Bleeding Heartland is a community blog for Democrats and progressives in the state of Iowa. Join up, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, and help build up current majorities and keep our leadership honest.
It's been months since we've had new public nonpartisan polling of Iowa general election matchups, but three Republican polls have come out in the last ten days. None of them hold good news for Iowa Democrats.
After the jump I summarize results from statewide polls done by Rasmussen Reports and Voter/Consumer Research for The Iowa Republican blog, as well as a Victory Enterprises poll of Iowa's third Congressional district race.
The latest round of statewide and state legislative candidate financial reports are available on the website of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. For most candidates, these reports cover money raised and spent between June 2 and July 14. Some of the candidates didn't file a June 4 disclosure report, and in those cases the latest filing covers the period from May 15 to July 14.
Fundraising numbers for Democratic and Republican candidates for statewide offices are after the jump. In addition to money raised and spent and cash on hand figures, I've listed the largest donors for each candidate. I am working on a post about the noteworthy fundraising figures from Iowa House and Senate candidates. John Deeth hit some highlights at the Des Moines Register blog. It's important to remember that leadership committees for both parties will also spend a lot of money in the battleground legislative districts.
I'm Matt Schultz, and I'm running for Iowa secretary of state because I'm worried about the future of my children and the future of your children and grandchildren. It's time for new leadership in Des Moines, and I'm prepared to stand up and fight for fair and honest elections. Vote early, vote often might be the Chicago way, but it's not the Iowa way. I'm Matt Schultz, and I approved this message because I'm a conservative Republican fighting to protect the most important right of all: your right to vote.
Like Schultz's first ad, this commercial raises the specter of voter fraud without any evidence that this has been a problem in Iowa.
When Schultz says, "Vote early, vote often might be the Chicago way," the visual is a smiling Barack Obama in front of Obama/Biden campaign signs. The hint is sure to play well with Republican primary voters, many of whom may believe the 2008 election was stolen. That's easier to accept than the reality of a Democratic presidential candidate clobbering the Republican.
Journalists should ask Schultz if he really believes (as this commercial implies) that Barack Obama got where he is because of Chicago-style election fraud. Then they should ask him to prove that "vote early, vote often" has happened even once in Iowa during the past decade or two.
When Schultz says "I'm Matt Schultz, and I approved this message," the visual shows the words, "TRUST BUT VERIFY." Schultz used the same Ronald Reagan catch phrase in his first ad, although the Republican icon's famous words have nothing to do with voter fraud.
Your unintentional comedy of the day comes from Polk County Republican Party chairman Ted Sporer's blog, commenting on Schultz's commercial:
The only reason to oppose photo ID for voting is to perpetuate fraud. No other good faith explanation is possible. Although we are lucky to have the rarest of animals, an honest and competent Democrat, serving as Iowa's SoS, Mike Mauro's Democrat colleagues are your more garden variety and ethically challenged L/S/Ds.
As I discussed here, photo ID laws threaten to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (the 12 percent of the population lacking a photo ID) in order to solve a virtually non-existent problem (impersonating another voter at a polling place). That's why advocacy groups who work to protect "the most important right of all, your right to vote" almost universally oppose photo ID laws.
In case you were wondering, L/S/Ds means "Labor/Socialist/Democrats" in "the real Sporer" lingo.
Schultz may pander his way to his party's nomination, but his rhetoric ignores a fact that even Sporer grudgingly acknowledges: Secretary of State Mike Mauro is honest and highly competent. No one active in politics today has done more to safeguard fair and honest elections in Iowa than Mauro.
It's time for another Bleeding Heartland election prediction contest. No prizes will be awarded, but winners will get bragging rights. Can anyone dethrone American007, overall winner of our 2008 election contest?
Enter by answering the following questions. To qualify for the contest, your predictions must be posted as a comment in this thread by 7 am on Tuesday, June 8, 2010. This isn't like The Price is Right; the winning answers will be closest to the final results, whether or not they were a little high or low.
