I am not a pollster or a statistician, but I have been thinking about some factors that may cause problems with the polling of this year’s presidential election. I welcome input from anyone with expertise in this area.

1. Cell-phone only voters.

I gather from this piece in the New York Times caucus blog that several prominent pollsters now routinely include cellphone samples in their surveys in light of the growing number of Americans who use only or mostly cell-phones.

I also know that a Pew Research Center survey taken in July suggested that Americans who use cell-phones are not that different politically from the population at large. To be more precise, people who use cell-phones most of the time are very much like the electorate at large, while people who exclusively use cell-phones are a bit different, but are also less likely to vote:

The cell-only and cell-mostly respondents in the Pew poll are different demographically from others. Compared with all respondents reached on a landline, both groups are significantly younger, more likely to be male, and less likely to be white. But the cell-only and cell-mostly also are different from one another on many characteristics. Compared with the cell-only, the cell-mostly group is more affluent, better educated, and more likely to be married, to have children, and to own a home.

We know from many years of polling that married people, people with children and home-owners are all groups more likely to vote Republican than the population at large. The Pew study also found that

In the current poll, cell-only respondents are significantly more likely than either the landline respondents or the cell-mostly respondents to support Barack Obama and Democratic candidates for Congress this fall. They also are substantially less likely to be registered to vote and – among registered voters – somewhat less likely to say they are absolutely certain they will vote. Despite their demographic differences with the landline respondents, the cell-mostly group is not significantly different from the landline respondents politically.

Yet as Pew has found in the past, when data from landline and cell phone samples are combined and weighted to match the U.S. population on key demographic measures, the results are similar to those from the landline survey alone.

I get that the phenomenon of cell-phone-only users is probably not introducing large errors in poll findings.

My question is, does the proportion of cell-phone only Americans differ substantially from state to state, or is it a fairly uniform phenomenon across the country? To put it another way, are certain regions of the country, or states with a higher percentage of urban residents, more likely to have larger than average numbers of people who use cell-phones exclusively?

If any swing states have a particularly large number of cell-phone only residents, that would be interesting to know. It could affect the accuracy of polling in that state (depending on the methodology of the polling firm and whether it includes cell-phone samples).

2. Weekend samples for tracking polls.

I was unable to find the archive of Rasmussen’s 2004 presidential tracking poll results, but my memory is that there was a clear pattern whereby Kerry did a little better in the samples taken on weekdays, and Bush gained ground in the samples taken on weekends.

That created the appearance of small movement toward and away from each candidate, with the pattern repeating almost every week in the late summer and fall. I remember reading some speculation that Bush was consistently doing better on the weekends because Democratic-leaning demographic groups are more likely not to be at home on Fridays and Saturdays.

I would like to know whether that is true, and if so whether the major tracking polls (Gallup and Rasmussen) are doing anything to account for this problem.

When we see shifts in tracking polls, we assume voters are reacting to the news of the last few days, but perhaps this is just an illusion created by changes in the pool of people who answer the phone on certain days of the week.

3. Weighting for party ID, race or other factors.

What is considered the best practice in terms of weighting poll results if the sample differs from the demographics of those who voted in the 2004 presidential election?

A Survey USA Virginia poll recently found McCain leading Obama by 48 percent to 47 percent. Commenting on the finding, fladem pointed out that the poll

had 19% of the electorate made up of African Americans.  In 2004 it was 21%.  I have got to believe that African American participation will be higher than 2004.  

I share fladem’s belief, not only because Obama is black, but also because Obama has at least 35 field offices in Virginia, a state Kerry wrote off.

(UPDATE: fladem tells me that there is some evidence that 2004 exit polls overstated the share of the black vote in Virginia.)

We know that registering new voters in groups likely to favor Obama is a crucial part of his campaign strategy. Speaking to David Broder, campaign manager David Plouffe

said that “turnout is the big variable,” and the campaign is devoting an unusually large budget to register scads of new voters and bring them to the polls. “That’s how we win the Floridas and Ohios,” he said, mentioning two states that went narrowly for George W. Bush. “And that’s how we get competitive in the Indianas and Virginias,” two of six or seven states that long have been Republican — but are targets this year.

“That’s why I pay more attention to the registration figures than to the polls I see at this time of year,” Plouffe said. “The polls will change, but we know we need 200,000 new voters to be competitive in Georgia, and now is when we have to get them.”

