From the Des Moines Register’s blog:

A West Burlington bar owner won’t appeal an Iowa District Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of Iowa’s Smokefree Air Act, which bans smoking in most public places.

Larry Duncan, the owner of Otis Campbell’s bar, still strongly believes the smoking ban is unconstitutional, said Darwin Bunger, Duncan’s lawyer. But there was no guarantee Duncan would win an appeal, and losing an appeal would have resulted in two-year license revocation, he said. […]

District Judge Mary Ann Brown, in an April 1 ruling, affirmed the findings of state alcoholic beverage regulators who had revoked Otis Campbell’s liquor license. It was the first ruling on the constitutionality of the enforcement of Iowa’s Smokefree Air Act. Brown said there is no fundamental or protected right to smoke in public or to allow patrons to smoke in a public business.

State records showed that dozens of smoking complaints had been filed against Otis Campbell’s after the Smokefree Air Act took effect July 1, 2008. Visitors described an environment in which customers freely ate and drank and puffed cigarettes amid a haze of tobacco smoke. Ashtrays remained on the bar and tables, and tables and there were no no-smoking signs.

In a settlement, Duncan agreed to comply with the smoking ban. His bar’s liquor license will be restored after a 50-day suspension.

Duncan’s case was doomed from the start. No lawsuit has ever successfully overturned a local or state public smoking ban in this country. The only realistic legal challenge would have been against the unfair exemption Iowa lawmakers granted to casino owners. However, the remedy for that would be to toss out the casino exemption, not the smoking ban. Anyway, I’ve been told that a court would likely uphold the casino exemption, on the grounds that legislators had a “rational basis” for making exceptions in the law for some businesses. Judges considering this kind of appeal wouldn’t use the “strict scrutiny” standard that applies in civil rights cases.

UPDATE: The Burlington Hawk Eye covered the judge’s ruling against Duncan here.

The cover story in Cityview this week is the awkwardly-headlined “25 people not running for governor (but should)”. The list includes former Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson, who would be outstanding, and activist LaVon Griffieon, a friend who has inspired me. I don’t agree with all the names on Cityview’s list, but the whole point of a feature like that is to provoke discussions and arguments. So, Bleeding Heartland readers, who should be running for governor of Iowa, and what do you think of the list Cityview compiled?

This thread is for anything that’s on your mind this weekend. I am horrified by the plane crash that wiped out so many influential past and present citizens of Poland. If you’re wondering why the Polish elite were flying on a Soviet aircraft, apparently it was faster than the planes other countries use for similar purposes.

Many prominent Iowa Republicans and candidates are attending Representative Steve King’s “Defenders of Freedom” dinner, featuring Representative Michele Bachmann. King grabbed the blogosphere’s attention this week by slamming the Humane Society as “vegetarians with an agenda.”

I’ve been reading some clips on the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this weekend. Although the event is in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina was very much off the radar. Sarah Palin electrified the crowd yesterday, but the presidential straw poll ended up nearly tied between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I was amused to read this snapshot of Republican family values:

just overheard a mom tell her young daughter at #SRLC, “No, we don’t support Medicaid. Medicaid is for losers.”

At Drake University today, counter-protesters outnumbered the members of Fred Phelps’ clan “church.” I still lean toward not elevating the importance of those freaks by generating more media coverage of their rallies. Ignoring them seemed to work fine for the Des Moines area Jewish community last year.

Dawn Johnsen withdrew her nomination yesterday for head of the Office of Legal Counsel, saying in a statement,

Restoring OLC to its best nonpartisan traditions was my primary objective for my anticipated service in this administration. Unfortunately, my nomination has met with lengthy delays and political opposition that threaten that objective and prevent OLC from functioning at full strength. I hope that the withdrawal of my nomination will allow this important office to be filled promptly.

Sam Stein posted the full text of Johnsen’s statement and commented,

The withdrawal represents a major blow to progressive groups and civil liberties advocates who had pushed for Johnsen to end up in the office that previously housed, among others, John Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos under George W. Bush.

