in time, and changing conditions can and do change the numbers as time goes on. When, for example, you have two political parties, and one has a settled nominee while the other has candidates still fighting it out, you have a condition that will change with time. Once the party still fighting it out settles on a nominee, its numbers (reflecting in part the new-found unity) tend to go up.

You can take that as a commentary on the presidential campaign: The fact that Republican John McCain’s numbers, when matched against either of the battling Democrats Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, currently are close, is a long-term ominous sign for McCain.

But consider the local implications for the Oregon U.S. Senate race. The Rasmussen Reports polling just out shows Republican Gordon Smith winning 45%-42% against Democrat Jeff Merkley, and 47%-41% against Democrat Steve Novick. The season in Oregon has been dominated by the Merkley-Novick battling, and many Democrats in the state are as partisan in their choices between them as many Democrats nationally between Clinton and Obama. If they’re this close now, in the heat of the battle - indeed, as the battle has been heating up - what will happen a few months from now?

Add to that the trend lines. Since polling February, according to Rasmussen, Smith has shed three points of support while Merkley has gained 12; in the race with Novick, Smith is down one and Novick is up six.

Could this have something to do with the unusual sight, on Oregon television, of attack ads from the Smith campaign hitting before the Democratic primary is even over? An unusual kind of action for a front runner to take . . .

Amid the mass of coverage and other materials (for those living in-state, e-mails on top of everything else) from the presidential visits today, we’ll draw some attention to a piece in the Corvallis Gazette Times which actually included transcript of a short interview with Barack Obama.

It’s a well-rounded piece of coverage from the stop at Albany (which is about 10 miles from Corvallis).

Obama office

Clinton office

The comedian Lewis Black has a great bit about how he discovered the end of the universe, and it came to mind today.

He said that the end of the universe has a specific location on this planet - in Houston, Texas, on a street corner in its downtown. There, one day, he paused on a walk and noticed that he was standing in front of a Starbucks. Then he looked up and saw that directly across the street, on the same block, directly facing the Starbucks, there was another Starbucks! [Pause to catch breath.] And that, he told the audience, is the end of the universe.

Prowling around the political websites today, we saw the startling news that the Barack Obama campaign was opening a campaign office in McMinnville, Oregon, one of 19 (at last count) offices around the state. This was actual news; presidential campaign offices often have appeared in Portland, but not in the smaller communities. McMinnville is a city of 30,000 people, and only 45 minutes from either Portland or Salem. So far as a number of long-time residents we’ve talked to know, McMinnville has never had a presidential campaign office. This assertion had to be verified.

A stroll downtown, on the city’s attractive Third Street, confirmed it. Hand-crafted Obama signage was out on the sidewalk and on the doorway, and on the stairway that led upstairs to an office suite where a clutch of Obama backers (most or all volunteers) were at work, and other volunteers came and went. The square footage there was generous, and the space was donated. It was not especially fancy, but it was quite functional, and more important, busy.

The Obama list of Oregon offices includes some unlikely places - St. Helens, Tillamook (a third the size of McMinnville), Pendleton, North Bend, Oregon City. (And, two in Portland, and Beaverton, Hood River, Corvallis, Salem, Roseburg, Forest Grove, Eugene, Medford, Astoria, Bend, Gresham.)

The Hillary Clinton Oregon office list is a roster that would be mind-boggling impressive under any other comparison: Portland, Asotoria, Beaverton, Corvallis, Bend, Gresham, Medford, Salem, Springfield. No McMinnville.

But on exiting the Obama office and glancing to the left, a familiar-looking sign appeared off the sidewalk. And there it was: Just down Third Street, barely 100 yards, just a block away, on the same side of the street - a Hillary Clinton headquarters, just being opened this very afternoon, boxes being unpacked and signs being posted.

We’ll not call this the end of the universe. But something significant is going on.

We’re among those thinking the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is strategically over - all that’s needed is for the next steps, over the next few weeks, to play out. (Actually, we’ve thought that for a couple of months; only the precise percentages in specific contests, not the overall structure and dynamic of the race, has been in doubt since early March.)

