Bleeding Heartland is a community blog about Iowa politics: campaigns and elections, state government, social and environmental issues. Bleeding Heartland also weighs in on presidential policies and campaigns, federal legislation and what the Iowans in Congress are up to. Join our community, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, help keep our leaders honest and hold them accountable.
Who's up for a new thread on possible presidential candidates? The big news on the Republican side today was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announcing that he will "actively explore" a presidential bid. Bush is forming a leadership PAC to raise huge piles of money "help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation."
I can't see Bush winning the GOP nomination, given his past support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Among Iowa conservatives, his support for "Common Core" educational standards will be a deal-breaker too. On the other hand, Bush poses an immediate threat to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The two would be competing for many of the same donors and Republican moderate voters.
On the Democratic side, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (technically an independent) was in central Iowa today. I've posted excerpts from news coverage after the jump. It's Sanders' fourth Iowa visit this year, but he told a supportive Ames crowd he hasn't decided whether to run for president.
"I mean, I think that we've not had someone this experienced, this tough, and she's very, very impressive. People have asked me about Elizabeth Warren. She is great, but she's not running. She says she's not running. So I don't-I think Hillary would be great."
Any comments about the next presidential campaign are welcome in this thread.
UPDATE: Democracy for America announced on December 17 that it will invest $250,000 in the Draft Warren effort. I've added the group's press release at the end of this post. Run Warren Run ran a full-page ad in the Des Moines Register on December 17, featuring hundreds of Iowans who are urging the Massachusetts senator to run for president.
Hot topics on this blog during the second half of the year included the governor's race, the special election in Iowa House district 90, candidates announcing plans to run for the state legislature next year, the growing number of Republicans ready to challenge Representative Leonard Boswell, state budget constraints, and a scandal involving the tax credit for film-making.
Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland's coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.
It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland's coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama's administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.
One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.
No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn't have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can't say I wasn't warned (and warned), though.
Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year's political events are welcome in this thread.
Senator Tom Harkin told a crowd of nearly 2,000 people today that health care reform including a public health insurance option will pass before this Christmas. Speaking at his 32nd Annual Steak Fry in Indianola, Harkin joked,
"This is my kind of town-hall meeting," [...] because he didn't see any Republicans standing up to say, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions passed a bill this summer containing a public option, but according to one critic, the HELP bill's public option is anything but robust:
the actual provisions in the HELP Committee bill call for numerous "community health insurance options," not the single "Medicare-like" plan promised by "public option" advocates. That means the individual "options" will probably be as small and weak as the co-ops now under discussion in the Senate Finance Committee. More importantly, these "community options" will almost certainly be run by insurance companies.
So what about all the hubub about the Blue Dogs and/or Progressives opting out if the bill doesn't meet their liking? Harkin said don't put too much stock in those statements.
"Look, around here people are always jockeying for power. That's all this is," Harkin said.
The only chance of making this bill stronger, in my opinion, is getting a large bloc of House Democrats to draw a line in the sand. If you live in Iowa's first, second or third Congressional districts, please contact Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack or Leonard Boswell to urge them not to accept any bill containing a "trigger" (which is guaranteed to fail) or some other fake public health insurance option. Organizing for America has a new petition out if you prefer that method of generating an e-mail to your member of Congress.
UPDATE: Don't miss John Deeth's entertaining liveblog from this event, with lots of photos. Braley and Loebsack praised Boswell for standing up for a public option (unlike many Blue Dogs).
Boswell and fellow Democratic U.S. Reps. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack also expressed optimism that a final bill would include measures to reform medicare reimbursement rates. Medicare currently pays doctors in rural states like Iowa less than what doctors in densely populated states receive for the same procedures.
This weekend is packed with good events for Iowa progressives. If you love books, make your way to the Planned Parenthood Book Sale in the 4-H building at the State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. Admission is free; the sale is open from 9-9 Friday and Saturday and from 9-6 Sunday and Monday. The sale offers great deals on books, DVDs, prints, comics, and music, especially on Sunday, when everything is half-price, and on Monday, when everything left is 25 cents.
As expected, Franken has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee, Indian Affairs Committee and Aging Committee. He will also sit on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee once the panel finishes marking up the healthcare reform legislation.
I don't understand the logic of making Franken wait until after the health care bill markup before joining the HELP Committee, but at least he will be there when the Employee Free Choice Act is debated.
