Tina Kotek, Betsy Johnson and Christine Drazan will have one thing in common as they approach the gubernatorial election in November.

Each will be labeled as “too extreme for Oregon,” regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum. (I’ve never figured out why “too extreme” is a preferred pejorative in negative campaigning, as if some unspecified level of extremism is deemed acceptable.)

2022 undoubtedly will be the most expensive governor’s race in Oregon history and likely among the nastiest. Labor unions and other Democrat-leaning groups already are savaging Democrat-turned-independent Johnson as extreme. (They must be saving “too extreme” for later.) Republicans are warning that liberal – or progressive, if you prefer that label – Democrat Kotek is more Kate Brown than unpopular Gov. Brown herself. And Democrats and centrists are painting Republican Drazan as a danger to Oregon as we know it, including to abortion rights.

Author Robert Fulghum is credited with, “Don’t believe everything you think.” An essential corollary for campaign season is, “Don’t believe everything you see, hear or read about how awful a candidate is.” The just-concluded primary election season was rife with mischaracterizations, as multiple news stories have documented fairly. The fall season will be worse.

Campaigns go negative because it works, or so they believe. For most candidates in the primary, it didn’t succeed. They lost anyway.

Carrick Flynn’s supporters, including a cryptocurrency billionaire and a Democratic establishment PAC, discovered that Oregonians still prefer a candidate with whom they can connect in person. Despite the unprecedented millions of supposedly independent dollars squandered on Flynn’s behalf, he barely got half as many votes as Andrea Salinas, who won the Democratic primary for Oregon’s new 6th Congressional District.

Meanwhile, the Taxpayers Association of Oregon is chortling about Matt West, who campaigned on, “Tax the rich and save the planet,” finishing in lowly fifth place.

Of course, those results are suppositions until the Clackamas County Clerk’s Office does its, uh, duty. More about that in a moment.

As for campaigning, a good ground game still matters. Republican Sen. Mark O. Hatfield consistently won re-election in part because of his well-organized volunteer organizations in every county. Countless Oregonians knew “Mark” on a first-name basis. I believe a weak ground campaign contributed to Republican Sen. Gordon Smith’s narrow loss to Democrat Jeff Merkley in 2008.

Fifth District Congressman Kurt Schrader may have suffered that same affliction this year. He came across as detached from the district, whereas such members of Oregon’s congressional delegation as 4^th District Rep. Peter DeFazio routinely are back home in Oregon when not on Capitol Hill.

Wikipedia already says Schrader lost the Democratic primary to Jamie McLeod-Skinner, which seems likely but depends on the final vote totals from, uh, Clackamas County.

Liberal/progressive Democratic women fared well in Oregon’s primary, such as Kotek’s trouncing State Treasurer Tobias Read, 56.4% to 31.4%, in their gubernatorial contest.

Central Oregon’s McLeod-Skinner was no exception. Perhaps the moderate Schrader underestimated the political challenges created by the redrawing of the 5^th District boundaries and by his taking centrist positions against some liberal Democratic diehard policies. In any case, this became another instance where having the most money for advertising didn’t bring victory.

McLeod-Skinner will face Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer in a matchup that fascinates me in part because each lives slightly outside the congressional district. In addition, Chavez-DeRemer in the 5th District and Salinas in the 6th District could become the first Latinas to represent Oregon in Congress.

However, the greatest lesson from Oregon’s 2022 primary election is the importance of seemingly obscure local offices, such as Clackamas County clerk.

Any individual or organization can mess up big-time. But County Clerk Sherry Hall’s response to the ballot-counting snafu has been stunning for its lack of urgency and depth, its contradictions and its rejection of outside help.

Elected officials set their own work hours and performance criteria. Some throw themselves fully into their work, growing with the job. Others do not. Regardless, the public has the responsibility to hold them accountable.

Too often, voters embrace local candidates based on superficial factors such as friendships, popularity or ideology. As someone who vetted thousands of candidates during editorial board interviews, I would argue that the more important criteria are unimpeachable integrity and demonstrated competence, including a strong work ethic, ability to hire excellent staff and manage them effectively, embracing best practices and staying up-to-date, crisis management skills and learning from one’s missteps.

These essential criteria hold true for Oregon’s next governor as well. And every other elected official.

“It’s pretty crazy. We’ve seen this for a long time. Apparently to run for office you need to be in a playground with a dog and a family.”

James Moore, a Pacific University professor who studies Oregon elections.