But the votes, apparently, weren’t there. Johnsen had the support of Sen Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) but was regarded skeptically by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — primarily for her positions on torture and the investigation of previous administration actions. A filibuster, in the end, was likely sustainable. Faced with this calculus, the White House chose not to appoint Johnsen during Senate recess, which would have circumvented a likely filibuster but would have kept her in the position for less than two years.

A White House statement said the president is searching for a replacement nominee and will ask the Senate to confirm that person to head the Office of Legal Counsel quickly. I still think the Obama should have included Johnsen in a group of recess appointments he made last month. Jake Tapper quoted an unnamed Senate source as saying the White House “didn’t have the stomach for the debate” on her nomination. It doesn’t reflect well on Obama or on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that Johnsen never got a vote in the Senate, even after it was clear there were 60 votes in her favor last year (before the Massachusetts Senate special election).

UPDATE: From a must-read post by Glenn Greenwald:

What Johnsen insists must not be done reads like a manual of what Barack Obama ended up doing and continues to do — from supporting retroactive immunity to terminate FISA litigations to endless assertions of “state secrecy” in order to block courts from adjudicating Bush crimes to suppressing torture photos on the ground that “opennees will empower terrorists” to the overarching Obama dictate that we “simply move on.”  Could she have described any more perfectly what Obama would end up doing when she wrote, in March, 2008, what the next President “must not do”? […]

I don’t know why her nomination was left to die, but I do know that her beliefs are quite antithetical to what this administration is doing.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has confirmed that he will retire this June, as court observers have anticipated for some time. According to the Washington Post,

Aides and Democrats close to the process named three people as likely front-runners for the job: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, whom Obama appointed as the first woman to hold the post, and two appellate court judges, Diane Wood of Chicago and Merrick Garland of Washington.

I’m relieved to know that the Senate will be able to confirm Stevens’ successor while Democrats still have a sizable majority. We are likely to lose 3-8 Senate seats this November.

Whomever Obama appoints will probably get a lecture from Senator Chuck Grassley during confirmation hearings this summer. With any luck the person will turn out not to be “aggressive” and “obnoxious.”

Any comments or predictions about the upcoming Supreme Court nomination are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Chris Bowers makes the case for former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Ward Sears.

Last night I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate on Iowa Public Television. If you missed it, you can read the full transcript here. Some Iowa stations are rebroadcasting the debate this Sunday too.

One of the worst things about televised debates is the lack of follow-up by the journalists who moderate. Wednesday’s exchange provided a classic example of this problem.  

The Atlantic’s Joshua Green thinks so:

I think Summers is going to leave sooner rather than later, possibly before the mid-term elections, and if not then, soon afterward.

Why? Because Summers is frustrated by his role, and his colleagues are clearly frustrated with him. Alexis Simendinger had a devastating item in last week’s National Journal suggesting that Summers’s “legendary self-regard” and “ego the size of the national debt” had gotten out of control. Some of Summers’s frustration no doubt stems from his wanting to be Treasury secretary. When that plum went to Geithner, Summers cast his eye on the Fed chairmanship and agreed to bide his time until Ben Bernanke’s term ended at the NEC–a staff position well below his old job as Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Most administration officials tactfully avoid pointing this out, because Summers has a fragile ego. But that’s why Joe Biden is so great. “How many former Secretaries of the Treasury would come in not as Secretary of the Treasury?” Biden blurted out to the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza last fall.

But Summers didn’t get the Fed job either. Apparently that didn’t sit well. Administration insiders told Simendinger that Summers demanded a series of perks as compensation, including cabinet status, golf dates with the president, and a personal car and driver. In the “No Drama” Obama administration, such behavior stands out.  […]

Summers always seemed a bad fit for NEC director because the job entails dispassionately presenting the president with the counsel of his competing economic advisers. Summers doesn’t do “dispassionate” and he didn’t want to limit himself to fielding others’ advice–he had plenty of his own to offer. In other words, he was supposed to be the referee, but he also wanted to play power forward.

