Interesting story from the Des Moines Register’s Iowa Politics Insider blog:

The American Future Fund Political Action has asked the Federal Election Commission for an advisory opinion about whether federal law preempts laws like that in Minnesota.

In that state, a live operator must initiate the recorded call with the consent of the person receiving the call.

The political action committee, which raises and contributes money for political campaigns, is based in Virginia, but its advocacy arm, American Future Fund, is run out of Des Moines.

Des Moines lawyer Nick Ryan, chairman of American Future Fund’s board, said such restrictions interfere with federal campaign finance laws, which cover the activities of federal candidates, national party organizations and political action committees.

Ryan argued that the issue his group is raising is about fairness. For example, it is more expensive to conduct a telephone campaign that requires hiring staff, an obstacle to candidates with small warchests, Ryan said.

For background on the American Future Fund, read this Daily Kos diary by Mrs Panstreppon and this article by Jason Hancock for the Iowa Independent.

This FEC request suggests that the group plans to continue to be involved in upcoming elections in Minnesota, perhaps including the 2010 governor’s race or Congressional elections. Iowa doesn’t have any restrictions on political robocalls. The American Future Fund has run television ads in Minnesota this fall and ran ads supporting Republican Senator Norm Coleman last year. In fact, Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party filed an FEC complaint against the group:

“The American Future Fund is a shadowy nonprofit organization,” the complaint said. “It purports to be exempt from tax under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. But its notion of ‘promoting the social welfare’ is to send valentines to electorally troubled Republican Senate candidates. The Commission should take immediate steps to enforce the law and expose this group’s secret financing to light of day.”

Here in Iowa, the American Future Fund seems to be backing Terry Branstad for governor. Tim Albrecht was that group’s communications director before taking a job with the Branstad campaign. Nicole Schlinger, former president of the American Future Fund, is now handling fundraising for the Branstad campaign.

A member of the Des Moines business community tells me that Ryan has been making fundraising calls for Branstad’s campaign. I don’t know if he’s doing that on his own time or as part of his work for the American Future Fund. Ryan has worked for Bruce Rastetter, one of the Iowa business leaders deeply involved in recruiting Branstad to run for governor again.

UPDATE: The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office will submit comments to the FEC defending that state’s law.

Lynda Waddington, contributor to Iowa Independent and creator of the Essential Estrogen blog, will be the featured speaker at two seminars on “developing campaign web pages and blogs for Democratic women candidates, and those who work their campaigns.”

If you know any women who have considered running for office, or anyone who wants to work on a woman candidate’s campaign, please spread the word. Waddington promises to “show participants the good, the bad, and the (oh so very) ugly that can come with being a politically active woman in the age of the internet and high technology.”

The Des Moines seminar will take place on Saturday, November 14, from 1:30 to 3:30 pm at the AFSCME office, 4320 NW 2nd.

The Cedar Falls seminar will take place on Saturday, November 21, from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm at the Cedar Falls Public Library.

For more information, contact Jo Ann Zimmerman at 515-225-1136 or atzzzzz AT aol.com, or Marcia Nichols at 515-246-1517 (for the Des Moines event).

The seminars are free, no advance registration required.  Sponsored by DAWN (Democratic Activist Womens Network) and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees). DAWN was founded in 1992 to recruit and mentor Democratic women to run for public office.

Speaking of women running for office, jamesvw posted information to help get out the vote for Kirsten Running-Marquardt in the November 24 special election in Iowa House district 33.

Members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will vote between November 19 and November 25 on the deal reached by Governor Chet Culver and the union’s leadership:

The agreement includes five mandatory unpaid furlough days between now and June 30, which is expected to save about $22.7 million.

The state’s contribution to employees’ deferred compensation also will be temporarily suspended until June 30, for a savings of $3.7 million.

The total savings of $26.4 million is expected to save 479 AFSCME jobs. Culver sought concessions from the union in order to avoid the layoffs of state workers, especially state troopers and correctional officers working in state prisons.

Under the terms of the agreement, no member of the union who is an executive branch employee can be laid off until June 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Employees outside the bargaining units who are laid off will not be allowed to displace AFSCME employees.

