Subtle choice for Oregon Republicans
Once you remove Trump from the discussion ...
As happened four years ago, Oregon’s Republicans have a lot of choices in putting forward a nominee for governor. Those may be subtle and tactical choices.
The number of contenders is a little smaller this time but not by much: 14 Republicans are in the field. More practically, however, only four are really in the hunt. A consensus view would list Christine Drazan, a state legislator and 2022 Republican governor nominee; Ed Diehl, a state legislator and a leader of the anti-transportation tax referendum; Chris Dudley, a businessman, former Portland Trail Blazer and 2010 GOP gubernatorial nominee; and Danielle Bethell, a Marion County commissioner, as front-runners.
You can get a sense of this by checking the online betting markets, like Polymarket. There (as of April 15), you could buy a bet for 46 cents that Drazan will get the nomination. Ed Diehl is close but trailing at 39 cents, while Chris Dudley is a more distant third at 18 cents. Chances for everyone else sell cheap for around a penny or less.
But how do, or might, Republicans think about their choices?
Before getting to that, you might consider the messages delivered by the four top contenders at their first debate this year, sponsored by the Oregon Republican Party on April 16 at Hillsboro.
As you would expect from Republican candidates, there was plenty of criticism of Democrat Tina Kotek, on the economy, housing and homelessness, tax limits or their reduction, public safety and other issues. Much of the criticism seemed to center, though, not on the subjects being addressed but on how well (or in their view poorly) the administration is handling them. In Dudley’s neat frame, “it seems like every time Governor Kotek makes something a priority, it gets worse.” Or Bethell’s even simpler, “They fail at everything.” But all four made similar points.
Specific remedies were less abundant. Everyone said the state over-regulates, and a few laws (the Corporate Activity Tax most prominently) were singled out for repeal. But the main affirmative action suggested by the candidates was stronger oversight.
The debate was no aberration from the candidates’ fuller message; their campaign websites conveyed similar thoughts.
In all, the candidates sounded more like Republicans from the Vic Atiyeh era than from 2026. Donald Trump, whose presence utterly dominates current political discussion (whether for or against), and not least at the state government level in dozens of ways, was MIA from the debate. These four candidates seem never to have heard of him. Their relative take on the Trump Administration was very nearly a blank; the name “Trump” was (so far as I could tell) totally unmentioned through the whole debate.
The closest they came were blink-and-you’ll-miss-it passing mentions by Drazan of deporting people in Oregon who aren’t in the country legally and of transgender issues, and Diehl supporting some new timber-related federal forest policies.
But many other top-of-mind subjects also went unmentioned, from AI to data centers to abortion to spiking power rates to the in-state activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to the spread of contagious diseases to possible changes in Oregon’s system of voting.
The candidates took largely the same approach on nearly everything they did discuss – no really sharp differences emerged between them — and anyone looking to make a choice based on policy stances would be left at a loss.
What remains are some of the distinctions more personal to each of the contenders.
Drazan was the nominee four years ago, retains the appeal she had then, came close to winning and was broadly thought to have run a good campaign. The counter would be that she didn’t, in fact, win, and Kotek’s incumbency (and the targets it affords) would be her main additional advantage now.
Dudley came closest among Republican nominees in recent years to winning, in 2010, and has a cutting argument that the problem with Salem can’t be solved by Salem people, but rather by an outsider (like him). But 2010 was a long time ago in political terms. He has spent most of the years since out of state (maybe he was too much of an outsider?), and his ties and connections do not seem especially strong now. And now as then, detailed policy assessments don’t seem to be his strong suit.
Ed Diehl has led a so-far successful referendum effort on transportation taxes (he has an identity on his signage as “Ed no tax Diehl”), and does have ideas on other subjects including the environment and public safety, but will that be enough to convince Republicans he can win in this blue state?
Bethell can and does point to significant personal experience at the Marion County local level in a range of subject areas, but attracting enough statewide support to come out on top seems like a reach.
So, Republicans have a choice on May 19. But the information behind it is likely to be limited.