Summers was one of President Obama’s worst appointments, in my opinion, but I wouldn’t expect the president to reshuffle his economic team unless a mostly-jobless recovery continues, or the worst-case scenario of a douple-dip recession develops. Anyway, Summers’ departure wouldn’t herald a real change in economic policy if Green is right about Timothy Geithner being “ever more secure at Treasury.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

First-term Democratic State Representative Kerry Burt announced yesterday that he won’t run for re-election in Iowa House district 21, which comprises part of Waterloo and some rural areas in southern Black Hawk County (map here). The state Attorney General’s Office filed charges against a group of parents including Burt, who allegedly gave false addresses to avoid paying higher tuition fees for their children to attend the Price Laboratory School in Cedar Falls. Burt said in a statement, “I look forward to my day in court.  I believe I am innocent and strongly believe my name will be vindicated once all of the relevant facts come to light. […] I am extremely grateful to the citizens of Waterloo for allowing me to serve and look forward to continuing my public service in the future.”

I wish Burt the best but won’t deny that I’m one of those relieved Democrats John Deeth mentioned here. I’ve been hoping for some time that Burt would not seek re-election, not only because of the tuition scandal but because of his drunk driving arrest in February 2009.

After the jump I cover the recent electoral history of House district 21 and reasons Democrats can feel optimistic about holding the seat.

At 1 pm today Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts will face off in the first of three debates before the gubernatorial primary in June. I won’t be able to watch the live stream at KTIV’s site, so I’ll have to catch the repeat on Iowa Public Television, whenever that will be shown. I wanted to put up this thread so Bleeding Heartland readers can chat about the debate. I will update this post later with early write-ups about the event. Rod Roberts seems to have the most to gain from this debate, since he is the least-known candidate in the field.

The Republicans will throw around lots of numbers about taxes and spending, and those will need a lot of fact-checking. The truth is that Iowa doesn’t have a budget deficit, and the independent analysts who have given our state the highest bond rating recognize our relatively strong fiscal position. Like every other state, Iowa experienced a steep drop in revenues because of the recession, but unlike most other states, we have not fully depleted our cash reserves.

Which Republican candidate will come across as the most fiscally responsible person today? Will it be:

Terry Branstad, whose mismanagement was so legendary that a number of elected Republicans favored his primary challenger in 1994?

Bob Vander Plaats, whose management skills don’t seem to have helped his non-profit thrive financially, and who did a 180-degree turn on tax credits between March 2009 and January 2010?

Or Rod Roberts, who is so very serious about the governor’s responsibilities that he thinks adopting a state budget is of secondary importance to stopping same-sex marriage?

The floor is yours.

UPDATE: I still haven’t had a chance to watch the debate, but fortunately, Iowa Public Television will air it tonight at 8 pm. Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock thought Vander Plaats won but “never achieved the game-changing moment his campaign needed.” Todd Dorman didn’t see a lot of substance or new ideas on display and partly blamed the debate format.

Later today the three Republican candidates for governor will hold their first debate. When discussing state fiscal issues, they are likely to advance two contradictory arguments. First, they will criticize alleged “overspending” by Iowa Democrats, ignoring the good marks our state has received for fiscal management and the fact that severe state budget cuts would be a big drag on the economy. I will address those points in a future post.

Second, the Republican candidates for governor will criticize spending reductions Democrats included in next year’s budget, on the grounds that those cuts will force corresponding increases in property taxes statewide. It’s true that many Iowans will pay more in property taxes because of changes related to the “rollback” calculation, which “determines the percentage of a property’s actual value that will be taxable” in a given year. Former GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants explained here why the rollback figure is on the rise. It has nothing to do with the tough choices Democrats made on the 2011 budget.

Rants and other Republicans are wrong to suggest that any cut in state spending will automatically lead to further property tax hikes. (They’ve been making that claim since Governor Chet Culver’s across-the-board budget cut last October.) Here’s just one example of why their assumptions are flawed. The Des Moines Register reported Tuesday on how Des Moines area school districts are coping with budget shortages. All of the districts will receive less from the state in the next fiscal year. Thankfully, the cuts are smaller than the worst-case scenarios floated in February, because Iowa House and Senate Democrats sought to protect K-12 education from severe budget cuts.

