I would like to hear more about how the Iowa House and Senate candidates are campaigning around the state.

I live in House district 59, which is a targeted district for both parties. Republican Dan Clute has retired, and Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan is facing Chris Hagenow, a Republican attorney.

I don’t watch much television, but I’ve heard that Hagenow has been on the air for a few weeks. His first spot was apparently positive about his Iowa roots and how he wants to make Iowa a good place for his young son Owen. More recently, I think he’s been running an ad attacking Sullivan on taxes. If you’ve seen either of these tv ads, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

I’ve received seven direct-mail pieces about this race, all paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party. Five were positive: one about how Sullivan has done a good job as mayor of Windsor Heights, one about his biography and how he’s “always been part of the fabric of our community,” two on how he supports more investment in renewable energy as an economic engine that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and one on how he wants to do more to protect children from sex predators (don’t we all!).

Just this week I’ve received two negative mailings  also paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party, about how we can’t trust Hagenow on Social Security. One states that Hagenow wants to replace Social Security with a “voluntary system in which no senior receives the guaranteed benefit they worked a lifetime for.” These mailings contain a footnote to the Polk County Republican platform:

http://polkgoptemp.iowalink.co… Plank 7.4

Unfortunately, the link doesn’t take you directly to the platform. I searched for it on the Polk County Republican site and found this:

http://polkgoptemp.iowalink.co…

Plank 7.4 does indeed state

7.4. We call for the replacement of the current Social Security System with a new private and voluntary retirement investment program.

I live in Windsor Heights, which is obviously a stronghold for Sullivan, and I see lots of his yard signs (including in some Republican households). I don’t know who is winning the yard sign war in the Clive and West Des Moines parts of the district.

If you live in a contested House or Senate district, please post a comment or send me an e-mail about what you are seeing and hearing from the candidates.

If you receive any robocalls or push-polls against your Democratic candidate, please take detailed notes and post a diary or send me an e-mail about it.

Here are some more tips about what to do if you get push-polled.

Health reform is moving back to the top of the political agenda. Over the last fifteen years, the biggest problems in U.S. health care—the dwindling reach and generosity of private coverage, the rapid escalation of costs, the uneven quality of care—have all grown substantially worse. Now, we may well finally have a true opportunity to address these problems. What are the big issues at stake? What are the options for reform? And what are the prospects for real change after decades of political defeat?

These are the questions taken up in Health At Risk: America’s Ailing Health System–And How to Heal It, a book I recently put together that features the commentary of some of the nation’s leading experts on health care (plus yours truly).

When John McCain won the Florida primary, putting him well on the way to sealing the Republican nomination, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. I had been hoping the GOP would nominate Mitt Romney. Not only did many religious conservatives deeply distrust Romney, I felt he would be easy to expose as a phony say-anything-to-win kind of politician. In contrast, McCain was a media darling with a “maverick” image, even though he also flip-flopped on many issues while seeking the presidency.

Many factors favored the Democrats this year, in particular George W. Bush’s rock-bottom approval ratings and the lopsided right direction/wrong track numbers every pollster has found. But it seemed to me in February that the Republicans had nominated their strongest general-election candidate, while our two remaining primary contenders seemed to me to have big hurdles to overcome in the general.

When McCain frittered away the spring and early summer, reshuffling his campaign staff several times, I started to realize he was a weaker candidate than I’d previously believed. Watching McCain’s excrutiatingly long non-answer on whether insurance companies that cover Viagra should also cover birth control pills, I remember thinking that Romney would never have fumbled that question so badly. He would have had a slick reply along safe Republican lines, such as, “I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling private insurers what to cover.”

After Obama picked Joe Biden as a running mate, Republican talking heads were all over the lack of executive experience on the Democratic ticket. Of course McCain doesn’t have any either, and his running mate was mayor of a small town (where the city manager did most of the work) and then a governor who abused her power less than halfway through her first term. Romney had a legitimate claim to executive experience, having run a large company and then a state government. Would he have made as dumb a VP pick as McCain did? I doubt it.

Each time McCain loses a debate to Obama, I’ve thought that Romney would have done better on the stage. Sure, he was a big phony, but he carried himself with more confidence and spoke with more authority in his voice. Perhaps Obama would have won all the post-debate polls anyway, but I think Romney would have made it closer.

I also think Romney would have been a stronger voice for Republicans on economic policy in light of this fall’s meltdown in the banking sector and stock market. Here’s the Republican National Committee’s latest ad, pounding Obama on his inexperience in connection with the current financial crisis:

Obama’s relative inexperience is a vulnerability, but he has handled himself well this fall and done a good job answering the economic questions in all three debates. McCain has seemed erratic by comparison. Romney would have been able to play his “I know the business sector” card, and I doubt he would have tried to get the first debate delayed, which looked like an odd stunt from McCain.

Along the same lines, watch this brand-new ad from McCain and try to tell me Romney wouldn’t have been more credible delivering this message:

Romney would have looked more confident and sounded more polished. Also, Romney’s biography would make it easier to believe he had a plan to restore people’s savings, jobs and financial security.

Most important, Romney has not been in Congress for the last eight years, voting with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time. McCain has, which is the focus of this brand-new ad from Obama:

By the way, the Service Employees International Union put together a very clever ad on the theme of McCain being the same as Bush (or worse).

I acknowledge that Romney probably would have lost the general election. The economic indicators and trends in voter registration point to a Democratic wave. Romney’s past history of supporting abortion rights and even gay rights would have created major problems with part of the Republican base. Also, perhaps there would have been great resistance to electing a Mormon president. (For what it’s worth, I think Romney would be the GOP nominee if not for his religion.)

But McCain is just not running a good campaign, and the economic issues, where McCain is weak, have more salience now than the military and security issues that are allegedly McCain’s strengths. It’s hard for me to believe that Romney would have done worse against Obama.

What do you think?

UPDATE: The emergence of “Joe the Plumber” strengthens my case. McCain mentioned him about 20 times during last night’s debate, apparently without sufficient vetting. It turns out that Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber, owes back taxes, and is a registered Republican (not an independent). Oh yeah, and he’s also related to Charles Keating’s son-in-law (as in “Keating Five” Charles Keating).

