The candidates debate
The candidates debate
What the first debate tells us about the most fascinating governor's race in America
The first debate between the three candidates for Oregon governor - Tina Kotek (D), Christine Drazan (R) and Betsy Johnson (Unaffiliated) - happened at 2 p.m. last Friday in Welches. If you say you watched the debate live, you are almost certainly lying. People generally do political things at 2 p.m. on a Friday in July that they don’t want other people to notice, e.g. news or document dumps. And people generally don’t do political things in Welches, Oregon at all.
The timing, setting and vaguely high school student body presidential debate aesthetics aside, the matchup was an important one. In the run-up to the debate, the Republican Governors Association, which is helping to fund Drazan’s campaign, called Oregon the GOP’s “best open seat pickup opportunity this year,” according to The Oregonian. That sentiment echoes the guarded optimism for GOP chances in the state, offered by an especially sage and, many people are saying, not-as-weird-as-you’d-think observer earlier in the summer. That is to say, Oregon’s governor race is relevant, here and nationally.
Moreover, the debate, held by the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association as part of its annual convention (hence Welches), was substantive, fair and illuminating of the three candidates’ differing views on how to save Oregon. I would quibble with so much focus on climate change from some questioners, given how low that issue consistently ranks among voter concerns, but the overall format and questions were fair, and designed to elicit substantive responses from the candidates, who mostly obliged. Maybe the 2024 presidential debates, not known in recent decades for their substance, should be held in Welches too.
Stylistically, all the candidates performed relatively well. Johnson read her opening and closing statement, which is not ideal; Kotek referred to notes; Drazan gave her statements entirely off-the-cuff, as far as I could tell. This is not a race in which candidate quality, or lack thereof, is likely to dramatically impact the race. All three are able to communicate their positions
On the substance, it is telling that the entire tone of the debate was that Oregon is in bad shape, and something has to change. That was the tenor of the questions from journalists from around the state, and it was the implicit or sometimes explicit position of all three candidates. Because there was no incumbent on the stage, with least-popular-governor-in-America Kate Brown mercifully term-limited, the candidates were free to impugn the current condition of the state, and they did.
The candidates agreed that homelessness, the longstanding economic hardship in rural parts of the state and forest fires are all pressing problems. The differences arose when the three women described what they would do to fix the problems. In other words, how are they different from Kate Brown?
Of the three, Kotek has the most difficult task in positioning herself relative to the current state of affairs in Oregon, and to her fellow Democrat whom she hopes to replace in office. Kotek was a very influential Speaker of the Oregon House for nine years, spanning nearly the entirety of Brown’s governorship. It is arguable whether Brown or Kotek has had more impact on Oregon policies during that period of time: Kotek is a notoriously aggressive politician while Brown is not. Oregon voters are angry about the economy and homelessness and Kotek cannot easily run away from the big policy decisions made during her speakership.
Accordingly, Kotek didn’t try to create policy daylight between her and Brown. Instead, she repeatedly said she would work hard and effectively. She relied on her track record of getting policies enacted and her reputation as a tenacious advocate in unspoken contrast with Brown. Kotek’s value proposition to voters is, essentially, Oregon’s problems can be fixed by a more assertive and effective implementation of progressive policies. We need to spend more money on homelessness and affordable housing and climate change and education to make those things better, her argument goes. And she’s the one who can succeed where Kate Brown has fallen short.
This play will appeal to Kotek’s progressive base, of course. Many of them wish Brown had gone farther, had kept us masked longer, and more aggressively pursued additional state revenue. Because Johnson, a former Democrat legislator herself, in the race, Kotek cannot take Democrat votes for granted.
On the other hand, Kotek’s “more and better of the same” approach is likely to turn off more moderate voters who have turned strongly against Brown and are looking for a change. Kotek is by far the least change-y candidate in the race, which puts her at a distinct disadvantage in a climate in which Oregon voters are fed up with the status quo.
Drazan, as a Republican, has the advantage of being immediately distinguishable from Brown based purely on party affiliation. Being a Republican running in Oregon has long been a serious disadvantage, but this cycle that my not be true. The vast majority of voters view politics through a binary partisan lens; non-affiliated voters and even more moderate Democrats looking for someone who is not Brown can most easily find it by locating the Republican on the ballot.
Beyond her party affiliation, Drazan’s record as minority leader of the Oregon House put her in a position of opposing many of the policies favored by Brown and Kotek. Because the Democrats needed no votes from Republicans to do much of anything in Salem in recent years, Drazan is free to go all-in on attacking the status quo, which she did effectively during the debate. She chastised her opponents for raising taxes on small businesses and increasing the state gas tax, a hot topic in Oregon, which has approximately the fifth highest gas prices in the nation.
Drazan’s pitch to voters is, essentially, you know that Democrats gave you this mess. You know that I’m a Republican, and I’ve fought all the things the Democrats have done, so I am the clear alternative.
Johnson’s path to victory is the least clear because she is running as a non-affiliated candidate. There will not be an R or a D next to her name on the ballot, which frustrates the instincts of voters. She starts with no real base of support, unlike Kotek and Drazan who can rely upon large numbers of votes (larger for Kotek) from their respective party faithful.
Rhetorically, Johnson shares some of Drazan’s policy critiques, particularly on timber and climate policy, and gleefully (and, at times, hilariously) attacked Kotek as a champion of the status quo, calling her “Tent City Tina” in reference to Oregon’s burgeoning homeless camps. However, because she’s running as a centrist, Johnson must also explain to voters whey she, and not Drazan, is the better change candidate. She attempted to do this during the debate by repeatedly noting that Drazan is pro-life (Johnson and Kotek are both pro-choice).
Johnson’s proposition to angry Oregonians is that she will fix the state, sometimes incorporating Republican ideas and positions, without the social issue baggage of an actual Republican. It’s noteworthy that, to the best of my recollection, neither Johnson nor Kotek mentioned Donald Trump during the debate. Just two years ago, that would have been unthinkable.
Most polls show the race a close one, with the campaigns issuing polls showing their candidate in the lead. The presence of Johnson in the race, assuming she collects the necessary signatures to get on the ballot, makes the Oregon governor’s race a really fascinating, multi-faceted and unpredictable one. With three effective candidates, the outcome will likely hinge on events outside the campaigns themselves between now and November.
Kotek has to hope that gas prices continue to drop and that there is no more high-profile state government bungles, like the failure of the Employment Department to issue unemployment checks during the pandemic. She has to hope that the crime wave in Portland at the very least doesn’t get worse, and that there is no widespread unrest there.
Drazan has to hope that Donald Trump does not announce that he’s running for president, and that the Supreme Court does not issue any more hot-button social issue decisions before the election. She has to hope that neither Brown’s nor Joe Biden’s low approval ratings in the state rebound.
Johnson has to hope that all the hopes of Kotek and Drazan are frustrated, and that voters are faced with, as she would articulate it, a Democrat who’s going to continue to drive the state into the ditch and a Republican who secretly wants to ban interracial marriage.
Buckle up, Oregonians, as the most interesting and unpredictable governor race in the country plays out on our TV screens and in our mailboxes.
As a vote by mail state (and few other options) one wonders if the Democrat play book we’ve seen elsewhere will be employed by Kotek supporters both in and out of State? Especially after watching crooked Maricopa County in AZ boldly trying to do their thing once again with their mail-ins. Just sayin.
Ha ha, I did actually watch it. I thought Drazen did a good job of holding her own and getting her points across. Kotek came across as rude and aggressive. Will be an interesting race for sure!