So what does May 20, Oregon primary election day, mean in that context?

Spokesmen for the Barack Obama campaign have said they see it as a big milestone. And it may be, to a point. The Democratic procedure for apportioning delegates, giving both major candidate similar numbers of delegates out of each state whether they win or lose (Pennsylvania did not massively wipe Obama in the delegate count, nor did North Carolina cost Hillary Clinton much margin). Rather, once one candidate early on was able to establish a majority of delegate votes, that majority would become almost impregnable thereafter if both candidates had comparable strength. And since early March, that scenario - no matter all the hoorah in the headlines - has been playing out smoothly. In the next few weeks it will play out again. At this point, Obama has collected enough pledged (elected) delegates that he needs just 38 more to have collected more than half of all pledged delegates - a major marker other delegates are watching closely.

After next Tuesday’s election in West Virginia (which Obama likely will lose decisively) he probably will gain another 10 or so delegates. Week after that comes Kentucky (which Clinton will probably win) and Oregon (probable for Obama), which between them should yield to Obama another 45 or so delegates. Which crosses the line.

This whole thing is psychological, though; Obama will need to continue trudging on after that. And getting the majority of pledged delegates will not translate to the nomination: He will need additional superdelegate votes for that.

But after May 20, those superdelegates may become easier to get. And that may be a mark the Obama forces will want to celebrate.

The primary season in Oregon this year has its real points of interest toward the top of the ballot - Democratic presidential, Democratic Senate, both parties in the 5th U.S. House district. But less so down ballot.

There are some notable city and county races; the Portland mayor’s office could be decided in this primary (there’s a growing sense that businessman Sho Donozo’s one-time balloon has burst and Councilor Sam Adams, rising steadily, with good media and heavily endorsed, just might clear the 50% mark in the primary despite the multiplicity of candidates). On the legislative front . . . not so much.

The differences between a lot of these legislative candidates are subtle and stylistic more than on policy. (You probably could say that about Adams and Donozo, too, if Donozo’s views were expressed more clearly.)

There aren’t even all that many legislative primaries: 19 in total, for 75 legislative seats on the ballot with potential for 150 ballot slots. And some of those look, simply, minor, contests in which one candidate clearly will roll over the other. (See for example, in District 4, veteran incumbent Republican Representative Dennis Richardson against Ronald Schutz, a retiree whose political background seems to consist one failed run for the Grants Pass City Council.)

Let’s take a quick look at the contested legislative primaries in Oregon this year, the 10 Democratic and nine Republican (two each in the Senate, the rest in the House: (more…)

They’ve both got their backers. But in the newspaper endorsement race - for the Democratic nomination for the Senate - attorney Steve Novick is leading House Speaker Jeff Merkley. (Merkley did finally get today a positive story in the Oregonian, but that’s one of the few media breaks he’s gotten in months.)

How the endorsements, so far at least, break down:

Novick: The Portland Oregonian (this is by far the big one), the Medford Mail-Tribune, the Pendleton East Oregonian, the Ashland Daily Tidings, Willamette Week (weekly), the McMinnville News Register, the Portland Mercury (weekly), the Portland Tribune.

Merkley: The Eugene Register-Guard, Salem Statesman-Journal, Bend Bulletin.

Advantage: Novick. His advocates seize on his unconventional style, political and policy smarts and passion; Merkley’s point to a strong record in the Oregon House. Actually, most of the editorials make both sets of points about these candidates, the difference coming in where you put the emphasis. But this has to be said: More often than not, newspapers will go with the more conventional, establishment choice, and the one with the longer resume of public offices. This time, even while offering few criticisms of Merkley, they didn’t. The newspaper editorial boards (at the primary stage at least) should have been a Merkley audience.

ALSO Seems in our review that Illinois Senator Barack Obama has swept the newspaper endorsements in Oregon so far. Or has Hillary Clinton picked up one we missed? (Among the majors and others, we know the Oregonian, the Register-Guard, the Willamette Week have endorsed Obama; the Salem Statesman-Journal plans a presidential endorsement on Sunday.)