Would the Romney campaign have staked so much on “Joe the Plumber” without doing due diligence? I don’t think so.

Barack Obama has a big psychological edge going into his final debate with John McCain. He leads McCain in all of the recent nationwide polls and in most of the key swing state polls, giving him a big lead in the projected electoral vote. McCain desperately needs to have the debate of his life and hope that Obama makes a big mistake.

Deep pessimism appears to have set in among the Republican political and pundit class, as you will learn if you read this Daily Kos diary: GOP Rats Deserting the USS McCain in Titanic Proportions. It’s chock full of quotes from angry or dejected Republicans.

Another piece that’s gotten a lot of traction today is this e-mail Ben Smith received from a demoralized Republican operative. This guy convened a focus group to test a hard-hitting ad linking Obama to terrorists among other things. The group believed his ad but are planning to vote for Obama anyway. Even though they think he’ll be a bad president. Even a woman who thinks Obama himself was in the Weathermen is planning to vote for him because of the health care issue. You really should click over to read this post.

McCain does have one thing going for him: he’s got a long relationship with Bob Schieffer of CBS, who is moderating tonight’s debate.

I probably won’t watch the debate live, but please share your comments in this thread. I will weigh in later when I’ve had a chance to listen.

I leave you with Obama’s latest tv ad, a good positive spot about education:

UPDATE: I caught the beginning of the debate, but then fell asleep while putting my kids to bed. Maybe I can catch the rerun on C-SPAN at some point. McCain seemed to be doing ok while I was watching, but apparently it didn’t go over well when he brought up William Ayers later in the debate. All the focus groups and snap polls gave the debate to Obama.

Note to aspiring politicians: No matter what your position is on when abortion should be legal (if ever), it’s a bad idea to use your fingers to make air quotes while saying “the health of the mother.”

Also, it’s best to avoid letting yourself be photographed or videotaped looking like this or like this. Not presidential.

Here’s a good summary of the post-debate focus group and polling data.

Congressional candidates’ third-quarter campaign finance reports were due today (October 15), so I went over to the Federal Election Commission site to see how things stand.

For some reason, I was unable to find reports for Senator Tom Harkin or his opponent, Christopher Reed. I will cover their FEC filings in a separate post when data become available. UPDATE: The National Journal’s Hotline blog published the basic information from all Senate candidates’ FEC filings.

Tom Harkin had total receipts of $635,915 during 3Q, spent $495,136, and had $3,956,998 cash on hand as of September 30.

Christopher Reed had total receipts of $34,956 during 3Q, spent $13,156, and had $22,092 cash on hand left.

All of the incumbents have large cash-on-hand advantages over their opponents going into the final stretch of the campaign.

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: $25,000 in July and another $50,000 at the end of August.

I could not find any donations from Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) to the DCCC. I hope someone from his staff will correct me if I am wrong. He certainly can afford to donate to the DCCC, running in a D+7 district in what looks like a very strong year for Iowa Democrats. On the other hand, the DCCC did nothing to help him two years ago when he was running against Jim Leach, so maybe he is less inclined to support the committee’s efforts.

I also could not find any record of donations from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) to the DCCC. Again, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But if this is correct, it’s a disgrace for Boswell. The DCCC has spent heavily on Boswell’s behalf in several previous election cycles. The least he could do would be to help them support other Democratic candidates.

Iowa’s two Democratic challengers had very strong fundraising quarters. Becky Greenwald out-raised Tom Latham during the reporting period, which is phenomenal. However, she spent more than she raised, leaving her with relatively little cash on hand. The DCCC has added her to its Red to Blue list, so she presumably will be getting some help from them as well as from EMILY’s list, which endorsed her last month. She will need that help in order to stay on tv for the remainder of the campaign.

Considering that the fifth district is not widely acknowledged to be up for grabs, Rob Hubler’s haul for the quarter is impressive. No wonder the DCCC put him on the Emerging Races list. He went up on the radio last week and presumably will be able to stay on the radio for the duration of the campaign. It’s not clear whether he will have enough money for tv ads before election day. Steve King just went up on tv today and only went up on the radio a day or two earlier. I’m surprised King waited so long. Latham has been advertising heavily on television for the past few weeks and put up his first radio ad during the summer.

Here is the basic information from the candidates’ FEC filings. Click the links to access the full reports.

IA-01

Bruce Braley: $184,854.12 raised during 3Q, $107,099.90 spent, $402,586.60 cash on hand

Dave Hartsuch: $25,163.00 raised during 3Q, $30,447.28 spent, $7,391.01 cash on hand

IA-02

Dave Loebsack: $110,442.10 raised during 3Q, $116,561.03 spent, $456,656.96 cash on hand

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has not yet filed her report; I will update with that when available. Her report for the second quarter is here. UPDATE: She reported $108,599.26 raised during 3Q, $61,944.50 spent, $83,274.27 cash on hand

IA-03

Leonard Boswell: $133,045.34 raised during 3Q, $198,211.79 spent, $325,757.93 cash on hand

Kim Schmett: $56,294.35 raised during 3Q, $61,306.22 spent, $23,537.30 cash on hand

Note: According to his 3Q filing, Ed Fallon has paid off most of his debt from the third district primary against Boswell.

IA-04

Becky Greenwald: $308,452.01 raised during 3Q, $354,422.07 spent, $24,476.99 cash on hand

Tom Latham: $290,815.32 raised during 3Q, $269,858.03 spent, $774,671.45 cash on hand

IA-05

Rob Hubler: $95,235.42 raised during 3Q, $56,168.81 spent, $64,654.06 cash on hand

Steve King: $191,689.27 raised during 3Q, $91,993.28 spent, $351,239.55 cash on hand

Congressman Bruce Braley has been trying for months to find out how much the May 12 immigration raid in Postville cost the government. Today his office released this statement:

Braley Gets Answers from ICE on Cost of Postville Raid, Receives Full Accounting of Initial Costs

Washington,  DC -In response to his formal request, Rep. Bruce Braley (D, Iowa) received a full accounting of the initial costs incurred by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the May 12, 2008 raid at the Agriprocessors Plant in Postville, Iowa.  Braley has sent repeated letters to ICE requesting a full accounting of the costs to taxpayers associated with the raid at the Agriprocessors plant in  Postville , Iowa .