Getting to 60 votes on the EFCA will be a challenge, but Senator Tom Harkin has been working on a compromise since March. He told Bloomberg News in May that the "card check" provision may have to be dropped from the EFCA in order to get the bill through the Senate. "Card check" means that workers could form a union if a majority sign a document stating that they would like to join a union. Harkin suggested that a compromise bill might incorporate other changes to the election process and procedures for forming a labor union.
In that interview, Harkin did not mention whether binding arbitration would be a part of a workable compromise. Some people consider binding arbitration provisions to be as important a part of the EFCA as card check.
Before Arlen Specter's Party switch announcement yesterday, the Senate's Democratic caucus stood at 58 members. Senator-elect Al Franken represented Democrats' 59th vote toward cloture, still short of reliably ending Republican filibusters. But now, with Specter joining the Democratic caucus, Senator-elect Franken represents the big 6-0, which is why Republicans will redouble their efforts to delay Senator-elect Franken's seating - and why we in the netroots must redouble our efforts to send obstructionist Republicans a message and also provide them with adequate disincentive from delaying Senator-elect Franken's seating any further.
Since the "One Dollar a Day to Make Norm Coleman Go Away" effort started just a couple weeks ago, about $40,000 has been raised to remind the Republicans funding Norm Coleman's endless appeals that, for every single day that they delay the implementation of the will of Minnesota voters, progressive voters will raise money to use against these Republicans on Election Day 2010.
Your support will strengthen that message!
Norm Coleman and his fellow Republicans recently scored a success in further delaying Senator-elect Franken's seating, as the trial schedule adopted by the state Supreme Court for Coleman's appeal is such that oral arguments before the Court won't begin until June 1st, over a month from now. Further, although Minnesota election policy dictates that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty must prepare and sign Senator-elect Franken's election certificate once the state Supreme Court hands down its decision, Pawlenty has hemmed and hawed as to whether he would follow state election policy accordingly.
With a D next to Arlen Specter's name, Republicans will go full force to block Senator-elect Franken's seating. Please join us in eliminating Republicans' incentive to delay Senator-elect Franken's seating any further by taking part in the "One Dollar a Day to Make Norm Coleman Go Away" effort. At right is video of the segment on MSNBC's Hardball highlighting the effort.
For at least the last three months, Norm Coleman has had no realistic hope of winning Minnesota's U.S. Senate election, but that hasn't stopped him from fighting the inevitable in court. It's obvious that Coleman's legal maneuvering has no goal other than to keep Al Franken out of the Senate for as long as possible.
That has collateral benefits for Republicans on a national scale, making it harder for Senate Democrats to win 60 votes to break a filibuster. Barack Obama may have been able to get his economic stimulus bill through the Senate with fewer concessions if he had needed only two Republicans to sign on (instead of three).
Unfortunately for our neighbors to the north, Coleman's obstruction has done significant and lasting harm to Minnesota. John Deeth explains why in this great post about seniority rules in the U.S. Senate. Had Franken been sworn in with the rest of the class elected last November, he would now rank 94th in seniority, but instead he's going to rank 100th (click the link for the full explanation, which is worth your time).
Making matters worse for Minnesota: all six of the senators Franken should outrank, but doesn't, are fellow Democrats.
How much this matters in the long run depends on the longevity of the six senators who leapfrogged over Franken. [...]
Michael Bennet and Kirsten Gillibrand will probably face primaries, too, but after a first electoral test they, and Merkley and Begich, could last awhile (particularly Gillibrand, who at 42 is the youngest Senator). Franken, at age 57, could be around long enough that those lost months of seniority will make a difference between him and let's say Gillibrand getting a chairmanship sometime around 2018.
Even in Iowa, I'm sure you've heard plenty about what's going on with the still-unsettled Senate race in Minnesota.
While Republican Norm Coleman prolongs his endless and pointless appeals, cementing his admission into the Sore Losers Hall of Fame, progressive organizations Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have introduced a new effort: NormDollar.com, "A Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away." Very simply put, commit to contributing just one dollar per day for every day that sore loser Norm Coleman refuses to concede.
This is exactly the correct approach to take in order to provide Republican leadership in Washington with adequate disincentive from continuing to fund Coleman's endless appeals. The GOP bigwigs funding Coleman's appeals see value in putting their money toward keeping progressive Senator-elect Al Franken from being seated. This grassroots-powered effort will make them think twice by generating many thousands of dollars for progressive candidates for every single day that they fund the Coleman circus.