The Des Moines Register has a few more details on the vote:

WHAT: A “memorandum of understanding” would require about 20,000 state workers to take five unpaid days off over the next seven months and sacrifice about $75 a month in state contributions to their deferred compensation, which is a supplemental retirement plan.

WHO CAN VOTE: Only active state workers who are currently paying dues to AFSCME will be eligible to cast a ballot.

WHEN: Voting will begin Nov. 19 and end Nov. 25.

WHERE: AFSCME will set up about 30 polling places across the state, such as at the Iowa Veterans Home and state prisons, for 12-hour periods.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If I were in the union, I would vote yes. Losing some retirement contributions and a week’s salary will cause some hardship, but many private-sector workers have also seen their wages drop during this recession. Minimizing layoffs should be the top priority.

Does anyone think the AFSCME members might vote down this agreement?

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty headlined the Republican Party of Iowa’s fall fundraising dinner on Saturday night, but I was more interested in the remarks by Republican candidates for governor. O.Kay Henderson and Craig Robinson live-blogged the proceedings, and the video is available at C-SPAN’s site.

Former Governor Terry Branstad wasn’t at the top of his game, stumbling at times, reading from notes and messing up his applause lines. Kathie Obradovich observed,

The audience of about 500 at the Republican Party of Iowa’s “Leadership for Iowa” dinner was polite. But there was no sense of excitement for the candidate who many believe is the favorite for the nomination.

Follow me after the jump for highlights from the candidates’ pitches, along with a little commentary and fact-checking.

UPDATE: Also read John Deeth’s take:

Terry Branstad’s first appearance as an all but official candidate fell flat on Saturday night, and illustrates one of the dilemmas he’ll face going forward. He’s now competing with all the other gubertatorial candidates on the same level, instead of as an above the fray Dream Candidate.

Sometimes, dream candidates turn out to be All That, as Barack Obama illustrated. But more often, the dream turns into an awkward and embarrassing morning after, as the one-time next best thing takes the walk of shame off the political stage. […]

Branstad has the worst of all worlds: he’s a dream candidate with a long record.

Roxanne Conlin made her candidacy for U.S. Senate official today, releasing this two-minute video:

Conlin narrates the video herself, and it’s mostly a biographical piece. Her parents lived paycheck to paycheck. She worked her way through college and law school.

Conlin was U.S. Attorney for Iowa’s southern district from 1977 to 1981. In this video, she says that as a prosecutor, she “took on drug dealers, corrupt politicians, and corporations who violated the public trust.” She then started a small law firm “to give a voice to everyday people who had none, like taking on the big banks to help family farms at risk of foreclosure.”

Conlin tells viewers, “Taking on the special interests has been the cause of my life,” and she is running for U.S. Senate “to take this fight to Washington.” She promises to help small business and promote renewable energy and other strategies for creating jobs in Iowa.

She doesn’t mention Senator Chuck Grassley directly, but she outlines the case she will make against him. Career politicians in Washington have lost their independence. Iowans were left behind when banks got bailed out and their top executives got huge bonuses. Grassley voted for the Wall Street bailout, which Conlin mentions twice in this video. No doubt we’ll hear more in the coming months about Grassley’s ties to various special interests and his votes for tax breaks companies use when they ship jobs overseas.

Conlin looks at the camera as she delivers her closing line: “Join me in taking on this fight, because the special interests have had their turn. Now, it’s our turn.”

Her campaign logo reads, “Roxanne for Iowa.” I would like to hear from campaign professionals on the merits of branding women candidates with their first names, like the Hillary for president signs and bumper stickers.

I like that we hear her own voice, instead of an actor’s voice-over, and her life experiences that many Iowans can relate to. (Republicans are already referring to Conlin as a “liberal, millionaire trial attorney” from Des Moines.)

What do you think?

UPDATE: The video transcript and further biographical information are after the jump.

Last month was so busy that I didn’t manage to post any event calendars here, but I am back on duty now. The highlight of this month for Democrats is the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on Saturday, November 21, featuring Vice President Joe Biden. You can buy tickets online.