1. How many votes will be cast in the Republican primary for Iowa governor? (Hint: about 199,000 Iowans voted in the hard-fought 2002 Republican gubernatorial primary.)
2. What percentages of the vote will Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts receive in the Republican primary for governor?
3. What percentages of the vote will Roxanne Conlin, Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen receive in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate?
4. What percentages of the vote will Rob Gettemy, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Steve Rathje and Chris Reed receive in the Republican primary in Iowa's second Congressional district? Remember, if you expect this nomination to be decided at a district convention, make sure your guess has the top vote-getter below 35 percent.
5. Who will be the top four candidates in the Republican primary in Iowa's third Congressional district, and what percentages of the vote will they receive? Again, keep the top vote-getter below 35 percent if you expect this nomination to go to a district convention. Your possible answers are Jim Gibbons, Brad Zaun, Dave Funk, Mark Rees, Scott Batcher, Jason Welch and Pat Bertroche.
6. What percentages of the vote will Mike Denklau and Matt Campbell receive in the Democratic primary in Iowa's fifth Congressional district?
7. What percentages of the vote will Matt Schultz, George Eichhorn and Chris Sanger receive in the Republican primary for secretary of state? (I covered that campaign in this post.)
8. What percentages of the vote will Dave Jamison and Jim Heavens receive in the Republican primary for state treasurer? (The Iowa Republican blog has been covering this race from time to time.)
9. What percentages of the vote will State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad and challenger Clair Rudison receive in the Democratic primary for Iowa House district 66? (Click here for background.)
10. What percentages of the vote will Tom Shaw, Stephen Richards and Alissa Wagner receive in the Republican primary for Iowa House district 8? (Click here and here for background. Keep in mind that although Wagner withdrew from the race and endorsed Shaw, her name will remain on the ballot.)
Don't be afraid to make some wild guesses. You can't win if you don't play!
This is also an open thread, so share whatever's on your mind.
The Republican primary campaign for Iowa secretary of state has lacked the drama and publicity of the governor's race, but it is turning into a test of strength between a "fresh face" and a veteran of Iowa Republican politics.
To view these numbers by Congressional district, visit www.iowavotes.gov.
The deadline to request a mailed absentee ballot is June 4 at 5:00 p.m. Absentee ballots returned by mail must be postmarked on or before June 7. Voters may still request absentee ballots in-person at their county auditor's office until close of business on June 7, the day before Primary Day.
On Saturday, June 5, county auditors' offices will be open for in-person absentee voting. Voters may check with their county auditor for business hours on this day. In addition, voted absentee ballots requested by mail may be hand-delivered to the county auditor's office until the close of the polls at 9:00 p.m. on Primary Day.
Secretary Mauro encourages those voters who have received absentee ballots to be sure to return completed ballots to their county auditor's office prior to the deadline.
In order to participate in Iowa's Primary Election on June 8, eligible voters will need to register either as a Democrat or as a Republican.
For more information on the 2010 Primary Election, visit www.iowavotes.gov.
Note: the number of "absentee ballots received" includes people who have voted early in person, either at a satellite voting location or at their county auditor's office.
The disparity between ballots requested by Republicans and Democrats is expected, since Democrats have relatively few contested primaries going on (the U.S. Senate race, the fifth Congressional district, a few Iowa House districts and Iowa Senate district 13). Republicans have a three-way primary for governor, two candidates for state treasurer, three candidates for secretary of state, crowded primaries in the first, second and third Congressional districts, and many competitive primaries in Iowa House and Senate districts.
I am surprised there aren't even more Republican absentee ballots outstanding. From what I've heard and read, Terry Branstad's campaign is making a major push on the absentee ballot front. Supposedly Brad Zaun has been working on turning out third district Republicans to the satellite voting location in Urbandale. I would have expected more than 22,000 Republicans across the state to have voted early or requested an absentee ballot by now. (Approximately 200,000 people voted in the 2002 Iowa Republican primary.) Maybe there will be a surge of voters in the last two weeks before election day, or maybe Republicans just reject early voting on principle.
