Oregon’s Fifth Congressional District

After the surprise retirement of Darlene Hooley, this race looks to become one of the most competitive in the country for the fall elections. There is a chance that this district could be the only one that Republicans pick up (i.e. switch from D to R) this fall. And the contest to get into that competition among the Republican candidates is pretty intense.

Mike Erickson is running on the basis of three things.
1) He does not like taxes and feels that repeal of the Bush tax cuts are a tax increase.
2) He ran for the seat in 2006 and voters are familiar with him.
3) He can pay for his own campaign (national Republican coffers are pretty low this election cycle).

Kevin Mannix joined the fray for his own reasons.
1) The voters in the district know him well after 20 years in public life.
2) He won the district in his statewide races.
3) Opportunities to run for open House seats are few and far between.

Erickson has been running television ads that reintroduce him to the district and highlight issues that might move voters—higher taxes and immigration. Mannix, with less money, has been running a campaign that relies more on cheaper means of contacting voters through mailings, networks of supporters, and endorsements (some of which arrive with offers to help the campaign) from crucial groups.

All evidence points to a close race between the two.

Then, the nuclear option. Mannix decided to send a letter to 60,000 voters about allegations that Erickson paid for a girlfriend’s abortion.

Mannix gets tons of free publicity.

Erickson is put on the defensive.

The news came out as about 75% of the ballots to be cast in this election were still in the hands of voters.

Does negative campaigning work? Yes, but at a cost.

Here is what negative campaigning does. It increases turnout among hard core supporters for either side. One side is angered at the charges, the other side is angered at the substance of the charges. Negative campaigning also suppresses turnout among those who are more ambivalent about the candidates or who are still trying to decide between them. This group sees “politics as usual” and just skips this race on the ballot.

The costs are pretty simple. If voters feel the charges against Erickson are true, they will not vote for Erickson. Mannix hopes they will mark “Mannix” on their ballots. If voters feel that Mannix’s action was unethical, they will not for Mannix. Erickson hopes they will mark “Erickson” on their ballots.

The trick is that there is a time factor. Negative campaigning has a time limit—charges that really anger people lose their dominance in the decision making process after a few days. This means that voters will revert to whatever reasons they had for voting for a candidate (or against a candidate) in the first place.

Here’s what I’ll be watching for before Tuesday’s results:

What happened to R ballot return numbers in the last week?

•If they are lower than we anticipated, this might be evidence of voter suppression by the Mannix attacks.

•If they increase, that is a sign that supporters of both really want to have their say about the charges and the candidates.