Should pollsters adjust state poll findings to reflect the Obama campaign’s massive ground game and voter registration drives? How would they do that?

If a polling firm routinely weights for race, should the pollsters assume that the racial breakdown of the electorate will be roughly the same in a given state as it was in 2004? If not, what should they assume?

I have a similar question with respect to party ID. We’ve seen in state after state that the Democratic Party has gained significant ground on the Republican Party in terms of voter registration. In Iowa, there were about 8,000 more Republicans than Democrats in the summer of 2004, but as of June 2008, there were more than 90,000 more Democrats than Republicans. That’s a huge shift in a state where about 1.5 people voted in November 2004.

Are pollsters weighting for party ID, and if so, are they accounting for the big gains in Democratic voter registration since the 2004 or 2006 elections?

4. The disparity in the two campaigns’ ground games.

I know that different pollsters use different screens to separate likely voters from the rest of the sample. One indicator sometimes used is whether the respondent voted in the last presidential election.

But the Obama campaign turned out incredible numbers of first-time voters during the Democratic caucuses and primaries. I laughed at the Des Moines Register’s final pre-caucus poll projecting that 60 percent of caucus-goers would be first-timers, but that turned out to be almost exactly right.

For the general election, the Obama camapign is building a field operation on a scale never seen before.

To further complicate matters, the Obama field operation is enormous in many states where Democrats have not competed in recent presidential races. I mentioned the 35 field offices in Virginia already. Soon there will be 22 field offices open in North Carolina. There are at least 26 Obama offices up and running in Indiana. Even North Dakota has four Obama field offices. Al Gore and John Kerry bypassed all of those states.

Obama’s ground game is going to be much bigger than Kerry’s ground game was even in the swing states Kerry targeted. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that the increased turnout of groups that skew toward Obama (e.g. blacks, voters under 30) will affect the demographic composition of the electorate more in states where Democrats had nothing going in 2004.

Should pollsters do anything to account for this factor? Could they take this into account even if they wanted to?

I know that some of my questions are unanswerable, but I appreciate any insight readers can provide.

(SECOND UPDATE: Thanks to the reader who wrote me to point out that the factors I mention, while not necessarily reflected in polling, may be reflected in online prediction markets that currently show Obama with a 20 percent greater chance of winning the election than McCain.)

The Democratic National Convention is above all about building support for the Obama-Biden ticket. However, I would like to see some progress toward making a case against John McCain this week as well.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing on the liberal blogs about Obama’s diminishing lead over McCain this summer. Nate Silver/poblano no longer sees Obama as a clear favorite to win the electoral college, while Chris Bowers still sees Obama as a slight favorite, but in a much weaker position than last month. The McCain campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars on negative advertising this summer, and it does seem to have brought Obama’s numbers down.

Who on the Democratic side is to blame? Some people think Obama’s a brilliant candidate suffering from an incompetent press shop. Slinkerwink is sick and tired of “mealy-mouthed” statements in passive voice from the Obama campaign. But it seems clear to me that Obama sets the tone for his own press shop. If he wanted them to go for the jugular, they would be doing it.

For most of this summer, the Obama campaign has been running a lot of positive television ads nationwide, while running targeted, state-specific negative ads against McCain.

For instance, here is an ad tying McCain to Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff. It seems like inside baseball until you learn that it’s running only in Atlanta. Two years ago, Reed lost the Republican primary for lieutenant governor in Georgia because of his ties to Abramoff:

This ad started running in Ohio in mid-August, linking McCain to a merger that may cost thousands of jobs:

Obama has also run a tv ad in Nevada about McCain’s support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

There’s nothing wrong with these ads or making a state-specific case against McCain. However, the Obama campaign has failed to create any broad narrative against McCain comparable to McCain’s narrative against Obama (shallow celebrity candidate who’s not ready to lead).

Things may be changing. Last Thursday the Obama team moved quickly to capitalize on McCain’s inability to state how many houses he owns. Within hours, they had this ad up on national cable television. On Friday, they hit McCain again on the same theme with a second ad portraying him as a “country-club” Republican who can’t even remember how many houses he owns:

These ads are a good start, but we won’t be able to milk the house gaffe forever. We need to use other issues and statements to build on key narratives against McCain: he’s out of touch, he offers the same failed policies as George Bush, he’s a hothead we can’t trust with his finger on the button, he’ll say anything to get elected.