If you are voting by mail, you can track your absentee ballot through a new feature on the Iowa Secretary of State's website. I prefer to vote early in person; it only took me a few minutes at the Polk County Auditor's Office.
UPDATE: Melissa Walker posted a good story on this at IowaPolitics.com. She has numbers and return rates for several large counties. According to Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald, "many of the early ballots are from the Urbandale area," which may favor Zaun in the third district primary.
The biggest surprise to me was Republican Brenna Findley's haul in the attorney general's race. She raised $124,078 since January 1 and has $95,528 on hand. Incumbent Attorney General Tom Miller clearly wasn't focused on raising money, bringing in just $15,748. Because he started the year with nearly $90,000 in his account, he still has more cash on hand than Findley ($105,200), but Findley has a larger donor base (more than 700 donors).
As a long-time top staffer for Representative Steve King, Findley probably benefits from his donor contacts. It can't hurt that Terry Branstad is talking up Findley at every campaign stop too. Deeth concludes, "We may have found our downballot sleeper race for the general election." I don't think Findley has a chance against Miller, who has been elected attorney general seven times. But she will be able to run a statewide campaign and raise her profile substantially. Miller will have to take this race seriously. His campaigning skills may be rusty, since Republicans gave him a pass in 2006. However, he has a strong record, and it's worth recalling that he was returned to the attorney general's office in 1994, an atrocious year for Iowa Democrats.
In all the other statewide races, the incumbents have huge financial advantages over their challengers. Secretary of State Michael Mauro has raised $30,021 since the start of the year, more than his three Republican opponents combined. Mauro has just under $128,000 on hand, whereas Matt Schultz and George Eichhorn both have more outstanding bills than cash on hand, and Chris Sanger has only about $400 on hand. Deeth has more on who's given to Schultz and Eichhorn. Speaking of this race, I learned recently that the Secretary of State Project has endorsed Mauro.
State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald hasn't raised much money so far in 2010 ($4,179), but he started the year with nearly $114,000 and spent almost nothing, leaving about $117,770 cash on on hand. Two Republicans are running against Fitzgerald, and their campaigns have less than $10,000 cash on hand combined. Story County Treasurer Dave Jamison has broader support than James Heavens of Dyersville, who loaned his campaign most of the money raised.
Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey raised nearly $40,000, and even though he spent quite a lot for this early in the campaign ($53,920), he still has $247,535 on hand. Democrat Francis Thicke raised $58,439, including a $10,000 contribution from the candidate, and has an impressive number of donors (at least 300). He spent a little more than $25,000 and has $33,320 on hand. Corporate interest groups will make sure Northey has tons of money to spend. Thicke will have to run a more grassroots campaign.
Share any thoughts about the statewide races in this thread.
Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro doesn't make the news often, but he has done very well in his first term. I particularly appreciate his support for requiring paper ballots to be used in all Iowa counties. We had several statehouse races decided by fewer than 100 votes in 2008. Imagine what an uproar we'd have seen if touchscreen voting machines had been used in those races.
In 2009, Mauro worked closely with the Cerro Gordo County Auditor to make electronic poll books available for use in counties across the state. The electronic poll books will enhance Iowa precinct officials' ability to process voters effectively and consistently on election day. In addition, the poll books add an extra layer of security to the voting process.
During the 2008 General Election, Iowa saw the fifth highest percentage turnout in the nation i and had the highest rate of young voter participation (18- to 24-year-olds) ii. Secretary Mauro's office also took the honor of having the top elections website in the country during the 2008 election season according to a leading national election research group iii. In the fall of 2009, Iowa's election laws and procedures implemented by Secretary Mauro gained national attention when the state ranked first in a study focusing on the ease of voting for members of the military and U.S. citizens living overseas iv. [...]