UPDATED Edited to add two recent Novick endorsements. And to note here that we’re considering only endorsements by general-interest news publications aimed at a broad community, not a specific interest (and some of those have endorsed in the Senate race too).

No, not so much the number of yard signs in front of houses or on property (though there is that, too). Rather, in this case, the ease with which a supporter can actually go get a yard sign.

That’s often not as simple as you might think. While campaigns may aggressively seek out some prime spots for signage, what seems like a diminishing number of campaigns actually make it easy for an interested supporter to simply get one.

So check this out from the Steve Novick (U.S. Senate in Oregon) campaign: Detailed instructions on where exactly to get signs, and lists and maps of 25 places around the state (spottier in the east, but then most human organization is) where they can be had. Many pointed to supporters, who in turn will help build the organization.

The current dustup over robo-calls - effectively a kind of push polling without the poll - in North Carolina (where state officials have started an investigation) apparently extends much further. As in, to the Northwest.

The same group apparently has sent out a bunch of mailers in Oregon, asking recipients to register to vote. (They screwed up, though: By the time it reached their targets, the registration deadline had passed.) An example has been posted on the Talking Points Memo web site.

The recent raft of stories about shifts and increases in voter registration in Oregon - especially the pickup in Democratic numbers - have tended to look at the short run of the last three or four months. Which has generated some interesting stats, but we thought we’d take a little longer look - the numbers from March 2007 compared to March 2008.

The Oregonian reported a couple of days ago, for example, that “Oregon Democrats, who began the year with about 70,000 more registered voters than Republicans, have doubled that advantage, which stood Friday at 826,984 Democrats to 685,344 Republicans.”

So what over the course of a year?

In March 2007, Democratic registrants in Oregon totaled 767,214, and Republicans 703,564 - a gap of somewhat over 63,000. In March 2008: Democrats, 803,042 (a gain of around 35,000), and Republicans 685,469 - a loss of about 18,000. Two points: A Democratic gain has been underway for an extended period, throughout the last year; but about 22,000 voters of it - a big portion - has emerged in just the last few weeks. (But might some of those be primary election switchers? The March-March count comparison does control for that to a degree.)

As of the Secretary of State’s March reports, Democrats are in the majority in Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Hood River, Lane, Lincoln, Multnomah (approaching 3-1 there), Tillamook, Wasco, and Washington. In March 2007, Clackamas and Washington were majority Republican.

Even in the smaller counties, you see some fallout. Baker County Democrats went from 3,009 to 3,013, and Republicans fell from 4,809 to 4,749 - down 60, in a county with fewer than 8,000 voters and very little Democratic official presence. (In Multnomah County, Republicans lost about 4,000 registrants.)

Another point worth making: The number of non-affiliateds dropped from March to March, from 441,491 to 431,773 - about 10,000.

One more thing. Oregon’s most heated major contest this year looks to be the U.S. House race in District 5, and the party registration shifts may have something to say about that. Not much noted so far has been the shift in registration in the 5th, which usually has been described as a very close or maybe Republican-leaning district (and understandably, when you see that most of the legislators there are Republican).

However. In March 2007, Democrats there numbered 143,301, and Republicans 149,474. Last month, Democrats totaled 149,377 and Republicans 145,692 - a gain of about 6,000 and a loss of about 4,000, respectively, and a switch in preference. (Non-affiliated lost about 5,000 in the 5th.) That could be enough to make a difference in an otherwise close race, as this one prospectively could be.

There’s a temptation to just sort of forget about the Republican presidential primary in Oregon. All the main party organizational backing has either coalesced behind Arizona Senator John McCain, or at least isn’t standing in the way. McCain has, among other things, the newspaper endorsements and something more powerful: Enough delegate votes to essentially ensure his nomination for president. He will sweep the Republican primary in Oregon; that is not in doubt.

All a given. But.

Traveling around the Willamette Valley last Friday, we noticed just two presidential candidates with signage along the highways and some of the far-flung residential areas we saw. We spotted some signs for Democrat Barack Obama. But those were heavily outnumbered by the front-running sign-placer in the region: Republican Ron Paul.