If you feel so inclined, you can certainly chip in a bit of change directly to the Franken Recount Fund, as well.
The recount to determine the winner of Minnesota's Senate race has been going on for six weeks, with a court challenge likely if Al Franken, who leads narrowly, is declared the winner. (WineRev's diaries tell you everything you need to know about what's going on in that race.)
Imagine how much more contentious this process would be if Minnesota did not use paper ballots in every county. Less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the vote separates Franken from Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. If touchscreen voting machines had been involved in any way, large numbers of people would surely believe the election had been rigged in favor of whoever came out ahead.
If you run into Mauro, thank him for his efforts to improve Iowa's voting system, and encourage him to ask the legislature to take the next step toward "verified voting" (mandatory manual audits of voter-verified paper records). That would allay fears about malfunctions or tampering with the optical scanners as they count the votes.
As this map at VerifiedVoting.org shows, Minnesota is one of 18 states that has mandatory manual audits of voter-verified paper records. Iowa is one of 13 states that require paper ballots, but without mandatory audits to make sure the scanners are producing accurate counts.
Keep your eye on the Iowa Voters blog for updates on election integrity news and activism in Iowa.
Yesterday runoff elections were held in Louisiana's second and fourth Congressional districts.
In the biggest Congressional upset of the year, Democratic incumbent "Dollar Bill" Jefferson lost to Republican Joseph Cao in LA-02. You may remember Jefferson as the guy who kept $90,000 in cash in his freezer and used the National Guard to visit his home in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I'm normally a yellow-dog Democrat, but Jefferson is one Democrat I'm happy to see go.
No need to worry about winning back this seat in 2010, as David from Swing State Project explains:
So LA-02 is D+28 (old PVI). There is no district that is as red as this one is blue - UT-03 tops out at R+26. This reminds me of IL-05 in 1994 (1990s PVI: D+11) - corrupt Dan Rostenkowski got beaten by the unknown Michael Flanagan, who got soundly thumped by Rod Blagojevich two years later.
Remember, there are only nine other Republicans in Congress representing House districts with any kind of Democratic lean, and the most Democratic of those districts is D+6.5. Assuming Louisiana Democrats come up with a credible candidate in 2010, LA-02 should be an easy pickup.
The result in LA-04 yesterday was more disappointing. Democrat Paul Carmouche appears to be just 350 votes (less than 0.5 percent) behind Republican John Fleming. Carmouche is not conceding yet, but I doubt there are enough outstanding provisional and absentee ballots to put him over the top here. On the other hand, keeping it this close represents a kind of moral victory for Democrats, since John McCain carried LA-04 by 19 points on November 4. A Democrat "should" not even be competitive in a district like this.
Within the past week Democratic candidates conceded in California's fourth and forty-fourth districts, which were both unexpectedly close despite having strong Republican partisan voting index numbers.
Provisional ballots are still being counted in Ohio's fifteenth district. It looks like Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy has a decent chance at beating Republican incumbent Steve Stivers, because the 26,000 provisional ballots are in her stronghold (see this post by brownsox for more details). Am I the only one who finds it suspicious that so many voters had to fill out provisional ballots? That's almost 10 percent of all the voters in the district on November 4.
UPDATE: Kilroy has won OH-15 by about 2,000 votes. Her margin of victory is large enough not to trigger an automatic recount. Assuming the recount in LA-04 does not change last night's result, the next Congress will have 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. I'll take it!
Moving to the Senate races, the Minnesota contest is sure to end up in the courts and perhaps resolved by the U.S. Senate. The state canvassing board has delayed its meeting to review thousands of challenged ballots until December 16, because one precinct that favored Al Franken appears to have lost about 130 ballots that were counted on election night. If the ballots are not found, he could lose several dozen votes, which could make the difference in this ridiculously close race. It's still unclear whether absentee ballots that were rejected because of clerical errors will be counted in Minnesota.
The presidential election results created a few Senate vacancies. The governor of Delaware appointed Ted Kaufman, a former chief of staff to Joe Biden, to take Biden's place. The consensus seems to be that Biden set this up to leave the path clear for his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, to run in 2010 when there is a special election to determine who will serve out Joe Biden's term (which ends in 2014). The younger Biden cannot serve in the Senate now because he has been deployed in Iraq.