Since Mauro took office, much progress has been made in the business services division. In 2009, the development of a new corporations database is paving the way for online corporate filings beyond the biennial report. Currently, the majority of business filings are done electronically and advancements for additional filings will continue.
The online business center allows business to be conducted 24-hours a day, seven days a week and currently provides access to over three million filed documents and a complete array of forms, applications, and searchable databases for businesses, lending institutions and interested citizens.
I wouldn't care to run against that record, but some Republicans seem to think they can beat Mauro. GOP establishment figures have been trying to recruit Paul Pate for this race. Pate was elected Iowa secretary of state in the 1994 landslide. He didn't seek re-election in 1998, running unsuccessfully for governor instead.
The other Republican candidate in this race is Matt Schultz, who serves on the Council Bluffs City Council. On the issues page of his website, he says he wants to streamline corporate filings, require all voters to show photo ID at polling places, and force all citizens who register to vote on election day to cast provisional ballots. Photo ID laws are generally considered to be voter suppression techniques, and there is no evidence of any problem with voter fraud by impersonating someone at a polling place.
Mauro hasn't hit the campaign trail yet, but today he released a statement urging Iowans to participate in the Democratic and Republican caucuses this Saturday, January 23, at 1 pm. (Find your Democratic caucus site here.)
Obama's introductory remarks are remarkably poetic. "America's values are our country's greatest export to the world."
He's announced his nomination of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state ("I am proud that she will be our next secretary of state...She will help restore our reputation around the world,") Robert Gates at defense ("responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control",) Eric Holder for Attorney General ("The Attorney General serves the American people...I have no doubt he will uphold the constitution,") Janet Napolitano as head of Homeland Security ("she insists on competence and accountability,") Susan Rice as Ambassador to the UN and Jim Jones as National Security Advisor.
"We will shape our times instead of being shaped by them." [...]
As for his choice of Clinton at state, "it was not a lightbulb moment...she shares my core values and the values of the American people. I was always interested after the primary was over in finding ways to collaborate...It occurred to me that she could potentially be an outstanding secretary of state, I offered her the position and she accepted."
On whether he still intends to remove troops from Iraq in 16 months: "Remember what I said during the campaign. I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months keeping in mind that it might be necessary to maintain a residual force...As I said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders."
Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press has details about the deal Bill Clinton made to allow his wife to become Barack Obama's secretary of state. Apparently, the former president agreed:
-to disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward.
-to refuse donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative, his annual charitable conference.
-to cease holding CGI meetings overseas.
-to volunteer to step away from day to day management of the foundation while his wife is secretary of state.
-to submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel.
-to submit any new sources of income to a similar ethical review.
I still think Hillary Clinton would be able to accomplish more over her lifetime as a senator from New York, but clearly she was strongly motivated to accept this position in Obama's government.
According to ABC, Barack Obama will roll out his national security team soon after this weekend.
All indications suggest that Hillary Clinton will become secretary of state.
ABC says keeping Defense Secretary Robert Gates on for at least a year is "a done deal." Others likely to be appointed include
Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
A lot of Obama supporters seem comfortable with this decision. If the new president keeps his promise to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq safely within 16 months, there's an argument for sticking with someone at Defense who's already familiar with the situation on the ground. My main concern is that Gates will strenuously argue that we need to keep a large contingent in Iraq and give Obama cover to break his campaign promise.
Looks like no one who opposed the Iraq war from the start will be in Obama's inner circle on foreign policy.
In the unambiguously good news column, John Brennan withdrew his name from consideration to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Glenn Greenwald (among others) made the case against Brennan last week.
The more I think about it, the more I think Hillary Clinton should stay in the Senate. However, most analysts are speculating she will accept Barack Obama's offer to become Secretary of State. Here's a roundup of recent coverage on the appointment.
Harkin said he was confident that former President Bill Clinton would not pose conflicts, as he's agreed to make public the donors to his foundation and clear his travel schedule and speeches with the Obama administration, should his wife become secretary of state.