Please note that November 10 is the deadline for public comments to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources about protecting our Outstanding Iowa Waters. The Farm Bureau is mobilizing public comments against these regulations. The DNR needs to hear from Iowans committed to preserving our highest-quality waterways. Click here for background and an easy to use comment form.

State Senator Staci Appel will officially announce her re-election campaign on November 12, and I’ve posted details about a fundraiser for her campaign below the fold. Appel’s Republican opponent, State Representative Kent Sorenson, is already gearing up for next year’s election. He spent the weekend in Texas attending the WallBuilders ProFamily Legislators Conference. Here’s some background on David Barton’s vision for America, chock full of Biblical interpretations supporting right-wing public policies. Barton spoke to the Iowa Christian Alliance not long ago (click that link to watch videos). Former presidential candidate Ron Paul is headlining a fundraiser for Sorenson on November 14, by the way.

Many more event details are after the jump. As always, please post a comment about anything I’ve left out, or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

After many hours of debate, the House of Representatives approved HR 2962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act tonight by a vote of 220-215. In a nice touch, Representative John Dingell (MI-15) presided over the chamber today. He was one of the architects of the original Medicare bill.

President Barack Obama went to the Capitol this morning to urge House Democrats to pass the bill. But as you can see from the roll call, 39 Democrats voted no. All of Iowa’s Democrats voted “aye.” Only one House Republican voted for the bill (Joseph Cao, representing the heavily Democratic LA-02).

I am upset that no House Progressives were allowed to offer amendments today, but Bart Stupak (MI-01) was able to further restrict women’s access to abortion services. His amendment is a very bad deal for women. I’m with Angry Mouse: this is not okay.

The Stupak amendment passed 240-194, gaining 64 Democratic votes (roll call here). That’s almost a quarter of the House Democrats. An embarrassing number of Democrats who aren’t even in the Blue Dog caucus voted for it. As Natasha Chart tweeted tonight, the Stupak amendment is exactly the kind of thing a Democratic majority was supposed to stop from coming to the floor. The DCCC won’t get a dime from me this cycle.

Supposedly Obama told progressives this morning he will try to have the Stupak provision removed from the bill in conference. I would bet money against that happening. I expect to see bipartisan movement to include a similar clause in the Senate health care bill.

According to Jane Hamsher, the AFL-CIO may cut off contributions to Democrats who vote against health care reform. Again, I would bet money against this happening, but some Blue Dogs would have trouble funding their re-election campaigns without support from organized labor.

Speaking of Blue Dogs, I want to give special credit to Leonard Boswell (IA-03) tonight. Unlike most of his fellow Blue Dogs, he voted no on the Stupak amendment and yes on passing the bill.

Bruce Braley (IA-01) noted tonight that we hear a lot of Republican talk about medical liability, but not one word about medical safety.

Also worth noting: the future of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is uncertain. As fairleft2 notes in this diary, the House bill moves children either to Medicaid or into private plans. It’s not clear whether this provision could pass the Senate.

Meanwhile, a new poll from Virginia suggests opposing the public health insurance option was disastrous for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds.

Share your own health care reform thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Jacob Hacker, “godfather” of the public health insurance option, thinks the House bill is worth supporting. Whether the public option can survive a House/Senate conference committee is another question. A few days ago the Stupak amendment was considered a “poison pill” that would doom the health care reform effort, but last night House Progressives almost all voted for the bill even after the Stupak amendment passed. I think that signals the death of the “progressive block” strategy for demanding a public option in the final version of health care reform.

Representative Steve King (IA-05) enjoyed Thursday’s “House call” rally against health care reform so much that he organized another rally at the Capitol today to “kill the bill.” Unfortunately for fellow Republicans, King and several other wingnuts blew off a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. In their absence, several Republican amendments to the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill failed to pass:

Those votes took place, a committee staffer confirmed, between noon and two — the very time when Republican lawmakers were rallying the Tea Party troops on the Capitol steps.

One measure, offered by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, would have extended the “lone wolf” provisions of the Act, which would allow the FBI to surveil or search foreign nationals even if it can’t be shown that the person is an agent of a foreign power. Many believe that had this been in effect before 9/11, the FBI might have caught Zacarias Moussaoui. And Republicans had said that extending the lone wolf provision this time around was crucial to protecting national security. Even some Democrats supported the measure, giving it a good chance of passage. But it failed by a single vote, 15-15. Reps. King and Gohmert were absent.