In New York, Caroline Kennedy (the daughter of President John F. Kennedy) has become the surprise favorite to be appointed to take Hillary Clinton's place. It strikes me as an odd choice in a state with many capable Democrats in the U.S. House. Nothing against Kennedy, who seems very smart and principled, but I think Governor David Paterson should pick someone with more relevant political experience for this job. More speculation on the New York Senate seat is here. As in Delaware, there will be a special election in 2010 to determine who will serve out Clinton's term (which ends in 2012).
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich still has not announced his choice to replace Barack Obama in the Senate. Many people still expect Tammy Duckworth to have the inside track, especially since Obama is going with retired General Eric Shinseki for Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. On the other hand, Fox News says Illinois Senate President Emil Jones will be picked to serve out Obama's term (which ends in 2010). Jones is considered a "safe" choice because he is both black and an "elder statesman" placeholder. If he is the pick, expect a very competitive Democratic Senate primary in Illinois in 2010.
It's disappointing but not too surprising. Chambliss would have won outright on November 4 if not for Georgia's unusual state law requiring the winner to receive 50 percent of the vote. Furthermore, Chambliss would have received 50 percent if not for extremely high black turnout with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, which benefited Democratic Senate candidate Jim Martin. Also, a Libertarian candidate won enough votes from Georgia conservatives last month to keep Chambliss from winning a majority.
I appreciate the tremendous campaign that Martin ran, which made a race out of what was supposed to be a Kansas or Oklahoma-style romp for the incumbent in this very red state. Unfortunately for Martin, turnout was light today, especially among black voters any Georgia Democrat needs to have a chance of winning a statewide election.
In December the Minnesota State Canvassing Board will review hundreds of challenged ballots to see whether voter intent can be discerned. Their rulings could determine the outcome of the Minnesota Senate race, where fewer than 200 votes separate Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Many votes remain to be recounted before the canvassing board meets.
Minnesota Public Radio has posted photos of 11 ballots that have been challenged for different reasons. Click the link to view these ballots and vote on whether they should be accepted or rejected, and if accepted, for whom the vote should count.
Of the 11 ballots, I would only put one in the reject pile. Another was questionable, in my opinion. The other nine clearly showed a voter preference for Coleman, Franken or independent candidate Dean Barkley.
As you've no doubt heard by now, Mark Begich took the lead as the early votes were counted, and seven-times-indicted Ted Stevens has conceded the Alaska Senate race. That makes seven Democratic pickups, with Georgia and Minnesota yet to be determined. The Democrats hold 56 Senate seats, and two independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders) also caucus with Democrats.
The polls in Georgia have shown Republican Saxby Chambliss ahead of Jim Martin by three or four points. It's all going to come down to turnout--I doubt much voter persuasion will occur between now and December 2. Barack Obama moved his field staff from Ohio down to Georgia, and many other groups, like Democracy for America, are helping Martin too. The state's largest newspaper has endorsed Martin.
Chambliss has to be favored in this red state, but if the Democrats have a superior GOTV effort, Martin could pull off an upset.
The Minnesota recount has begun. Al Franken went into it 215 votes behind Norm Coleman (out of more than 2.5 million cast, or 0.008 percent). As of Wednesday evening, he had narrowed the gap to 181 votes. The state has a good "voter intent" law, meaning that if a person can determine the voter's intent, the vote will count even if an optical scanner did not record it.
One wrinkle is that Franken successfully sued to get information about voters whose absentee ballots were rejected in one county. His campaign wants that information for all of the counties so that wrongfully excluded absentee ballots can be counted. However, it's not clear whether those votes will ever be counted, even if the ballots were rejected because of clerical error.
As for the House races, we narrowly lost in CA-44, a district we did not target that was not considered competitive.
CA-04 has still not been called, but Democrat Charlie Brown trails carpet-bagger Tom McClintock by about 600 votes, and it seems unlikely he will be able to make up that margin.
It looks like we will pick up VA-05, which was viewed as quite a longshot before the election.
Louisiana will hold two runoff elections in December. Corrupt Democrat "Dollar Bill" Jefferson will most likely hold the second district. The fourth district is competitive, and Dick Cheney recently headed to Shreveport to campaign for the Republican.
UPDATE: I forgot Ohio's 15th district, which is going to count provisional ballots. It seems like Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy has a decent chance of beating Republican Steve Stivers.
Democrats will end up with something between 255 and 259 House seats out of 438. Not bad at all.