“It’s important that my constituents in  Iowa and all  U.S. taxpayers know how their tax dollars are being spent,” Braley said.  “I’m glad that ICE has begun to share information with taxpayers, so they can see for themselves how their tax dollars are being used to enforce our immigration laws.  I’ll continue pushing to ensure that taxpayers know how every dollar is being spent.”

The costs associated with ICE’s initial enforcement action are below.  The official document from ICE is attached to this message.

I’m not able to get that chart properly formatted, but here’s how the costs of “Operation Cedar Valley Junction” break down.

The Office of Investigation costs (which relate to the initial enforcement action) are $2,803,265. Line items:

$1,578,004 for Temporary Duty Assignment Cost for 750 ICE Office of Investigations Personnel

$60,117 for Transportation of Equipment, etc.

$268,483 for Lease of Cattle Congress Facility and Modspace Trailers

$744,747 for Leased Services (Security Work Authorization with Federal Protective Service, electrician)

$65,389 for Supplies (electrical, office, operational, ID, custody)

$74,481 for Misc. Equipment (computer switch)

$12,044 Document Exploitation (DocEx), Under Cover

The Office of Detention and Removal Costs so far have been $2,441,642. Line items:

$495,697 for Temporary Duty Assignment Cost for 281 ICE Detention and Removal Personnel

$1,905,750 for Leased Services, KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), shower trailers, latrines, detainment at Cattle Congress, processing, physical security, detainee meals

$40,195 for Supplies (cuffs / custody, property)

The official document from Immigration and Customs Enforcement concludes:

These are the known Office of Investigations costs as of October 1, 2008.  This investigation is still ongoing and incurring additional expenses.

These are the known Office of Detention and Removal costs as of October 6, 2008.  This investigation is still ongoing and incurring additional expenses.

The Des Moines Register noted that the $5.2 million figure does not include costs incurred to the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S. attorney’s office in Cedar Rapids. The Register report included this as well:

Scott Frotman, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers, a union that has attempted to organize Agriprocessors’ workers, was critical of the Postville raid. He said it covers up the fact that the Bush administration has done nothing to fix what he called a broken immigration system.

“The Agriprocessors’ raid cost taxpayers millions of dollars, it raised serious due process issues, and it may have compromised federal investigations into labor abuses by the company’s management,” Frotman said.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, disagreed. He said immigration laws must be enforced, regardless of the expense to taxpayers.

“If we start saying, ‘Well, it costs too much money to enforce the law,’ then we will see more and more of these radical, pro-illegal immigration activists drive more wedges between us and make it harder to enforce the law,” King said.

I see no evidence that large-scale raids such as that in Postville or earlier at the Swift plant in Marshalltown do anything to reduce illegal immigration. But I’m not surprised that King is for heavy-handed actions that punish immigrants without changing much about corporate hiring practices.

Meanwhile, Lynda Waddington just wrote this piece for Iowa Independent about how the raid adversely affected life in Postville.

Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald unveiled a new tax calculator tool this morning in a conference call with reporters. According to a statement from the Obama campaign in Iowa, the calculator  

allows Iowans to test just how much savings individuals and families can expect under both Barack Obama and John McCain’s proposed tax plans.  The calculator prompts users to enter their households’ specific data, and then calculates the difference under each candidate’s proposals.  See the calculator at: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

[…]

Treasurer Fitzgerald, who has been Iowa’s state treasurer for 26 years, said, “Iowans deserve to know the facts about each candidates’ tax policies.  As the McCain campaign continues to launch false attacks on Barack Obama’s tax plan, this new tax calculator will help voters across the country see for themselves how the Obama-Biden economic plan will provide real tax relief to 95 percent of working families.  Our country faces challenging economic times, and we need steady leadership that will put money back in the pockets of middle class families, create new jobs, strengthen our small businesses and turn our economy around – that’s what we’ll get with Barack Obama as president.”

Barack Obama will give a tax cut to 95 percent of workers and their families, leading middle class families to face the lowest income tax rates in over 50 years. He will also eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000, and give struggling homeowners a mortgage tax worth 10 percent of the interest they pay on their mortgage.

On the other hand, McCain will put the corporate interests ahead of the middle class by giving $45 billion in tax breaks to the 200 largest corporations in America, including $4 billion in giveaways to oil companies that are already making record profits.  And while he’ll reward corporations that ship jobs overseas, he won’t give any tax relief at all to 101 million households.

I just used the calculator, plugging in my family’s details, and we save five times as much under the Obama tax plan as we do under the McCain tax plan.

There’s also a short web ad on the tax calculator page, which highlights the key facts about the Obama and McCain tax proposals.

It’s nice to see a Democratic candidate going on offense when it comes to tax policy.

Lots going on these next few days. I’ll have an open thread for discussing tonight’s debate up later.

Wednesday, October 15:

The final presidential debate will be on tv starting at 8 pm. The Obama campaign in Iowa has organized 10 debate-watching parties around the state:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH, 2008

Cedar Falls

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

2512 Whitetail Dr.

Cedar Falls, Iowa

Cedar Rapids

8:00 PM

Irish Democrat

3207 1st Ave SE

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Council Bluffs

8:00 PM

Barley’s  

114 W Broadway

Council Bluffs, Iowa

Des Moines

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

1408 Locust St.

Des Moines, Iowa

Dubuque

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

2600 Dodge St Ste B4

Dubuque, Iowa

Mason City Area

7:30 PM

The Home of Mike and Diane Glynn

1008 1st Ave S

Clear Lake, Iowa

Ottumwa

8:00 PM

Tom Tom Tap (in The Hotel Ottumwa)