Anyway, all Iowa school districts are adapting to the reduction in state funding. But contrary to what Iowa Republicans are telling you, many districts, including the state’s largest in Des Moines, have ruled out property tax increases. Of the 10 central Iowa school districts mentioned in this article, only three are raising property taxes, and one more is considering that step. The others are cutting expenses and in some cases using money from cash reserves to cover the shortfalls in the coming fiscal year.

Some local governments in Iowa will raise property tax rates, but as with school districts, many will get by with spending or service cuts instead. I support additional federal fiscal aid to local and state governments, because the collapse in revenues is the most severe in six decades, and spending cuts could hamper the economic recovery. But naturally, the same Republicans who scream about property tax hikes are against using “one-time federal money” to help balance budgets.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Senator Chuck Grassley is still misleading Iowans about what’s in the health insurance reform bill Congress passed last month. On April 1 he had this to say in Mason City:

Several residents were worried about what would happen to their health care premiums now that the president has signed the health care law. The mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance was also a worry.

“It’s questionable whether the federal government can require you to buy anything,” Grassley said.

One woman asked Grassley if federal funds connected to the health care law could be used to pay for abortions.

Grassley said he believes that the subsidies the poor will receive to purchase insurance could be used to pay for abortion. Democrats believe an executive order signed by President Obama at the insistence of Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak stops any federal funds from being used for to pay for abortions.

“I think he was sold a bill of goods that an executive order would take care of it,” Grassley said. “I am pro-life and that’s how I feel about it.”

Grassley conveniently failed to mention that he supported a health insurance mandate in 1993, in 2007 and even last summer. He only started questioning the legality of a mandate last fall. Contrary to what he told the Mason City crowd, legal scholars don’t think much of the constitutional arguments against health reform. It’s also ludicrous for Grassley to charge that federal funds will be used for abortions. On the contrary, Obama’s executive order is likely to end all private insurance coverage of abortion, even for women who don’t receive a dime in government subsidies.

Grassley is smart enough not to call health insurance reform “socialist”, but when someone in the Mason City audience asked about the government taking stock in General Motors and some large banks, Grassley drew applause by saying, “If you’re listed in the Yellow Pages, I guess the president thinks that the government ought to nationalize you.”

As far as I can tell, Grassley is no longer claiming that health insurance reform will let the government “pull the plug on grandma.” A poll taken in late February found that a majority of Iowans think Grassley “embarrassed” our state by making that allegation last summer. In the same poll, only 42 percent of respondents said Grassley should be re-elected. The poll results were released this week; Iowa Independent analyzed the results here, and Senate Guru did the same in this guest post at Bleeding Heartland.

The Senate race still looks like Grassley’s to lose, but Iowans are aware that the senator stretched the truth about end-of-life counseling. We need to call him out on his other distortions too, like his claims about student loan reform. According to Grassley’s pretzel logic, ending big federal subsidies to banks will somehow impose a “tax” on students.

I encourage all Iowa Democrats to get involved in supporting one of Grassley’s challengers: Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause.

This April is shaping up to be a relatively quiet month in Iowa politics, with the legislature already adjourned for the year. However, after the jump you’ll find details for many events coming up soon. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of an event I’ve left out.

I have also posted information about an internship opportunity for women who would like to work on a sustainable farm, as well as a grant opportunity called “Iowa Sun4Schools.” It’s for Iowa schools that may want to install a solar array: “In addition to supplying electricity to the facility, the solar array will serve as an educational and research tool, and as a symbol of the schools commitment to saving energy and reducing their carbon footprint.”

UPDATE: Iowa nonprofit, charitable and government organizations have until April 16 to nominate people for the Governor’s Volunteer Award.