The Democrat challenging seven-time convicted felon Ted Stevens has taken a lead in the Alaska Senate race. OK, it's only a three-vote lead among some 250,000 votes counted so far, but if I'm Mark Begich, I'll take it. (UPDATE: Begich now leads by 814 votes out of some 263,000 counted.)
There are lots more early votes to be counted in the coming days, and no one seems to know exactly where they will come from. However, speculation in this thread at Swing State Project indicates that Democrats have reason to be optimistic about picking up the Senate seat from Alaska. That would bring the Democratic caucus to 58 (counting independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who votes with Democrats).
The more that I examine this data, the more I'm beginning to believe that the number of reclassifiable ballots may be relatively low, but that the proportion of such ballots that are resolved in Franken's favor may be relatively high. How these two factors will ultimately reconcile themselves, I don't know.
The runoff Senate election in Georgia between incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin will take place on December 2. There have not been any public polls yet in this race since the general election. A lot of Barack Obama's field staff have reportedly moved to Georgia to work this race for Martin. The Republican playbook is to link Martin to Democratic leaders in Congress. Will that be enough for Chambliss in this red state?
At Swing State Project, Crisitunity published this overview of likely candidates to replace Joe Biden as U.S. Senator from Delaware. Biden's son Beau, the attorney general of Delaware, is ineligible because of his current deployment. The most likely options are either Lieutenant Governor Jack Carney, or a seat-warmer who would let Beau Biden run for the seat in 2010, after his deployment has ended.
Six U.S. House races are still uncalled: Alaska's at-large seat, California's fourth district, California's 44th district, Ohio's 15th district, Louisiana's second district, and Louisiana's fourth district. The first four are Republican-held seats where the Republican candidate leads. LA-04 and LA-02 will hold runoff elections in December. Probably our best chance to pick up another seat is in OH-15.
It's time for a new thread on the Congressional races across the country.
First, I need to make two corrections. I reported late Tuesday night that Tom Harkin had won all of Iowa's 99 counties. That was based on a map on the election results page of the Des Moines Register's website, which showed all of Iowa's 99 counties in blue. However, the Daily Kos election scoreboard shows the true picture (click on "Senate," then on Iowa). Harkin won "only" 94 Iowa counties. He lost Page County in southwest Iowa as well as Sioux, Lyon, O'Brien and Osceola in the northwest corner.
Second, I have reported that EMILY's List provided no financial support to Becky Greenwald's campaign in the fourth Congressional district. However, Bleeding Heartland commenter Bill Spencer pointed out that Greenwald's third quarter FEC filing shows a $5,000 contribution from EMILY's List on September 22 (a few days after the group endorsed Greenwald).
It's worth noting that when EMILY's List strongly commits to a race, they invest considerably more than $5,000 in the candidate.
Earlier this year, EMILY's List backed Nikki Tinker in the Democratic primary in Tennessee's ninth district against Steve Cohen, who had a perfect pro-choice voting record. I have not been able to confirm a number, but EMILY's list was reported to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars advocating for Tinker.
James L. of Swing State Project compiled this comprehensive chart showing independent expenditures in House races across the country. Look at how much EMILY's List spent in some other districts: more than $160,000 in IL-11, nearly $150,000 in CO-04, nearly $60,000 in OH-15, more than $30,000 in NH-01, $19,000 in FL-13, $16,500 in NY-26.
That only counts the money EMILY's List itself spends on behalf of Congressional candidates. The group can also raise substantial funds for candidates through their mailing list. Donors to EMILY's List receive direct-mail and e-mail appeals regularly, asking them to contribute directly to key candidates from around the country. These letters contain short bios of the candidates EMILY's List is backing. I have confirmed from more than one source that EMILY's List did not send out any direct-mail or e-amil appeals urging members to contribute to Greenwald's campaign.
So, while I was wrong to write that EMILY's List provided no financial support to Greenwald, it is accurate to say that they did little to help her beyond issuing a press release very late in the game.
Getting to the big picture, Democrats have picked up six U.S. Senate seats: Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia. Three races have yet to be called. Norm Coleman leads Al Franken in Minnesota by 236 votes (out of more than 2.5 million cast) at the latest count. There will be a mandatory recount in this race once the initial count has been completed. I read last night that Franken can win if even one extra vote for him is found in every eight Minnesota precincts.