101 E. Second

Ottumwa, Iowa

Quad Cities

6:30 PM

Home of Jim Mika & Vicki Felger

843 Stagecoach Trail

Le Claire, Iowa

Sioux City

7:00 PM

Debate Watch Party with supporters of Barack Obama and Rob Hubler

The Home of Terri O’Brien

3444 Jackson St.

Sioux City, Iowa

Waterloo

7:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

1015 East 4th Street

Waterloo, Iowa

John Kerry will be campaigning around Iowa on behalf of Obama, and Congressional candidate Becky Greenwald will also appear at the Kerry events in Marshalltown, Ames and Waukee:

9:00 AM

Senator John Kerry to officially open the 50th Obama Iowa Campaign for Change Office

1015 East 4th Street

Waterloo, Iowa

11:30 AM

Senator John Kerry to Talk to Veterans about the Obama-Biden Plan to Support our Veterans (Becky Greenwald will also speak)

Iowa Veterans Home

Malloy Leisure Resource Center

1301 Summit Street

Marshalltown, Iowa

1:15 PM

Senator John Kerry and Becky Greenwald to hold a “Vote Now for Change” Rally

Iowa State University

Memorial Union – Sun Room

2229 Lincoln Way

Ames, Iowa

3:00 PM

Senator John Kerry to Kick Off a “Vets to Vets” Phone Bank

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change Office

1408 Locust St.

Des Moines, Iowa

4:45 PM

Senator John Kerry and Becky Greenwald to Hold a Meet and Greet with Voters

Mickey’s Irish Pub and Grill

50 East Laurel Street

Waukee, Iowa

Congressional candidate Rob Hubler will be in Afton at 11:30 am, will hold a Creston Main Street Tour at 12:30 pm, and will appear at 2:00 pm in the Creston Nursing and Allied Science Auditorium of Southwestern Community College. (Please call 712 258-9069 for details.)

At 7:00 pm, Hubler will attend a pre-debate reception at the home of Terri Obrien in Sioux City (details above along with other debate parties).

Congressman Bruce Braley will hold an “economy listening roundtable” at 12:00 pm at the NICC Town Clock Center, 680 Main Street in Dubuque.

Braley will conduct a “Main Street Listening Tour” at 3:00 pm at the Fidelity Bank and Trust, 208 2nd St SE in Dyersville.

From the Fairness Fund PAC:

Do you want to elect leaders that promise change, equality, and genuine hope?  This November we have a chance to send a Fair-minded Majority back to the State House to continue to fight for justice and fairness.  Anti-gay groups and candidates are mobilizing for victory this fall – we must be ready to help our friends and allies.  I hope you can join us to show your support for one of our friends and allies!

Please join us on Wednesday, October 15th, for a meet and greet with State Representative Candidate Gretchen Lawyer at the Mars Cafe (2318 University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa), from 5:30-7:30pm.  Gretchen will be there to answer questions about her vision for Iowa and what she plans to do when elected.  Coffee will be served.  There is a suggested donation of $30.

Gretchen Lawyer is running for State Representative in Iowa District 36. Gretchen Lawyer, a stay-at home-mother of two and a former teacher, is running for office because she believes we need the values of education, community, and hard work represented in the State Legislature, and that by working together we can put those values into action.

Please RSVP to Brad Clark at 515-783-5950.

Thursday, October 16:

Rob Hubler has a busy schedule; please call 712 258-9069 for details about the following events:

9 a.m. Sheldon

10 a.m. Sanborn

11 a.m. Hartley

1 p.m. Marcus

3 p.m.Aurelia

4:30 p.m. Cherokee

7 p.m. Cherokee Dems Office Open House

Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico: Implications and Strategies for Iowa

This day-long conference begins at 8 a.m. at the Gateway Center in Ames, and will look at new and emerging research findings and pressing needs related to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Among the speakers will be Darrell Brown, chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Coastal Management Branch who coordinates the EPA’s efforts to reduce the size of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Officials from various state agencies, NGOs and Iowa State researchers will present and participate in panel discussions. Registration begins September 8. Contacts: Cathy Kling, conference coordinator/research, ckling@iastate.edu, (515) 294-5767; or Sandy Clarke, communications/meeting planning, sclarke@iastate.edu, (515) 294-6257. See conference web site: http://www.card.iastate.edu/hy…  This conference is a project of the Leopold Center Policy Initiative with support from the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University.

Friday, October 17:

Iowa Environmental Council Annual Conference and Meeting–Waters that Unite Us is this year’s annual conference theme. Please mark your calendars and plan to join us for a day of learning and networking. The conference will be held at the Botanical Center in Des Moines, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with a members meeting following shortly after close of the conference. At the conference we will explore where and how humans are having positive and negative impacts on Iowa waters and some of the ways individuals and communities can participate in solutions. Registration will begin in August. Speakers include Cornelia F. Mutel author of “The Emerald Horizon – The History of Nature in Iowa,” and Cornelia Butler Flora, Director of North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Visit www.iaenvironment.org for more information in late July.

WILD, WILD Aquatic, & Learning Tree Facilitator Training, October 17-18, Guthrie Center. The Iowa DNR is offering a Projects WILD, WILD Aquatic, and Learning Tree facilitator training workshop on Friday, October 17th and Saturday, October 18th at the Springbrook Conservation Education Center near Guthrie Center. Anyone who trains teachers, naturalists, youth leaders, or others involved in teaching about the environment in Iowa is invited to attend. Training is FREE (a $50 refundable deposit is required to reserve your space). Stipends for attending and mileage reimbursement are available. Lodging and meals will be provided.  For more information, contact the Aquatic Education Program: 641/747-2200; AquaticEd_Info@dnr.iowa.gov

While liveblogging John McCain’s rally in Davenport on Saturday, John Deeth reported on the unusual invocation offered by Pastor Arnold Conrad. I admit that I didn’t pay much attention at the time, because I have read so many reports about right-wing preachers telling people that God wants them to vote for McCain, or even that true Christians are required to vote for McCain.

But Conrad wasn’t saying that. He was saying something much stranger. Here’s the video and partial transcript, courtesy of TPM TV:

I also would also add, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god–whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah–that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and election day.