SECOND UPDATE: The Fred Phelps freak show is coming back to Des Moines on April 10 to protest a constitutional law symposium on same-sex marriage at Drake University. Click here for details about counter-protests being planned.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been under pressure lately. Since he took over in January 2009, the RNC has spent far more than it has raised, and the latest numbers show the Democratic National Committee ahead of the RNC in cash of hand (which is highly unusual). Major Republican donors have been fleeing the RNC for various reasons, including staffers’ embarrassing fundraising proposals and massive overspending on luxury hotels, limos and nightclubs. Today RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay resigned, prompting one of Steele’s advisers to leave in what Jonathan Martin described as “a full-scale bloodletting”:

“Leadership requires that I can safely assure you, our donors, and the American people that our mission is what drives every dollar we spend, every phone call we make, every email we send and every event we organize,” Steele wrote in the email [sent to RNC members and donors on Monday], obtained by POLITICO. “Recent events have called that assurance into question and the buck stops with me. That is why I have made this change in my management team and why I am confident about going forward to November with renewed focus and energy.”

McKay didn’t immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

But his apparent firing has roiled the close-knit world of GOP operatives and Monday night longtime Republican strategist and Steele adviser Curt Anderson said his consulting firm would no longer be working with the RNC.

“Ken McKay’s departure is a huge loss for the Republican Party,” Anderson said in a statement to POLITICO. “Ken steered the party through very successful elections last fall that have given us tremendous momentum. He’s a great talent. Given our firm’s commitments to campaigns all over the country we have concluded it is best for us to step away from our advisory role at the RNC. We have high personal regard for the Chairman and always have; we wish him well.”

It’s hard to see how the turmoil at the RNC won’t end with Steele’s departure, although Josh Marshall argued today that Steele

can’t be fired, in significant measure, because he’s black. Because canning Steele now would only drive home the reality that Republicans were trying to paper over, fairly clumsily, when they hired him in the first place. So Republicans are stuck with his myriad goofs and #pressfails and incompetent management and all the rest because of a set of circumstances entirely of their own making.

Hey, don’t blame Iowa’s RNC members; they voted for Katon Dawson over Steele in January 2009. But I must say I doubt a guy who became a Republican because the government desegregated his high school, and more recently belonged to an all-white country club, would have been the right man to rebuild the GOP’s image.

Governor Chet Culver today signed into law the ban on texting while driving. This chart at the Iowa Senate Democrats blog shows the relevant prohibitions and exceptions. The House Democrats blog summarizes key points:

House File 2456 prohibits the use of all electronic and mobile devices while driving for those under the age of 18.  Persons over 18 may not use a hand-held electronic device to read, write, or send a text message while driving. Violators will be charged with a simple misdemeanor and a $30 fine.  If texting is the cause of an accident that results in serious injury or death, penalties increase up to a $1000 fine and 180 day license suspension.

Law enforcement cannot stop or detain a person only for suspected violations of texting and local governments are not allowed to adopt their own ordinances.  When the new law takes effect on July 1, law enforcement will begin an education campaign and will only write warning citations for the first year before the enhanced penalties and fines begin to apply.

Click here for the full text and bill history of House File 2456. It’s a reasonable compromise between a broad texting ban approved by the Iowa Senate in February and an Iowa House version that would have applied only to teenage drivers. State Representative Curt Hanson, a retired driver’s education teacher, headed the committee that drafted the compromise language. Texting is dangerous for older drivers as well as for teens.

The new law specifies that police cannot pull someone over solely for a suspected texting violation because while this bill was under consideration, some activists alleged that the texting ban would give officers another excuse for racially-motivated traffic stops and arrests. A group paid for robocalls in some House Democrats’ districts, seeking to generate calls against the new law. Excerpt from one such call, which you can listen to here: “This has nothing to do with safety–they just want another reason to pull you over and to harrass you.”

While the texting ban is a step in the right direction, drivers ought to go further and stop using their cell phones while the vehicle is moving. Driving while talking on the phone has been shown to be as dangerous as drunk driving. Cell phones are estimated to cause 1.4 million crashes a year in the U.S., and hands-free phones are no safer for drivers than hand-held phones. For more background, read the New York Times series of reports last summer on the dangers of cell phone use while driving. I know someone who is normally a good driver but rear-ended another vehicle recently while glancing down to see who was calling her cell phone.