Another measure, offered by Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-CA), failed by a vote of 11 to 8. Reps. King, Gohmert, Jordan, and Poe were all missing.

And a third, brought by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), which would have bolstered the ability of local law enforcement to use a device that records phone numbers from a particular phone, failed by 12 to 10, with King, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, and Franks all absent. (A subsequent amendment that did essentially the same thing later passed, it’s worth noting.)

Several other members of both parties missed some of these votes as well, but there’s no evidence they were Tea Partying.

I guess King likes preaching to the converted more than doing his job.

UPDATE: In fairness to King, he is apparently missing his son’s wedding today in order to be in Washington for the health care debate.

The Quad-City Times reports today that Roxanne Conlin is “in the midst of putting together a [U.S. Senate] campaign” and will file papers with the Federal Election Commission next week. She seems to have hired at least one campaign staffer already; the newspaper quotes Mark Daley as Conlin’s spokesman.

I expect Conlin to raise large sums of money quickly once she has formed a campaign committee, but she has a ways to go to become competitive with Senator Chuck Grassley. He had $4.4 million cash on hand at the end of the third quarter, and there will be plenty more where that came from. During this election cycle alone, Grassley has raised more than $1.6 million in individual contributions and $1.9 million from political action committees. Health care and insurance interests have generously supported him:

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) has raised $154,350 in campaign donations in the 3rd quarter of 2009 from health care interests, including $43,590 from health insurance interests, according to research conducted by the campaign finance watchdog Public Campaign Action Fund. Grassley serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which voted out a health care reform bill earlier this year.

Over his career, Grassley has raised at least $3.3 million from the health care and insurance industries during his time in Washington, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Sen. Grassley was showered with health industry contributions while the Finance Committee was meeting to discuss health care legislation,” said David Donnelly, national programs director for Public Campaign Action Fund. “Insurance PACs and executives wanted Grassley to oppose health care reform, and that’s what they got.”

Last week Cityview’s Civic Skinny expressed doubts that Conlin can raise $10 million without taking any money from lobbyists or PACs. $10 million might be a tall order, but Conlin has plenty of major donor contacts around the country, not to mention potential support from small donors who got fed up with Grassley this summer. Conlin probably won’t be able to match Grassley dollar for dollar, but she certainly will raise enough to stage a credible statewide campaign.

Paul McKinley dropped out of the governor’s race today to focus on next year’s Iowa Senate elections. His move made sense, because the Iowa Senate Republican caucus has never been smaller than the current 18 members. With 19 Senate Democrats and only 6 Republicans up for re-election in 2010, the GOP is almost bound to make some gains.

My question is, why did McKinley wait so long to make this announcement? Although he promised in July to “aggressively explore” a gubernatorial campaign, McKinley failed to turn up in most places you’d expect to find potential Republican candidates. In fact, Craig Robinson wrote last month,

McKinley’s indecisiveness since announcing his gubernatorial campaign hasn’t just sunk any aspirations he may have for higher office in the future, but it might also have impacted his effectiveness as the Senate Republicans’ chief fundraiser, recruiter, and strategist. With McKinley not devoting his full attention to his gubernatorial campaign and not having communicated his progress in advancing the Republican cause in his current position, one might question if he is the right person to lead Republicans in the State Senate.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Will some other Senate Republican (say, Merlin Bartz) challenge McKinley’s position in the upper chamber? Or will meaningless gestures like McKinley’s “state sovereignty resolution” pacify his GOP critics?

Conservative activists gathered in Washington yesterday to protest Democratic-backed health care reform proposals. As usual, right-wingers are completely wrong about the substance of the bills, crying “socialism” when the real problem is not enough government-backed competition for private insurers. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a key figure in the “tea party” movement, claims to believe that “The largest empirical problem we have in health care today is too many people are too overinsured.”

Anyway, when ill-informed right-wingers are causing a spectacle inside the beltway, you can count on finding Representative Steve King (IA-05) nearby. Hey, it’s been almost three weeks since national media last paid attention to his unfounded allegations.