"If he's willing to do whatever the Obama team and the president wants - and he should understand it, he's a former president - that would be fine," Harkin said.
He also said Obama naming her would be a demonstration of unity to the world. Sen. Clinton and Obama waged an intense, six-month campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination this year.
"I think it would send a good signal to the world if Hillary Clinton were secretary of state," Harkin said. "The signal it sends to the world is we can have big fights politically here in the United States and yet after the election's over, we pull together."
Where does that leave Bill Richardson? I hope he ends up in the cabinet. UPDATE: ragbrai08 has heard rumblings Richardson might become Secretary of the Interior, which would be a decent fit for him.
John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs blog offers "A Different View of [Tom] Vilsack," the front-runner to run the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict when, where and from whom leadership will emerge. The book on Tom Vilsack is not complete, and perhaps that is a good thing. He does not get a perfect score on my litmus tests. But, when I disagree with him in the future I will continue to engage him, just as I always have, whether he is a private citizen or the Secretary of Agriculture. And he will engage me, just as he always has.
I hope that, at the end of the day, our next Secretary of Agriculture is the kind of leader that can help create a future for rural America with thriving family farms and ranches and vibrant rural communities. I believe Governor Vilsack can provide that leadership. Perhaps he just might get the chance.
James L. of Swing State Project is concerned that Obama might choose either Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin or Representative Collin Peterson for the USDA job. Both are from Republican-leaning districts that would be hard for a different Democrat to hold.
Haven't heard much about a possible secretary of transportation. Obama supports greater investment in core infrastructure as well as high-speed rail and public mass transit, so I am hopeful he will put someone with vision in charge of this department. The highway bill comes up for reauthorization in 2009 and is sure to be one of the major battlegrounds in Congress.
Most people seem to think Robert Gates will stay on as Defense Secretary. I don't see why Obama can't appoint a Democrat for that position. We have plenty of qualified people in our party. Keeping the Republicans in charge of defense supports their propaganda that the GOP is best for defending the country.
Share your opinions or predictions in the comments.
UPDATE: Why does Obama want to reinforce Republican stereotypes about how they're the only ones who can handle national security? Now General Jim Jones, a supporter of the Iraq War and John McCain, is tipped to run the National Security Agency. That is just crazy. Put some Democrats in charge, please. It's not as if we don't have people who could do this job well. I would not be surprised if Jones undermines Obama in this position.
NBC News says Bill Richardson will be Commerce Secretary. I don't like him nearly so much for that job as I would like him for Secretary of State, Transportation, or Interior. Richardson's a corporate Democrat, judging from his record in the 1990s. He ran the whip to get NAFTA through the House during Bill Clinton's first term.
Still no progressives in Obama's cabinet.
UPDATE 3: My brother, who works in the investment field and is much more of a moderate Democrat than I am, is "sick" about the prospect of Geithner running Treasury. His other comment about Geithner is not printable at this blog.
Credit derivatives have contributed to dramatic changes in the process of credit intermediation, and the benefits of these changes seem compelling. They have made possible substantial improvements in the way credit risk is managed and facilitated a broad distribution of risk outside the banking system. By spreading risk more widely, by making it easier to purchase and sell protection against credit risk and to actively trade credit risk, and by facilitating the participation of a large and very diverse pool of non-bank financial institutions in the business of credit, these changes probably improve the overall efficiency and resiliency of financial markets.
With the advent of credit derivatives, concentrations of credit risk are made easier to mitigate, and diversification made easier to achieve. Credit losses, whether from specific, individual defaults or the more widespread distress that accompanies economic recessions, will be diffused more broadly across institutions with different risk appetite and tolerance, and across geographic borders. Our experience since the introduction of these new instruments-a period that includes a major asset price shock and a global recession-seems to justify the essentially positive judgment we have about the likely benefits of ongoing growth in these markets.