I have no idea how the crowd received this invocation. It was all over the national media, prompting McCain’s campaign to distance itself with this statement:

“While we understand the important role that faith plays in informing the votes of Iowans, questions about the religious background of the candidates only serve to distract from the real questions in this race about Barack Obama’s judgment, policies and readiness to lead as commander in chief.”

Why am I piling on when Keith Olbermann has named Pastor Conrad the “worst person in the world” for a day?

To me the issue is not whether Conrad is misusing his authority as a clergyman, because as I said, I am used to reading about that kind of behavior on the religious right. (My own rabbi won’t even reveal how he votes, let alone try to influence the congregation.)

Rather, I am trying to get my mind around the mentality that produced Conrad’s invocation.

Ben Craw of TPM TV called this “Mothra vs. Godzilla: Monotheistic Deity Throwdown,” which conveys some of the prayer’s absurdity.

But setting jokes aside for the moment, how presumptuous and even blasphemous is it for Conrad to assume the following?

1. He knows that God would prefer John McCain to become president.

2. He knows that God’s reputation is riding on the outcome of this election.

3. He fears that the all-powerful God might hesitate to use his power to make sure McCain wins the election.

4. He suspects that the omniscient God may not be aware that his reputation is riding on the outcome of this election.

5. He thinks God needs to be reminded that “all that happens between now and election day” will affect whether God’s name is sufficiently honored on earth.

Aren’t evangelical Christians supposed to believe that God is sovereign and we are not to second-guess His actions?

I remember reading an article years ago about the religious right’s impact on the 2004 election. I can’t find the link now, but a woman quoted in the piece said something like, “I am so glad that God sent us a strong leader in George Bush, because I was worried He would punish us with John Kerry.” I laughed at her apparent insight into God’s mind. She believed that God controlled the election, but in her mind, only a Bush victory would indicate that God preferred Bush. A Kerry victory would indicate that God had decided to punish America.

Pastor Conrad has taken this presumption to a new level. If Obama wins the election, it won’t be because God has consciously decided to let the “wrong” candidate win, it will be because God wasn’t sufficiently clued in about what’s at stake or didn’t care enough about His name being hallowed on earth.

Conrad is apparently in a better position to know what’s best for us and what’s best for God than God Himself.

Like I said, bizarre.

Share your thoughts and interpretations in the comments.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee likes what it’s seeing from our candidates in Iowa. Today the DCCC moved Becky Greenwald from the Emerging Races list to “Red to Blue,” and also moved Rob Hubler from the “Races to Watch” list to “Emerging Races.”

I’ll have more on this later today, but here are some of the reasons I think Greenwald can beat Tom Latham in IA-04.

Here is my case for why Hubler can beat Steve King in IA-05. For more on why Hubler can win, see this piece by DemocracyLover in NYC and this piece by 2laneIA.

But don’t just sit there reading. Volunteer for and/or donate to Hubler’s campaign or Greenwald’s campaign.

We can sweep the Republicans in Iowa this year just like they swept us in the 1994 House races.

UPDATE: Here’s the release from the Greenwald campaign:

Waukee, IA — The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today added Becky Greenwald to its “Red to Blue” program. Becky earned a spot in the competitive program by establishing significant local support and skillfully showing Iowa’s voters that she stands for change and will represent new priorities.

The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country, and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support.  The program introduces Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for their campaigns.

“We are thrilled to have the complete backing and support of the national Democratic Party,” said Becky Greenwald. “Today, I challenged Tom Latham to debate me on television after the 14-year incumbent attacked me for the first time in this race. His campaign must be sensing the strong support for my campaign. This election is too important not to debate the issues facing our working families in front of a television audience.”

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said, “Becky Greenwald is running a solid campaign and is committed to making things easier for middle class families in their districts. With less than 21 days to make her case for change to voters, the Red to Blue program will give Becky the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November.”

Red to Blue was a proven success in the 2006 cycle. In 2006, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 campaigns averaging $404,000 per campaign.  Red to Blue was also responsible for solidifying the structure of dozens of campaigns and making a real difference for Democrats across America.

It’s great that the DCCC will devote more resources to IA-04. Latham may already have sensed the race is tightening. On Monday he went negative, issuing this statement blasting Greenwald’s support for the recent bailout package.

Greenwald responded by challenging Latham to a televised debate. The two candidates have debated twice on the radio. Latham declined one invitation to debate on television and is dragging his feet on rescheduling a joint appearance on Iowa Public Television, which was postponed while Congress was considering the bailout.  

After the jump I’ve posted the statement that followed a press conference today featuring Greenwald and First Lady Mari Culver. Key quote:

“The writing is on the wall in this race,” said First Lady Mari Culver. “I have been following politics for a long time, and if an incumbent is comfortable with their lead, they do not attack their challenger. From his attacks, it seems Congressman Latham is seeing the growing support for Becky’s campaign.”

I missed this Daily Kos diary by Bryan Lefwitz a few days ago. It featured this You Tube containing the audio from a robocall paid for by the McCain/Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee:

Apparently the robocall was hitting answering machines in eastern Iowa on Saturday, the same day John McCain held a rally in Davenport.

Lefwitz’s diary also shows a four-page direct-mail piece about the Iowa floods, which was paid for by the RNC and authorized by McCain/Palin. Click over to see this disgraceful attempt to politicize Congress’s response to the flooding. One page shows a small house submerged in several feet of floodwater, alongside these words:

IOWANS NEEDED OUR HELP

But Barack Obama and His Democrat

Congress Went On Vacation

A pathetic and desperate move from a candidate who trails Obama by more than 11 points in Iowa, according to the pollster.com polling average.

Anyway, as Daily Kos user JR reminds us, it was McCain who enjoyed birthday cake with George W. Bush while levees were breaching in New Orleans three years ago.

Are any other candidates (from either party) using images of the flooding or flood-related rhetoric in their campaigns? Post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of any examples.

Also, feel free to share your thoughts on a question Josh Marshall posed recently: after this election, will McCain ever apologize for the way he campaigned?  