So King gets on MSNBC yesterday and falsely claims that the House Democrats’ bill would cancel every private insurance contract in America. You can watch the clip on the Iowa Democratic Party’s site.

Not only do the Democratic bills not void private insurance contracts, they prevent Americans covered by private insurance from choosing a public health insurance option.

Politifact should add this gem to their fact-checking page on King. I noticed that Representative Michele Bachmann (MN-06) is way ahead of him in terms of the number of “false” and “pants on fire” claims subjected to Politifact’s Truth-o-meter, but it shouldn’t take long for King to catch up.

By the way, I recommend watching the video of Mike Stark’s brief interview with King outside the Capitol, recorded a few days ago. King doesn’t know how many uninsured people live in his district (approximately 83,000), and he doesn’t know how many bankruptcies in his district are related to medical costs (about 700 last year), but he does know that “my people want freedom” from health care reform.

Iowans Nick Klinefeldt and Stephanie Rose were among three U.S. attorney nominees the Senate Judiciary Committee approved today by unanimous consent, the Main Justice blog reported. Their nominations still need to be confirmed by the full Senate, but that is likely to be a formality. In March, Senator Tom Harkin recommended Klinefeldt for the U.S. attorney position in Iowa’s southern district and Rose for the position in Iowa’s northern district. President Barack Obama nominated the two last month.

Main Justice posted a short bio of Klinefeldt here and a short bio of Rose here. Those pages include links to the nominees’ full Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaires (pdf files).

A Bleeding Heartland reader who watched today’s committee meeting tells me that Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy asked if there were any objections to the nominations, and none were raised. Senator Chuck Grassley told his colleagues that he “had interviewed both Iowa nominees –he praised Harkin’s selections and both nominees–he asked that a statement he prepared be made part of the record but did not read the statement.”

I expected the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Rose about her role in last year’s prosecutions of hundreds of undocumented workers from Postville. Harkin has defended her on the grounds that officials senior to Rose made the key policy decisions. Even so, Rose should have been asked about the cases and how they might have been handled differently. As things stand, I agree with critics who say promoting Rose without asking serious questions “would constitute a stamp of approval on the Postville debacle.”

Professor Erik Camayd-Freixas, a Spanish-language court interpreter, has spoken and written at length about injustice he observed in the aftermath of the Postville raid:

Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.

In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.

He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.

Click here to watch a video interview of Camayd-Freixas or download his 14-page essay about his experience with the Postville detainees. Rose may have the skills to be a good U.S. attorney, but it bothers me that the Senate Judiciary Committee has just indicated that they have no concerns or objections about last year’s events in Iowa. That’s a bad message to send to U.S. attorneys everywhere.

State Senator Brad Zaun may not be the Republican establishment’s favorite choice to run against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. The first hint was Krusty Konservative’s complaint last week that Zaun’s trial balloon “isn’t very well thought out,” because when you’re in charge of recruiting Republican candidates for the Iowa Senate, you can’t “bail on them and run for Congress.”

Now, Krusty can be a loose cannon, but the top story at The Iowa Republican today makes me think heavyweights in the GOP want Zaun to stay where he is. Craig Robinson speculates about GOP recruiting against Boswell, and he isn’t sold on Zaun:

First, Zaun is one of the Republican state senators who has been tasked to recruit candidates. In a year when 19 of the 25 seats that are up for election are under Democratic control, this is no easy task. Also, if Zaun runs for Congress, it means one less incumbent raising money and mentoring new candidates, something Republicans in the senate desperately need him to do.

Zaun is also not a prolific fundraiser. While he needed to raise significant funds to win his senate seat, it’s not a task that he necessarily enjoyed. While Zaun would bring more donor contacts than the current candidates in the race, it would probably be difficult for him to raise the million plus dollars that it will take to run a competitive race against Congressman Boswell.

While some might think that Iowa Republicans are destined to only recruit token opposition against Boswell, TheIowaRepublican.com has heard rumors that a well known, top-rate recruit will announce before the year ends. TheIowaRepublican.com can also confirm that the recruit is not Senator Zaun.