We may be headed for a recount in Alaska, although it seems unlikely that Mark Begich can overcome convicted felon Ted Stevens' narrow lead. There is some speculation that Stevens will resign or be expelled from the Senate, in which case a different Republican (Sarah Palin?) could take the seat.
By the way, the election results in Alaska diverged from pre-election polling in an almost unprecedented way, not only in the Senate race but also in the presidential voting and in the race for Alaska's at-large seat in the House. Further investigation is needed to figure out whether all polls in Alaska (and Alaska alone) were way off, or whether there was any tampering with the vote counting.
Georgia will hold a runoff in December between Jim Martin and the Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss. I don't have high hopes for this one, since Georgia is a Republican state to begin with and I think the GOP base will be motivated to reduce President Obama's working majority in the Senate. However, anything can happen. On a related note, there are some anomalies in the turnout figures in Georgia that will require further analysis.
As for the U.S. House, Democrats picked up 23 seats on Tuesday and lost four for a net gain of 19 and a total of 255. Seven races have not been called, all of them in Republican-held districts. Democratic candidates are leading in only two of those (MD-01 and VA-05). Republican leads are extremely small in OH-15 and CA-04, but the picture looks more discouraging for our side in CA-44 (a real under-the-radar race), WA-08 and Alaska's at-large seat.
If all the candidates currently leading are eventually declared the winners, Democrats would hold 257 House seats and Republicans 181. Crisitunity posted these charts showing Republicans in blue districts and vice versa. Note that the partisan voting index for every Congressional district will have to be recalculated, tossing the 2000 presidential voting and adding the 2008 presidential voting. But using the current partisan voting index numbers (which are based on the 2000 and 2004 presidential voting), only nine Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any Democratic lean at all. One of them is Iowa's own Tom Latham.
In contrast, at least nine Democrats represent deep-red Congressional districts with a partisan index of at least R+10 (for perspective, Iowa's fifth district is R+8). Many more Democrats represent districts with only a slightly less Republican lean. We lost incumbent Nancy Boyda in KS-02 (R+7) but picked up Betsy Markey in CO-04 (R+9).
First, there's no question that Latham will be tough to beat in 2010, but if he vacates the seat IA-04 becomes a top pickup opportunity for Democrats. I would be very surprised to see him run for governor, but if Chuck Grassley were to retire for any reason I think Latham would take a shot at the Senate race.
Second, looking at the nationwide picture, Democrats are far more competitive in red Congressional districts than Republicans are in blue districts. I am confident that the Republicans have very little chance of recapturing IA-01 and IA-02.
Also, a new Democratic candidate will be favored to hold IA-03 whenever Leonard Boswell retires, even if redistricting after the 2010 census somewhat reduces the Democratic lean in this district.
This is an open thread for any commentary on any of the U.S. House or Senate races.
I sit here tonight wondering if we should be apologizing to some other good liberal candidates for the resources Becky Greenwald's poorly run campaign sucked out of the system.
DesMoinesDem - you owe true liberals an apology for all the ink you gave Greenwald all over the blogasphere. You were blind in your support for her with numerous posts that were misleading and full of inaccurate facts about how that race was really playing out.
It was clear that Becky was already running a horrible race long before her bailout blunder -- and after that it was more than over -- it was a dead cause - unsaveable.
But you and so many others blindly marched on claiming that it was close and momentum was on her side. Anyone who had taken a one hour drive around that district could tell that she just was not doing well based on the lack of signs along the road. And yes -- I know that signs don't win elections -- but they are a good indication of the strength of organization and intensity of support - it just was never there for Greenwald.
Back to the question to soberly ponder: were precious financial resources - that could have been used on closer races where actual pick-ups were still within our grasp - wasted when they were directed to Becky's bumbling blundering campaign of woe and disaster?
I mean -- come on - 21 points?!?!? Harkin and Obama's name on the same ballot should have gotten her to within 10 easily.
Think of what the money spent by the UAW and Emily's List and the many other groups that were misled into tossing cash because you and others made them think that anyone over at Greenwald knew what the heck they were doing.
Case in point - Al Franken alone could have benefited from that UAW money -- that could have made the difference -- but it was wasted on a waste of a campaign and candidate. Or how about Don Cazayoux who lost in LA? Kansas Congresswoman Nancy Boyda could have saved her seat with the EMILY's List funds wasted on Greenwald.
I think there are those - and you know who you are because I saw your postings all over the place - who owe Democrats an apology for your misjudgment on this one.