Noneed4thneed wrote this post for Century of the Common Iowan, and I am cross-posting on his behalf. -desmoinesdem

Iowa Democrats have a great chance to expand their majority in the Iowa House. Democrats currently hold a 53-47 advantage. With just over 2 weeks left until the election, it is critical to support strong progressive candidates in these close races.

This week I will be featuring some great candidates throughout the state that are in tight races and asking for donations through the Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority Act Blue page. Please consider donating however much you can afford to help out these great candidates.

The first featured candidate is John Beard in House District 16, which includes Allamakee and part of Winneshiek County in northeast corner of Iowa. Beard is running in an open seat to replace the retiring Chuck Gipp.

I am supporting John because he has advocated for one of my top issues throughout his campaign. Beard supports clean elections and the VOICE bill, saying that it is a key to restoring accountability in our government.

We must adopt public financing of campaigns, or voter-owned clean elections. In the seven states which have them, they have been proven to restore accountability, to bring a focus on the common good, and to renew participation in the democratic process. Greater participation not only strengthens our democracy but improves almost every process we undertake.

John Beard is running to give common Iowans their VOICE back in Des Moines. Please support John by donating today.

A couple weeks ago the Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority Act Blue page surpassed the $1,000 mark. We have a goal of 20 donors by the end of the month.

Please consider donating to John and these great candidates today and help expand the Democratic majority in the Iowa House.

The longer we delay fixing the health care system – reigning in costs, covering everyone, and fairly sharing risk – the harder it will be to reform the system at all. And it's not just because America is currently facing, in the words of just about everyone, “the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.” As David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall point out today in McClatchy Newspapers, the simple demographics will be against us if we wait:

Beginning in 2011, the first wave of baby boomers – Americans born between 1946 and 1964 – will reach official retirement age. From that point forward, the federal government's finances will be strained, as more and more Americans retire expecting a shrinking number of active workers to pay their promised health and pension benefits.

To put it more starkly: Medicare's trustees project the hospital insurance fund will become insolvent in about 10 years, as its expenditures grow at a 7.4 percent annual rate. The government, the trustees said, will need $342 billion to cover insurance costs during that period.

…

“The longer action on reforming health care and Social Security is delayed, the more painful and difficult the choices will become,” said a Government Accountability Office study in June. “The federal government faces increasing pressures, yet a shrinking window of opportunity for phasing in adjustments.”

Medicare, the report said, “represents a much larger, faster-growing and more immediate problem than Social Security.”

A series of factors are driving up Medicare costs. According to the GAO and the trustees, medical technology is often overused; the health care market doesn't operate on a supply-and-demand basis as people often don't shop for the lowest price; and chronic health problems – such as obesity or substance abuse – require expensive, lengthy treatment.

Medicare (and similarly, Medicaid) face such staggering budget shortfalls to a large extent as a consequence of America's private, patchwork health care system. Preventative care is less costly in the long run, yet, because the health insurance industry has been so deregulated as to allow them to deny care at every opportunity and price care out of the reach of millions, America has 47 million uninsured and millions more under-insured. This means millions of Americans don't see their doctor as regularly as they should to catch medical problems early before they become costly emergencies. And, as the economy sinks, people are cutting back on care, making the problem worse.

Medicare (and to some extent, Medicaid) functions essentially as a high risk pool, a group of people (in this case, the elderly) who are less profitable to insurance companies because they use so much health care. High risk pools, basically by definition, don't work. If the theory of insurance is to spread out risk (everyone in a system all pay into a pot so when one person needs to use their coverage, that cost can be absorbed by everyone), then high risk pools make no sense. Putting everyone who you know are going to use a lot of health insurance into the same pot and asking them to share costs is silly – there are no “low risk” people in the system to absorb some of the cost. And because everyone at some time in their life is “high risk” for large health insurance costs (everyone eventually gets sick or old), Medicare functions as a dumping ground for the private insurance industry. Private insurance takes monthly premiums from the young and healthy all their life, and when they get old and sick (and unprofitable), they are dumped on the government.

This is why Medicare is projected to be the largest driver of the national debt in the near future, and, because baby boomers are about to enter the system in huge numbers, this is why health reform needs to happen in this country immediately.

Simply getting everybody covered adequately would be a huge step forward. A guarantee of a certain level of care, no matter if you're on private or public insurance plans, would make sure people receive the care they need throughout their life, lowering overall costs. A subsidized public insurance plan that would take everybody would go a long way towards eliminating the number of people in America without insurance. And regulating all insurance plans – public and private – to make sure they cover pre-existing conditions and can't dump “unprofitable” customers would ensure risk is shared fairly, as it is meant to be.

This, of course, is Health Care for America Now's vision, shared by 83 Members of Congress, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Contrast that with the conservative vision, championed by John McCain:

• Less regulation on insurance companies to do away with state based insurance, allowing companies to set up shop in the states with the least regulation and forcing Americans to shop on their own for health insurance.
• Taxing your employee health benefits, doing away with the employer-based system
• Funding a paltry tax credit (which goes straight to the insurance industry) with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid

No guarantee of care, no incentive to promote prevention, no fair risk sharing, and a plan that is estimated to grow the ranks of the uninsured in America by 5 million in just five years.

There is a clear difference here, and that's why it's so important to make health care a priority in this election and immediately after the next president is inaugurated. It seems the nation is waking up to that difference, too. In the past few weeks, health care has been a focus of some excellent debate questions, it has been targeted in campaign advertisements, and the subject of numerous news stories. And of course, Health Care for America Now has thrown our hat into the ring, spending $4.3 million to put advertisements about John McCain's health care plan (as well as 7 congressional candidates) on the air across the country:

America is finally having the health care debate it needs to be having. What's at stake is our economy, our national debt, our health, and our happiness. Let's just hope the urgency is still there in January.

(also posted at MyDD and the NOW! blog)

I'm proud to work for Health Care for America Now.

I am getting tired of hearing that the U.S. needs to expand our so-called “clean coal” and nuclear power electricity generation in order to meet our baseload needs in the future. Not only does this false choice understate the potential to reduce our electricity consumption through conservation and efficiency measures, it also underestimates how much electricity we could generate through wind and solar power.