Politically, restricting cell phone use while driving won’t be possible in Iowa until some high-profile accident claims lives here. Too often it takes a tragedy (with sympathetic victims) to spur lawmakers to act.  

The Iowa Environmental Council sent out an action alert on water quality last Friday. Excerpt:

As you know, the 2010 legislative session ended this past Tuesday.  Thanks to your emails to your elected officials,

   * we were able to stop a dirty water bill, which would have exempted many farmers from having to have adequate storage for animal manure over the winter months, and

   * final Iowa rules protecting Iowa lakes and rivers from further degradation (Antidegradation Rules) survived their final hurdle in the legislative ARRC committee.

Also, your emails also stopped the Iowa DNR from omitting hundreds of lakes, and the people swimming and recreating in them, from protection from excess nutrient pollution.

Your emails regarding these issues made a big impact on decision makers!

But our work is not over. The third round of stream assessments has been completed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. As a result, they are proposing to downgrade protections for 408 streams or stream segments!

Please go to our website at http://www.iaenvironment.org/w… to learn how you can help maintain water quality protections for hundreds of Iowa streams and stream segments.

It’s frustrating that even though Democrats control of the Iowa legislature, environmental advocates needed to mobilize against that “dirty water” bill and lobby hard to get Iowa’s new anti-degradation rules through the legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee. Now we have to worry about the DNR under a Democratic administration downgrading protection for streams when Iowa is already one of the worst states for water quality.

Please take two minutes to submit a public comment on this issue. The Iowa Environmental Council has more background information here, including public hearing dates and times, a link to a map of the affected stream segments, as well as the mailing address, fax number and e-mail of the relevant DNR official. Comments must be received by April 30.

Although the March jobs report was encouraging, the unemployment rate and the number of long-term unemployed are still at historically high levels. Unfortunately, unemployment benefits for about 200,000 Americans will run out soon because Congress adjourned for its Easter recess before resolving an dispute over extending those and other benefits. The Hill reports:

The interruption in benefits will last two weeks at a minimum, according to Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project (NELP), since lawmakers return from spring break on April 12.

As the two-week recess began, Congress was at an impasse over how to extend the emergency unemployment insurance program and other expiring provisions, including increased COBRA health insurance subsidies for the unemployed, the Medicare doctor payment rate and federal flood insurance.

Senate Republicans said the $9.3 billion, 30-day extension preferred by Democrats should be paid for, while Democrats said the bill’s cost didn’t need to be offset because the program was “emergency spending.”

Under the jobless benefits program that ends Monday, Americans out of work are eligible for up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. The program, aimed at helping jobless Americans stay afloat when new jobs aren’t readily available, gives an unemployed worker more than the 26 weeks of unemployment insurance normally available. But with the program ending, those out of work for as few as six months will see an interruption in their benefit checks.

I love how Republicans who approved every blank check for war in Iraq and every tax cut for the top 1 percent now demand that unemployment benefits be “paid for.” I don’t expect them to hold up action on unemployment benefits forever, but even if Democrats are able to apply extensions retroactively later this month, a lot of families will experience real hardship in the meantime. Democrats should not have adjourned for Easter before dealing with this issue. I hope they pass a bill to extend the benefits until the end of the year, so these battles won’t recur every month.

In an April 2 statement regarding the latest jobs report, Senator Tom Harkin outlined additional steps needed to help people looking for work:

“First, Congress must overcome the obstructionism that is holding up an extension of unemployment insurance.  This critical safety net expires Monday and will leave nearly 38,000 Americans and 1,200 Iowans without benefits they need while they look for work.  In addition, we must take immediate action to prevent job losses among our nation’s teachers – to protect the quality of education – and we need to pass job creating legislation.  When Congress returns, I intend to move immediately on those efforts.”