A top-notch candidate with the ability to raise significant amounts of money would elevate the 3rd District Congressional race to a point where it could be targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee next fall. If that were to occur, not only would Republicans have a chance at picking up the seat, but it could also help in the statewide U.S. Senate and gubernatorial campaigns, as well as local down-ballot contests.

Any idea who this great fundraiser and “top-rate recruit” may be? Former state GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey has been thinking about this race, and he probably could raise a lot of money, but it sounds as if Robinson is talking about a surprise candidate.

Zaun has said he’ll decide within the next few weeks whether to run against Boswell. I don’t consider him a major threat, while Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 somewhat disagrees. I am skeptical about the NRCC pouring money into this race, because they have plenty of other targets, as well as a handful of tough House seats to defend. Also, even if a Republican beats Boswell in 2010, that wouldn’t be a long-term net gain for the GOP, because redistricting will probably pit the IA-03 winner against Representative Tom Latham in the 2012 primary.

Put your own speculation in this thread.

We all saw the same election results this week, but we didn’t all hear the same message from the voters.

After the jump I’ve posted some different interpretations of Tuesday’s events, along with my own short take.

It's important to have strong, well-funded organizations working to stop climate change before it's too late.  But even more important is the need for committed activists and volunteers who work together and organize themselves on this issue, just like any other.  It was this sort of organizing that made the recent 350.org International Day of Climate Action a tremendous success with nearly 4,000 events around the world.

It is this sort of amazing power and potential that is leading 1Sky to build a network of Climate Precinct Captains across the country, and across Iowa.

Visit http://local.1sky.org to become a CPC so that you can communicate with other activists in your community, plan events, and build a network that can outlast any individual organizer.  We must pass strong clean energy legislation this Fall and build a strong international commitment at Copenhagen, but we also need to be prepared for the next fight to solve this crisis.

Also, I've scheduled some small meetings over the next few days across the state to meet with local activists.  Since many of you don't yet receive our updates, I want to make sure you know about these opportunities to join us and talk about future events as well.

Please RSVP by commenting below if you can join us for the following meetings:

11/5/09…

Iowa City – River Room Cafe at Iowa Memorial Union – 12 p.m.

Cedar Rapids – Brewed Awakenings at 1271 1st Ave SE – 2 p.m.

Cedar Falls – Chat's Coffee Shop in the Maucker Union at UNI – 4 p.m.

11/7/09…

Council Bluffs –  Scooter's Java Express at 3030 W Broadway – 2:30 p.m.

Sioux City – Long Home Coffee 5714 Sunnybrook Dr – 5:30 p.m.

Again, please RSVP so that I can reach you in case of illness or an emergency venue change.

I’ll update this thread periodically tonight, but please post comments about any local election results in your corner of Iowa.

I have a feeling the incumbents will lose in Windsor Heights; Mr. desmoinesdem says unusually high turnout is often a sign of anti-incumbent sentiment.

The Virginia governor’s race has already been called for Republican Bob McDonnell.

Adam Bink is liveblogging the results from Maine on Proposition 1 and is very optimistic.

New Jersey is too close to call. Swing State Project posted 2008 NJ results by county and projected how well Governor Jon Corzine has to do in each county in order to pull through tonight. Exit polls suggest Republican Chris Christie won independents, but more women than men voted overall, which would be good for Corzine. Turnout in Democratic stronghold Hudson County (Newark) is quite a bit down from last year. Still not clear what percentage of voters cast early ballots. The New Jersey Democratic Party did a big absentee ballot push, but Republicans did not. That strategy has paid off for Iowa Democrats, but will it be enough for Corzine?

(updates moved after the jump)

While you’re waiting for tonight’s election returns, check out the television commercial Governor Chet Culver’s campaign launched today:

Like the commercial Culver ran last month, this ad emphasizes that the governor cut spending and his own salary in order to balance the state budget during this recession without raising taxes. I think the ad is well-crafted in terms of script and visuals, but like Bleeding Heartland users IowaVoter and dricey, I am concerned when Democrats rely heavily on Republican anti-tax messaging. Culver may be reinforcing conservative frames and limiting his future policy options if he does win re-election.