Paul’s supporters seem not to be giving up, even if their guy obviously isn’t going to be the nominee. You ee the indications all over; a news story from Nevada today, for example, led with this: “Outmaneuvered by raucous Ron Paul supporters, Nevada Republican Party leaders abruptly shut down their state convention and now must resume the event to complete a list of 31 delegates to the GOP national convention.”

So, what of Oregon . . .

Hadn’t watched the Ron Wyden health plan video; just didn’t quite seem to make it to the top of the stack. An e-mail this morning from Wyden’s office included a number of reviews of it, suggesting there might be some entertainment value there. Call us dubious - an entertaining video on a senator’s health care plan.

Well, it is. We’ll give it a thumbs up. But as the e-mail points out, you might want to watch this somewhere other than in an easily observed computer at your workplace. This video actually has a subversive edge: The theme that Wyden’s health plan upholds “the fundamental right of every American to take this job and shove it.”

And, from Idaho, where Paul just delivered a talk at Caldwell: “The self-professed reluctant candidate packed the house Friday as more than 900 people filled the College of Idaho’s Jewett Auditorium to capacity to see Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.”

This thing could win some converts.

Among the various reforms of the presidential nomination process the parties - this applies especially to the Democrats - might consider for 2012, high up on the list ought to be simplifying delegate selection and apportionment. It ought to be simple enough that a lay audience can grasp it. Really isn’t right now.

Having said that, a few words on what’s at stake: The delegates Oregon will select. As we understand it. (If anyone spots a flaw in what follows, please notice it in the comments. Thanks.)

It’s becoming, rapidly, very hot out here. Former President Bill Clinton will be back this weekend, even visiting a high school (at McMinnville) about five miles from our home base, among other places ranging from North Bend to Portland. We expect the Obama crew will be back soon too before long.

According to the records of the Democratic National Committee, Oregon’s convention delegation will total 74 people. Of those, nine will be alternates, so that leaves 65 delegates as such. 12 will be “superdelegates” (top elected officials and party officers). The convention will select additional six of delegates who are elected officials or party leaders, and an “unpledged add-on”, who likely will be former Governor Barbara Roberts.

The remaining delegates - meaning, their presidential preferences - will be selected in the May 20 primary, in two different ways. A dozen will be “at large” - selected based on the statewide vote. The other 34 will be selected by congressional district, split among the five House districts in the state; the districts get more or fewer delegates based on the Democratic vote there. So District 2, the eastern Oregon district that runs very heavily Republican, gets just five delegates; District 3, the central Portland district which is as strongly Democratic, gets nine. District 5 gets six, and 1 and 4 get seven apiece.

So how many delegates might Obama and Clinton get? Because of the proportionality rules, neither will likely pull any massive advantage out of Oregon. If Obama wins with a clear margin, he will probably pad his lead over Clinton by five or six delegates, but probably not more than that. (Everyone may be wondering the day after: Is this all that sound and fury was about? Well, maybe that and bragging rights.)

There’s a thorough analysis up in a diary on Daily Kos, breaking down the likely outcome by category and district. Because a massive statewide win would be needed to do better than tie in the at-large delegate counts, diarist Skaje figures Obama may take those 7-5, though a tie is nearly as likely. But figures Obama takes one-delegate leads in four of the congressional districts, and ties in District 5 (actually, he figures a win there but not enough to split the delegates 6-4, which would require a landslide). The net result would be 29-23 if Obama wins much more than 10%, and 28-24 if by less.

A lot of fuss over very few votes.

UPDATE As e’ve half suspected, a couple of the procedural details were wrong: A state Democratic official (involved with writing the rules) got in touch with the straight data. The post has been updated to reflect that.

His take on the Kos post was that the analysis was less than thorough, considering as it did just one poll result and some questionable congressional district outcomes. But the feeling was that the diarist’s end result - a very small number of delegates realistically at stake - was about right.

T-minus a week to two (there’s some flexiblity) for the mailing, and then the marking, of primary election ballots in Oregon. (Deadline, and counting day, is May 20.) Time to take stock. Herewith, a short overview of the main races on the ballot, in this post those for major office, and upcoming a rundown of the most notable legislative contests. They’re listed more or less in order of significance (as we work it out) . . .