UPDATE: Mike Lillis has more on benefits expiring and next steps in the Senate.

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violated the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. From the day that ruling went into effect through the end of 2009, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved.

Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.  

Terry Branstad leads Governor Chet Culver by 50 percent to 34 percent, according to a new survey by the Republican firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies. Culver polled 40 percent against Bob Vander Plaats, who was nearly tied with the governor at 39 percent. Culver led Rod Roberts 38 percent to 32 percent in this poll. Magellan surveyed 1,353 “likely Iowa general election voters” on March 30, and the poll has a margin of error of 2.7 percent. Several pollsters have now found Branstad at or above 50 percent against Culver, but this statistic is even more worrying:

Among the key voter subgroup of Iowa independent voters, which Magellan projects to constitute 25% of voter turnout in November, Chet Culver trails Terry Branstad by 34 points, 55% to 21%, trails Bob Vander Plaats by 7 points 36% to 29%, and is statistically tied with Rod Roberts 28% to 29%.

Recent polls by Selzer and Rasmussen have also found Branstad way ahead of Culver among no-party voters. The governor has work to do with this group. There’s no guarantee that Magellan’s likely voter screen is accurate, but no-party voters did constitute about 26 percent of the electorate in the 2006 general election.

Magellan’s numbers for Culver’s and President Barack Obama’s approval ratings were lower than I’ve seen in any other Iowa poll. Culver was at 30 percent approval/56 percent disapproval, and his favorability ratings were 33 percent favorable/58 percent unfavorable. About 48 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Branstad, while 36 percent had an unfavorable opinion. President Obama was at 42 percent approval/50 percent disapproval.

The Congressional generic ballot numbers also leaned Republican. Magellan asked, “If the election for Congress was being held today, and all you knew about the two candidates was that one was a Democrat and the other was a Republican, for whom would you vote?” Statewide, 40 percent of respondents said Republican, 33 percent said Democrat and 27 percent were undecided. Republicans led the generic ballot in all three Democratic-held House districts, including a difficult-to-believe six-point edge in Dave Loebsack’s district (IA-02), which traditionally has the strongest Democratic voting performance. (Keep in mind that the margin of error for subgroups in a poll is larger than the margin of error for results including the whole sample.) In this thread at The Iowa Republican blog, commenter dblhelix noted,

The [likely voter] model is extremely tight, w/ 86% responding “extremely likely” / 9% “very likely” on voter participation. I can believe R +1/large nr of undecideds in CD3 at this time, but R+6 in CD2? The “less reliable” Dem voters will fill that in, easily. Throw some points back to Dems, but the ballots in CD1-CD3 remain competitive, and again, it’s [voters aged] 35-44 driving this.

As a general rule, the tighter the likely voter screen, the more a poll will favor Republican candidates. From that perspective, it’s surprising that Branstad’s lead over Culver is “only” 16 percent. I doubt that Iowa’s first or second Congressional districts will turn out to be competitive races this fall, but no Democrat should be complacent. Our success in the Congressional races and especially in the battleground statehouse districts will depend on turning out people who wouldn’t tell a pollster in March that they are “extremely likely” to vote.  

Click here to download files containing topline results, crosstabs and a presentation summarizing the results of the Magellan poll. The survey also included issue questions on health care reform and the federal stimulus bill, among other things. Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Finally, a decent monthly job report. Here are some highlights, brought to you by Meteor Blades:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics stated in its seasonally adjusted report that some 162,000 new jobs were created in March, the best showing since March 2007, but somewhat below the consensus of experts surveyed earlier in the week. The official unemployment rate held steady at 9.7%. Some 15 million Americans are officially out of work.

The U6 unemployment rate, an alternative measure that includes underemployed Americans as well as a portion of those too discouraged to have looked for jobs recently, rose to 16.9%. […]

Some 48,000 of the new hires are temporary jobs with the Census. Hiring for the decennial count of the population will continue through June, with an estimated 1.15 million workers eventually hired. As a consequence of the short term nature of these jobs, experts will be largely discounting public employment when judging the health of the labor market during this period. Employment rose in construction, manufacturing, health care and temporary services. It held steady in transportation and warehousing, leisure and hospitality, the retail trade, and wholesale trade. There were losses in the information industry and financial services.

