Oregon Senator Gordon Smith retains his position as the most vulnerable incumbent Republican up in 2008 without a strong challenger. A poll conducted for attorney Steve Novick (D) shows him trailing Smith 50%-27%. Novick is the best-known candidate in the race, with 46% name ID, according to the poll, leading businesswoman Eileen Brady and talk show host Jeff Golden, who each have 43% name ID.

Democrats have had a difficult time recruiting against Smith. Their top potential candidates, including Reps. Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, state Treasurer Randall Edwards and the party's perpetual target, former Governor John Kitzhaber. The DSCC was close to getting DeFazio in the race, and released a poll in February showing him beating Smith 42%-38%.

To beat Smith, Democrats are rumored to be luring House Speaker Jeff Merkley into the race. Whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, Smith won't be surprised by a close race. The two-term Senator has more than $3.5 million in the bank.

Some side notes about Smith: His mother was a cousin of former Congressman Mo Udall (D-AZ), making Smith another member of the family the dynasty has sent to Washington (also including Udall's son, Mark, a Colorado Congressman; his nephew, Tom, a New Mexico Congressman; and his brother, Stewart, who actually held Mo's seat first before being elevated to Interior Secretary by President Kennedy).

Oregon is also one of a few states that doesn't mind second chances. After losing a special election to Senator Ron Wyden (D) in 1996, Smith came back to win the state's other seat the same year, when Oregon legend Mark Hatfield retired. Like Smith, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), John Ensign (R-NV) and John Thune (R-SD) all serve with senior senators from their home states who once beat them in a general election (Chuck Hagel, Harry Reid and Tim Johnson, respectively). New Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (R) lost a primary bid by just one point in 1996 to his colleague Mike Enzi (R-WY).

More debate fallout this morning, including CNN's Washington bureau chief, David Bohrman, whose job it was to wade through 3000 questions and come up with a good sample of questions. The article comes with the revelation that Bohrman offered Democratic campaigns a chance to draw straws for positions on stage. If five of the eight campaigns had said yes, Bohrman says, positions would have been assigned randomly. It is understandable that Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards would vote no and maintain their center-stage positions, but is it really likely that the other five would want to keep their out-of-the-way podia?

UPDATE: Forgot to point out that, while many loved the CNN-YouTube debate, it didn't generate a giant television audience. AP reports that the event drew 2.6 million viewers, down from last month's Democratic stop in New Hampshire. (Note that the Union Leader is the one running that AP story)

The rest of the ABC-Washington Post poll is out today, offering further confirmation that the GOP race is more fluid than the Democratic side. Among Democrats, support for the frontrunners, Clinton and Obama, is a combined 67% (jumping to 75% when Al Gore is excluded from the race). 68% of Clinton voters say they support the New York senator "strongly," while 56% of Obama voters say the same about Illinois' favorite son. On the GOP side, just 32% of his voters say they favor New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani strongly, while 67% only say they favor him somewhat.

The poll did not ask the same question about former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, though when he formally gets in this question will be an important gauge of whether he meets or fails to meet conservative expectations.

(The poll also shows that just 9% of those who have not watched the debates have the guts to say they're "just not that interested".)

--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------