Kathie Obradovich highlighted another potential problem not long ago:

Gov. Chet Culver vowed to balance the state budget without raising taxes. And yet a third or more of Iowa school districts might end up raising property taxes as a direct result of the cut to state school aid ordered by Culver.

Is the governor breaking his promise? Well, no. And yes.

When Culver talks about avoiding a tax increase, he really means income and sales taxes – the two major revenue streams for the state. He’s referring to tax increases that he would have to sign into law. In that sense, he hasn’t raised taxes.

But he acknowledges that property taxes are a concern. Culver says he’ll ask the Legislature next year to require school districts to use their cash reserves before raising taxes.

Republicans are already blaming Democrats for the property tax increases many Iowans will experience next year. Their outrage is hypocritical, because the state cuts affecting education and local governments would have been far more severe if not for the federal stimulus bill, which included aid to state governments. Of course, Republicans denounced the stimulus package and bashed Culver for using these federal funds for their intended purpose: to help backfill the 2009 budget.

In any event, Democrats should be wary about staking next year’s campaign on “we didn’t raise your taxes during this recession.” That won’t be a comforting message to Iowans who have to pay a larger property tax bill in September 2010.

Craig Robinson has a post up at The Iowa Republican on efforts by the Scott County GOP to “turn the tide” for Republicans in eastern Iowa and statewide. The problem:

Just over a decade ago, Republicans held eight of the nine legislative seats in Scott County, today Republicans only control three of those seats. […] Currently, Republicans control only five senate seats and sixteen house seats east of Polk County. If you want to understand why Republicans have lost their majorities, one need[s] to look at what has happened to the state of the Republican Party in eastern Iowa.

In January of 2000, there were almost 5,000 more registered Republicans in Scott County than there were registered Democrats. Today, Democrats enjoy a registered voter advantage of 8,622 over Republicans. The 13,000 person swing in registered voters explains why Republicans have struggled to win elections in Scott County, the first congressional district, and statewide.

In the late 1990’s, Republican statewide candidates could win if they were able to perform reasonably well in Polk County. Many times, western Iowa counties as along with eastern Iowa Republican strongholds like Scott County could offset the margin that Democratic candidates could build in Polk and Johnson counties. Unfortunately, those were the glory days of Republican politics. In recent years, the only area of the state in which Republicans can build significant margins over Democrats is in northwest Iowa.

Here’s a name you won’t find in Robinson’s piece: Jim Leach. In the “glory days,” Jim Leach represented Scott County in Congress. But other Republicans attacked Congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks last year because she praised Leach’s work (even though she disagreed with his pro-choice position).  Now Christian Fong, the only gubernatorial candidate from eastern Iowa, assures voters that he is a social conservative and ducked a question about whether he’d ever voted for Leach.

In the “glory days,” most of the statehouse Republicans representing eastern Iowa were moderates. But in the 2006 Republican primary in Iowa Senate district 41, right-wing interest groups helped David Hartsuch oust pro-choice incumbent Republican Maggie Tinsman. Legislators on both sides of the aisle respected Tinsman, which can’t be said of Hartsuch. Getting rid of Tinsman helped social conservatives gain more power in the Iowa GOP, but I doubt it helped the Republican brand in Scott County.

The Republican Party in Iowa and nationally has simply become too conservative to compete in much of eastern Iowa. The same process has turned many longtime Republican districts in Illinois and Wisconsin blue.

Robinson praises Brian Kennedy’s organizing and fundraising work as the finance chair of the Scott County GOP. He argues that rising unemployment in eastern Iowa has created an opening for Republicans in 2010. For that reason, Kennedy wants GOP candidates to focus on “job creation and the economy.” But clearly, there is no room in the GOP for candidates who don’t accept all of the religious right’s positions, whether or not they talk about jobs.

Until the Republican Party makes room in the tent for people who admire Jim Leach, they won’t regain a dominant position in places like Scott County. A weak economy can help the GOP make up some ground next year, and raising more money can improve their grassroots organizing, but that won’t solve their fundamental problem.

Eastern Iowa Bleeding Heartland readers, tell me if I’m right or wrong and why.