BLS revisions lowered the job losses in January from the 26,000 reported last month to a gain of 14,000 and reduced the job losses for February from 36,000 to 14,000. Average hourly earnings fell 0.1% in March.

Click over for more details and charts. It’s going to be a very long climb out of this recession, which was the most severe in seven decades in terms of job losses. Blades notes that if the economy created 200,000 jobs a month from now on, “it would take until October 2013 before the number of employed Americans equaled those with a job in December 2007, when the recession began.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Former Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign announced today that two television commercials will begin airing statewide on Monday, April 5. That’s two days before the first debate between the three Republican candidates for governor and about nine weeks before the June 8 primary.

The Branstad campaign will run this 60-second ad called “Ready”, which first aired during UNI’s NCAA basketball game last week, and this 30-second ad called “I Know Iowa.” The “Ready” ad intersperses Branstad’s campaign promises with testimonials about his character and talents. I can’t embed the 30-second ad here, but it features footage of Branstad with lots of different Iowans, as well as his campaign bus driving toward the state capitol building. The candidate himself does the voice-over for the shorter ad, and here’s my rough transcript:

Iowans are genuinely fearful and concerned, but also, people are hopeful. They know that we have the ability to come back. They’ve seen it done before. We can create 200,000 jobs. We can increase family incomes by 25 percent. We can reduce the size and cost of government, and we can make our education system the best in America. I love this state, and I love the people of this state, because I know given the opportunity, Iowans will always exceed expectations.

Both commercials convey the central theme of the Branstad campaign: he can lead Iowa out of tough times and back to greatness. I don’t see substance backing up Branstad’s campaign promises, but for the most part Iowa journalists are giving him a free pass. I question whether his Republican opponents will be able to make an effective case against him. Branstad probably will be the only candidate advertising on television for several weeks. It’s not clear that Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts have the resources to run even two weeks of commercials statewide. Vander Plaats has a stronger potential grassroots network given his experience with Mike Huckabee’s campaign and the support of the Iowa Family Policy Center, but Roberts seems to be competing for the same conservative voters Vander Plaats is targeting.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Swing State Project posted its initial competitive House ratings chart yesterday. On one level, the chart is terrifying, because Democrats hold so many more of the seats in play than Republicans do. On the other hand, I found the chart a bit reassuring, in that Republicans would have to win about two-thirds of the tossup seats and about one-third of the “lean Democrat” seats in order to take back the House majority. That is a tall order when the National Republican Congressional Committee has so much less cash on hand than the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the Republican National Committee is spending like there’s no election in seven months. Corporate-funded PACs and Republican 527s will spend money on behalf of many GOP candidates, but I still think the cash-strapped NRCC will end up leaving seats on the table.

Swing State Project commenters have been debating prospects for various House races in this thread. Click over to read the chart, then come back and share your thoughts or predictions about any of the competitive House races.

The only Iowa district Swing State Project considers competitive is the third, where seven Republican challengers are competing for the chance to face seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell. I haven’t seen any public or internal polling on this race. Swing State Project’s “lean D” rating is defensible, because Boswell underperformed the top of the Democratic ticket in 2006 and 2008. However, Boswell is continuing to raise money while the winner of the GOP primary will probably be broke. I’ve talked to several political types who think State Senator Brad Zaun will beat the insiders’ favorite Jim Gibbons in that primary, which could put the NRCC off making big play for this district. Even if Gibbons wins the primary, I doubt the NRCC will spend serious money here. Our state is losing a district after the 2010 census, and the winner of the IA-03 election will probably be thrown into the same district as Tom Latham for 2012. So beating Boswell wouldn’t deliver a long-term gain for the GOP. Beltway Republicans trying to allocate scarce resources have dozens of targets that look more inviting than this district.

The floor is yours.