Look at what happened in the past year, even as George Bush’s administration did little to promote wind and solar energy:

According to the latest “Monthly Electricity Review” issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (October 3, 2008), net U.S. generation of electricity from renewable energy sources surged by 32 percent in June 2008 compared to June 2007.

Renewable energy (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) totaled 41,160,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) in June 2008 up from 31,242,000 MWh in June 2007. Renewables accounted for 11.0 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in June 2008 compared to 8.6 percent in June 2007. Compared to June 2007, wind power grew by 81.6 percent in June 2008 while solar and conventional hydropower experienced increases of 42.6 percent and 34.7 percentrespectively. Geothermal energy also enjoyed a slight increase (0.8percent) while biomass (wood + waste) remained relatively unchanged.

Years ago, some people thought it was a pipe dream to ask Congress to require that 10 percent of U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Yet even in the absence of a congressional mandate, we exceeded that number two years ahead of schedule.

Just think of what could be done if we had a president and Congress committed to expanding wind and solar power in this country.

To learn more about and support the growth of renewable electricity generation in Iowa, get involved in the Iowa Renewable Energy Association.

In June I discussed some of the reasons Iowa is one of only two states never to send a woman to Congress or elect a woman governor.

Thomas Beaumont just explored the same subject in this feature for the Des Moines Register. Iowa women have run for Congress 17 times in the last five decades and come up short every time.

I encourage you to click through and read the whole piece, but here are some excerpts:

Iowa State University political science professor Dianne Bystrom said one reason Iowa women have had a hard time is that challengers win roughly 5 percent of the time nationally, male or female.

“The best way to elect a woman to Congress in the state of Iowa is to run a woman in an open-seat race,” said Bystrom, director of ISU’s Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics. “Better yet, run two women against each other.”

Women have waged competitive challenges that often turned out to be ill-timed.

In 2002, Cedar Rapids Democrat Julie Thomas challenged Jim Leach in the 2nd District, after redistricting prompted the longtime Davenport Republican to move to Iowa City. Also that year, Bettendorf Democrat Ann Hutchinson challenged Republican Jim Nussle in the 1st District, which was altered after reapportionment to include the Quad Cities.

Both women were heavily recruited and received the backing of the DCCC and EMILY’s List. But Thomas lost by 8 percentage points, while Hutchinson lost by 14 points in a year all five Iowa incumbents were returned to office.[…]

One [cultural factor] is states that tend to elect women are more urban than rural. Despite the growth in Des Moines’ suburbs, Iowa remains vastly rural.

Likewise, states with younger and growing populations tend to elect women. Iowa is among the nation’s oldest states and grew by the sixth-slowest rate in the nation from 2000 to 2005.

States prone to electing women also tend to be more politically liberal and less religiously fundamentalist. Iowa is a politically balanced state, although voter registration and voting trends have favored Democrats in the past four years.

I agree that Iowa’s urban/rural demographics are relevant here. In fact, I believe Iowa has a larger proportion of small-town and rural residents than any other state (at least that was the case a decade ago when I heard a political science conference paper on rural voters).

In this diary I also mentioned a few points that did not come up in Beaumont’s article.

I think it’s very relevant that Iowa keeps losing Congressional districts following the census. That reduces the number of races without incumbents, and therefore the opportunities for a woman challenger to break through.

Also, many states have sent exactly one woman to Congress, either a widow of a long-serving man or a daughter or granddaughter in a political dynasty family. We haven’t had either of those types of woman seek political office here in Iowa.  

But no matter where you live, women who are not incumbents seem to have a harder time getting elected to Congress.

I can’t find the link now, but after the 2006 elections I read an analysis of Democratic challengers and gender. The author identified 20 “serious challengers” to Republican incumbents in the U.S. House of Representatives. A serious challenger was defined as someone whose campaign had raised at least $1 million by June 30, 2006.

Of those challengers, 13 were men and 7 were women.

In November 2006, 12 of those 13 men were elected to Congress, but 6 of the 7 women lost.

If you want to see Iowa break this barrier sooner rather than later, kick in a few bucks for Becky Greenwald. Mariannette Miller-Meeks is a good person but has virtually no chance of defeating Dave Loebsack in the strongly Democratic second district–not in what looks like a Democratic wave election in Iowa.

who just won the Nobel Prize for economics:

“What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions,” the [Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences] said in its citation.

“He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography,” it said.

Although Krugman wasn’t honored for his op-ed pieces in the New York Times, I will always be grateful that he remained unafraid to criticize George Bush and his policies, even at the height of Bush’s popularity in late 2001 and 2002.

In case you weren’t aware, Krugman has a good blog too.

Asinus Asinum Fricat is one of very few bloggers who teach you something in just about every piece they write. A trained chef, he writes lots of “food” diaries about various cuisines of the world and occasionally the food past generations ate.

Asinus Asinum Fricat also writes lots of pieces on environmental or health issues, such as this post on the massive “plastic soup” in the Pacific Ocean. Frankly, sometimes I dread clicking on his diaries, because I know he’s going to scare the hell out of me.

That said, I strongly recommend that everyone (especially parents) read a four-part series he recently completed about food products tainted with melamine. You may have heard of melamine last year in news reports about massive pet food recalls.

Unfortunately, melamine has shown up in the human food supply, and so far the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not been as aggressive in dealing with the danger as governmental agencies in some other countries.

Here are the four pieces by Asinus Asinum Fricat:

A Total Ban on Chinese Food Imports Should Be in Place. Now!

Must Read: Tainted Chinese Products Criminal Timeline

From China, with Love: Melamine (This one contains a long list of products that have been banned in other countries; many of them are brands you will recognize.)

Dem. Congresswoman Raps FDA On Melamine Risk Guidelines

The community blog on food issues, La Vida Locavore, is a good one to bookmark and check regularly for articles about food safety.

Over at the Washington Monthly’s Political Animal blog, Hilzoy had a great comment on news that John McCain may soon propose “economic measures aimed directly at the middle class” such as “tax cuts — perhaps temporary — for capital gains and dividends”:

Because what everyone is really worried about right now is how they’ll manage to pay the taxes on their massive capital gains.