This thread is for any comments or predictions about any election happening today. I expect turnout in Windsor Heights to be relatively high for a local election; this is the most competitive race for mayor and city council that I can remember. I’ve received GOTV calls on behalf of several candidates.

The Virginia governor’s race looks like a blowout for Republican Bob McDonnell. The conservative Creigh Deeds won the primary on an electability argument, but we might have been better off with a candidate who excited the Democratic base more. Probably we would have lost the governor’s race, but with less damage done down-ticket.

The New Jersey governor’s race is a dead heat according to the Pollster.com polling average, but my hunch is that Republican Chris Christie is going to pull out a narrow win. The independent candidate, Chris Daggett, will be buried way down the ballot with a bunch of no-hopers, and I feel that a lot of his leaners will land with Christie when the ballot is in front of them. Given where the race stood in the summer, it’s a miracle that Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine has any prayer of pulling this out in the middle of a severe recession.

Mark “mystery pollster Blumenthal and Chris Bowers also give a slight edge to Christie in this race.

I am cautiously optimistic about no winning the Prop 1 battle in Maine, although the most recent poll of that race showed the yes position ahead. A “yes” vote would overturn same-sex marriage rights, which the Maine legislature approved and the governor signed into law earlier this year. The No on 1 forces have a strong ground game and appear to have banked a lot of early votes there. The main problem is that younger voters are less likely to turn out for an off-year election, and older voters are less likely to support marriage equality. Adam Bink reports from the ground:

The field team is firing on all cylinders. Biggest concern is youth turnout in off-year. In 2005, an anti-discrimination ballot initiative went our way and we had one campus field organizer for the whole state. This year we have nine. But the numbers are tight as hell, and if turnout is like a normal election year, we’ll lose. Everyone is saying we have to execute a flawless [GOTV] program.

New York’s 23rd district will be an easy win for conservative candidate Doug Hoffman, who forced moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race over the weekend. Although Scozzafava endorsed Democrat Bill Owens and recorded a robocall on his behalf, this district just has too strong a Republican lean for a Democrat to win, in my opinion.

Looking on the bright side, the parade of national Republican politicians and commentators behind Hoffman will crush future GOP recruiting efforts in districts where they need moderates to win. There could be no clearer sign that moderates are unwelcome in the Republican Party. I expect the fallout to affect recruiting for state-level races as well as Congressional ones.

What do you think about any of these races, or local elections in your community?

UPDATE: Unusually heavy turnout (for a local election) in Windsor Heights today. I voted around 3:15 and was voter number 241. An election worker told me there are 1,211 registered voters in my precinct, so even before the after-work rush, turnout was above 20 percent.  

Come on, Dave Price and Bret Hayworth, you know Steve King isn’t running for president in 2012. When journalists ask him whether he might seek the presidency, King is happy to play the game of not saying no directly, because not ruling out a presidential bid generates buzz and boosts his national profile. But he won’t give up a safe seat in Congress, which happens to provide his son with a full-time job as well, in pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination.

Hayworth observed today,

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who King has noted is essentially his twin, ran for president in 2008. Why shouldn’t Steve King?

Tancredo’s presidential bid didn’t even last until the Iowa caucuses. He saw the writing on the wall and dropped out in December 2007. He then endorsed one of the leading candidates, Mitt Romney, while King went with the laughable Fred Thompson (after flirting with Romney).

A short-lived presidential campaign by King wouldn’t merely be a waste of time like Tancredo’s was. It would give other contenders another reason to skip Iowa, the way Democratic candidates bypassed the 1992 caucuses because Tom Harkin ran for president.

King’s not going to deprive Iowa Republicans of a major role in selecting the 2012 nominee. Presidential campaigns bring lots of money to Iowa cities, and so do media organizations in the runup to the caucuses. Presidential candidates also give money to the Republican Party of Iowa and its statehouse candidates. King will enjoy having several candidates compete for his endorsement.

There are plenty of other good questions journalists could ask King. For instance, why does he keep claiming the House health care reform bill would fund abortions? The fact is, the House bill already contains language similar to the Hyde amendment (banning public funds for abortions) and will probably reduce private insurance coverage for abortions as well.