Despite the benefits to financial resilience, the changes in the credit markets that are the subject of your conference have also provoked some concerns and unease, even among those on the frontier of innovation and the most active participants in these markets.
These concerns are based in part on uncertainty-a candid acknowledgment that there is a lot we do not yet know about how these instruments and the increased role of nonbank institutions in these markets will affect how the financial markets are likely to function in conditions of stress. [...]
Let me conclude by reiterating the fundamental view that the wave of innovation underway in credit derivatives offers substantial benefits to both the efficiency and stability of our financial system.
Hmmm, he didn't seem to have seen any of the current problems coming. Also, he apparently was involved in the bailout negotiations. So it seems like this is a very status quo pick for Obama.
Looks like the Guardian jumped the gun; Hillary Clinton has not accepted the Secretary of State position and is reportedly still weighing Barack Obama's offer.
Apparently Senator Ted Kennedy wants Hillary to lead the efforts to get health care reform through Congress. That's where I'd like to see her as well, though the cynic in me wonders whether Kennedy is primarily trying to clear the path for his friend Senator John Kerry to become secretary of state.
isn't it weird that cabinet appointments are basically subordinate to White House staff positions? It's like, when did 'czar' become a laudable title?
Obama is said to have decided on Eric Holder for attorney general. Holder was deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton but supported Obama during the Democratic primaries. He also helped lead Obama's vice-presidential search team. He is still being vetted, but if selected and confirmed, Holder would become the first black U.S. attorney general.
It's notable that no hero of Obama's progressive supporters seems to be in the running for any job. I admit that part of me is amused to watch heads explode among those who really believed Obama would bring transformational change. It's been clear for many months that there was little daylight between Hillary and Obama on policy. Some people bought into the Clinton demonization project a bit too much in the winter and spring.
On the other hand, Pat Buchanan's stopped clock is right about this: Obama should make at least one appointment that will please the "Daily Kos crowd," which did so much for Obama during the primaries. It would be ironic if "the change we need" turned out to be a bunch of former Clinton officials and centrist Congressional leaders, with a few Republicans mixed in.
This is an open thread for any thoughts or predictions about Obama's cabinet appointments.
This is huge news, and the clearest evidence yet that Obama means to pursue comprehensive health reform. You don't tap the former Senate Majority Leader to run your health care bureaucracy. That's not his skill set. You tap him to get your health care plan through Congress. You tap him because he understands the parliamentary tricks and has a deep knowledge of the ideologies and incentives of the relevant players. You tap him because you understand that health care reform runs through the Senate. And he accepts because he has been assured that you mean to attempt health care reform.
UPDATE 2: CNN reports that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, an early Obama backer, will be named Homeland Security secretary. I want her to run against John McCain for Senate in 2010.
If this report is accurate, shame on the Beltway press corps for getting scooped by the Guardian's Washington correspondent.
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.
because he promised change and this is so not it. He's destroying his mandate before our very eyes.
In other news, Obama is also known to be considering keeping Bush administration cabinet member Robert Gates as secretary of defense, and former secretary of State and war architect Colin Powell is breathlessly mentioned being on the short list for a number of posts. This strikes everyone as being a perfect example of how Obama is bringing change to Washington.
If I were Hillary, I would say no thanks. She can be a senator for life, and probably will be in the majority party for most of that time. She could be the next Ted Kennedy.
At most she could run Obama's State Department for eight years, and probably not even that long. He could replace her at any time.
It's great for both of them to have this news leaked, however. It shows he is not holding grudges from the primaries and respects her skills. She obviously has the contacts with foreign leaders and the experience to do this job well.
What do you think?
UPDATE: Mr. desmoinesdem thinks that if she hopes to run for president again in 2016, she should definitely take this job. If she has given up all hope of becoming president and wants primarily to influence policy during the coming years, she should stay in the Senate. That sounds right to me.
![[Bleeding Heartland Logo]](http://www.bleedingheartland.com/upload/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