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

President/Democratic. Has to go first - who ever would have figured three months ago that the Oregon contest might have had real national significance? And yet it could, ironically because it is so late in the season. Only one Democratic primary election date, June 3, will follow the concurrent Oregon/Kentucky contests, and both of those small states are probably gimmes for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, and Kentucky is widely considered a slam for New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Oregon is as close as it gets to a genuine end-game contest between the two. (Although be it noted: We’re in that large crowd of analysts who’ve concluded - in our case ever since the Wisconsin primary - that the only way Clint wins the nomination is through some wildly unforeseen earth-shaking event; the odds against her at this point are overwhelming.)

Not that the point should be pressed too far: We’d bet on Obama winning Oregon, albeit we’re less sure of the margins. Both campaigns are digging in deep and hard, Bill Clinton is already scheduled for a return visit, and Oregon could become scorched political country over the next month. Right now, the May 6 Indiana and North Carolina primaries necessarily get top billing and attention, but after that (assuming the race is still on) Oregon logically rises to the top of the field. Question: What impact might this have on in-state races? (more…)

Probably got started with a perfectly reasonable idea: A form has been received by a group of people; one person well-experienced in filling it out passes his finished version around, to show how the task might be handled. A template, meant to be used as guidance for dealing with the matter at hand.

Not with the idea that every word be plagarized.

So the Oregonian story today about the House Republican caucus members who wound up submitting word-for-word same answers on the paper’s candidate questionnaire raises a string of issues. That the filled-out form by Representative Bruce Hanna, R-Roseburg, was sent around to the others, isn’t an issue; it might simply have shown some useful ways to address whatever was asked. But what does the direct copying by some of his fellow caucus members (all of which would be sent to the same people) say about the members’ capacity for or willingness to exercise independent thought? Among other things.

Kate Brown

The three main Democratic candidates for Oregon secretary of state have a lot in common: All veteran state senators, all from larger urban areas, all more or less centrist within their caucus, all in various ways highly knowledgeable, with some inclination to deliver an essay’s worth of detailed response to even fairly narrow questions. The three are very distinct anyway, maybe most especially in the way they see the office and how they might address it.

We’ve written here before about two of the contenders, Vicki Walker of Eugene and Rick Metsger of Welches. This morning we participated in a blogger call with Kate Brown, until recently the Senate majority leader, still the top fundraiser and probably (though debatably) the front-runner among the three. If Walker’s stance is as a tough populist auditor and guardian, and Metsger’s is more attuned to economic development alongside linking stat government to people on the ground, Brown’s take seems to be something else again.

She sounds more directly focused, for example, on elections management (which has been one of her central issues as a legislator). Among three priorities she cited for the office, two were elections-related: integrity in the initiative system, enhancing voter registration, and picking up steam on performance audits of state agencies.

One of the few specific distinctions from her opponents she offered (she didn’t specifically bring up their names at all) is that she was the only one of the three with direct experience in legislative reapportionment. (The secretary of state remaps legislative districts if the legislature is unable to reach a conclusion on it; just that happened at the beginning of this decade.)

She spoke on something else too in the election field that could be a significant factor in years to come, as the electorate becomes increasingly wired into the political system - a “tension between direct and representative democracy.” She even suggested that “the challenge for representative democracy [as in state legislatures] is remaining relevant.” Her take seems to be that initiatives and other direct ballot efforts may become increasingly powerful as time goes on, and the legislature could merge some of its activities with that, such as putting state budget proposals on line and soliciting voter responses to it. At the same time, she suggested steps could be taken to put ballot issues through something more of a vetting process, so fewer of them are tossed out by courts after being passed by voters.

In all, it’s an intriguing vision of where politics and governing may be headed.

Her campaign doesn’t seem totally focused on any of that. It has out three videos with the theme, “What can Brown do for you?” They suggest an active and responsive legislator, but only to a limited degree the work of a secretary of state.

She’s obviously given it plenty of thought, though. And, like her two competitors, reaching some intriguing answers. The primary winner will have some useful material to cherry-pick from the others after the May election is over.