The biggest surprise for me this year is how poor a campaign McCain has run since locking up the Republican nomination.

This is an open thread on the dumbest policy idea or campaign tactic McCain has come up with in recent months.

Although McCain had no great options for VP, in my opinion, I still think picking Sarah Palin was one of his biggest mistakes.

UPDATE: The New York Times reports,

Despite signals that Senator John McCain would have new prescriptions for the economic crisis after a weekend of meetings, his campaign said Sunday that Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, would not have any more proposals this week unless developments call for some.

There’s a winning message!

Everyone who doesn’t think that current developments call for some economic policy proposals, please raise your hands.

I used to be a psychologist, and one of the things that I would often tell my clients is that the relationship between feelings and actions isn't one way. People who are depressed tend to isolate themselves even to the point of staying in bed all day. However, if they force themselves to get out of the house, even though they don't “feel like it,” they often start to feel a little less depressed. Sometimes the feelings come first, “I felt depressed, so I stayed in bed.” Other times the feelings come second, “I went for a walk, and I now I better.”

I started to work for the Obama campaign even though I didn't like him much. I did this for several reasons. First, because Hillary asked me to. One thing she said in her concession speech was, “Are you doing this just for me?” This isn't about one candidate, it is about improving our country. I want to get as many democrats in office as possible.  Second, I wanted to work with the Obama campaign to try coordinate our efforts to get Becky Greenwald elected. I traded my services for Obama for their services for Becky.  Finally, I didn't want to be a cry baby like I have seen a few William Meyers supporters, and some Hillary supporters be. I find it absolutely silly, that anyone would support a candidate like McCain or Latham just because the democrat that they wanted didn't win. 

None of these reasons had anything to do with me “liking” Barack. I didn't. But you know what? When I started campaigning for him, I started having to come up with some reason besides “he's a democrat” to support him. And I started to find some reasons. One of the big ones that I tell people is that amazing speaking ability that I once disdained as “just words” could be really useful in a diplomatic situation. And think how much cheaper that is than another war. Also, that “elitist thing” that people say about him–maybe he comes across that way because he is so intelligent. And right now what our country needs is an intelligent president. I don't want someone “just like me” in office. I want someone a whole lot smarter than me in office.

After awhile, just like I used to tell my clients, my feelings followed my actions. And now–I have to admit–I like Barack. I like him a lot. He might not have been my first choice, but he is my choice now. I'm not “holding my nose” and voting for him. I'm voting for him because I like him. That isn't to say I regret the choice I made in the primary. I don't. I like and admire Hillary Clinton now more than ever. However, just like she said in her concession speech:

“So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying – or think to yourself – 'if only' or 'what if,' I say, 'please don't go there.' Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.”

On Thursday at Open Left, Chris Bowers had this advice for the opposition in his very upbeat presidential forecast:

When it comes to offering concern troll advice to McCain and Republicans, I would recommend shutting down all paid media, and firing all campaign staff. McCain should take his remaining money, and distribute it to the RNC, NRCC and NRSC. Target a few close House and Senate seats to try and limit the damage, but otherwise save money for 2010 and 2012. When you are beaten, it is probably better to  withdraw, save what troops and resources you can, but live to fight another day.

Crooked Timber reported yesterday on the latest from the rumor mill:

So I hear (via a prominent member of the sane Republican faction) that the word on the right side of the street is that the Republican National Committee is about to pull the plug on its joint ads with the McCain campaign, and devote its resources instead to trying to save a couple of the senators who are at serious risk of losing their seats.

On one level, this strategy makes the most sense for the RNC. McCain is looking more and more unlikely to win 270 electoral votes, so helping him is probably not the best use of resources. I am told that the Republicans did this in September/October 1996 once it became clear that Bob Dole would lose to Bill Clinton.

Furthermore, Senate Republicans may well be leaning on the RNC to do more for their incumbents. There is real concern now that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could lose in Kentucky. That would be a terrible blow to the GOP caucus in the Senate (click the link to read why), and McConnell is more popular with his colleagues than McCain.

Sarah Palin’s recent travel schedule also suggests a focus on Congressional races. Last week she was in California (not a battleground state in the presidential race, but a place with several contested House seats) and in Omaha (where Nebraska’s second district is up for grabs). This weekend she is headed to West Virginia, where Shelley Moore Capito could lose in the second Congressional district. Capito is not only the sole Republican in the West Virginia delegation to Congress, she is the most likely Republican to win Robert Byrd’s Senate seat after he leaves the scene.

On the other hand, it would be devastating to Republican morale for the media to start reporting that the RNC had given up on McCain. I suspect that would depress GOP turnout in a lot of states, perhaps putting more House seats in play even as the RNC blankets the airwaves in behalf of a few vulnerable senators.

Here in Iowa, Republican incumbent Tom Latham is running lots of tv and radio ads in the fourth district (D+0), while 10 worst list honoree Steve King is not up on tv or radio and is barely campaigning in the fifth district (R+8). We could pick up both of these seats if expectations of an Obama landslide depress Republican turnout.

However the RNC resolves the competing demands for its resources, Sam Wang, a neurologist and political analyst who writes for the Princeton Election Consortium, thinks activists in both parties should forget about the presidential race. He argues that a “hard look at reality” suggests that Obama is going to win big, and further donations to his campaign will not affect the outcome. According to Wang, it makes more sense for activists to focus their energy and donations on the close Senate races right now.

I mostly agree, except that I think activists in battleground states (which Iowa is not) have to follow through to make sure Obama’s supporters turn out for him.

In all the states, we need to keep directing money and volunteer time to the state legislative races, which are important for many reasons.

What do you think?

UPDATE: A commenter at the Princeton Election Consortium site makes a good point:

I agree that supporting close Senate races should be primary, but continuing to contribute to the Presidential campaign isn’t useless. The margin of electoral-college victory, and even more of the popular vote, is important in defining the national sense of mandate for the victor. Politicians take notice too-as when Democrats voted for Reagan’s tax cuts (unfortunately) because of his victory margin. With a major economic rescue and reform needed, a sense of mandate is essential.