If we are lucky, McCain’s future comments or vice-presidential selection will reinforce one or more of these narratives against him. Two years ago, Virginia Senator George Allen fueled further coverage of himself as racially insensitive when, two weeks after calling a dark-skinned activist “macaca,” he lied about whether he had ever used a racial epithet to refer to black people.

However, the Obama campaign can’t count on McCain doing their work for them. The Democratic nominee doesn’t have to deliver this message himself, but I want surrogates from Joe Biden on down to stay on point.

Another strategy is to use ordinary people to portray McCain as out of touch. This ad that ran in Indiana earlier this month is a good start. It contrast McCain’s statements about the economy being strong with comments from average folks in Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky about tough economic times.

As I watch the proceedings in Denver from afar, one thing I’ll be looking for is a sign that the Obama campaign is building an effective case against McCain.

UPDATE: Just saw over at MyDD that the Obama campaign is launching this new national ad today. It makes fun of McCain for not knowing much about the economy and “singing the same tune” as Bush:

Not sure whether the humor works in this ad–what do you think?

I wouldn’t say my four-year-old son was following the presidential race closely last year, but he was paying enough attention to understand that his parents were voting for John Edwards. Having been in the car a few times when I delivered yard signs, he also understood that an Edwards sign in front of someone’s house meant that person was also voting for Edwards.

In March of this year, my son (by then five years old) asked me whether we were still voting for John Edwards. I explained that not enough people had voted for Edwards, so he couldn’t be the president. We would vote for someone else, probably Barack Obama. He found that a little confusing, but over time it clicked with him that we were supporting Obama for president.

This evening we had a baby-sitter over for a couple of hours. While she was here, I was getting the kids a snack, and my older son asked her who she was voting for. She said, “McCain.”

He followed up with, “But who are you voting for for president?” She said, “McCain.”

Pause. He turns to me: “Mommy, are we voting for Obama?”

“Yes, we’re voting for Obama, but [baby-sitter] is voting for McCain.”

“Oh.” And he went back to eating pretzels.

Governor Chet Culver took the unusual step of publishing a guest editorial in the Sunday Des Moines Register about alleged wrongdoing at the Agriprocessors meat-packing plant in Postville:

The sad events surrounding the [May 12] federal Postville raid, resulting in multiple federal criminal-law convictions of line workers and low-level supervisors – and, notably, not yet of the company’s owners – are strong evidence of a company that has chosen to take advantage of a failed federal immigration system.

[…]

Before the federal raid, Agriprocessors already had a history of sanctions by Iowa’s state regulatory agencies for water pollution, as well as health and safety law violations. Alarming information about working conditions at the Postville plant – including allegations ranging from the use of child labor in prohibited jobs to sexual and physical abuse by supervisors; from the nonpayment of regular and overtime wages to the denial of immediate medical attention for workplace injuries – brought to national attention by the raid forces me to believe that, in contrast to our state’s overall economic-development strategy, this company’s owners have deliberately chosen to take the low road in its business practices.

He said he had directed members of his cabinet to make sure Iowa law is being enforced with Agriprocessors. Furthermore, open positions at Agriprocessors may not be included on state job-listing services “due to the unsafe working conditions at the Postville facility.” In addition, he called on Attorney General Tom Miller “promptly to prosecute all alleged criminal and civil-law violations that are backed by sufficient evidence.”

On Friday the Iowa Division of Labor Services released a statement citing 31 new and repeated safety violations at Agriprocessors’ plant in Postville.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers keep kosher, you may be interested in this piece by Lynda Waddington for Iowa Independent. She describes a “kosher social seal” program, which signifies that food not only meets Jewish ritual requirements but has also been produced in a humane and socially responsible manner.

Meanwhile, John Carlson reports in his latest Des Moines Register column that a local radio personally has written lyrics called “Palau to Postville – a Topical/Tropical Tale.” They are meant to be sung to the tune of the Gilligan’s Island theme. He was inspired by “reports last week that an employment recruiter has been trying to entice people in the Pacific island of Palau to come to work for the [Agriprocessors] plant.”

UPDATE: A spokesman for Agriprocessors says the company is drafting “a forceful response to the governor’s guilty verdict even before trial.”

The same article goes on to say:

Several business and political experts said Culver’s criticism was unusual, but they applauded it.

“I think it’s out of the ordinary. But then again, I think Agriprocessors is a little out of the ordinary, too,” said Mike Ralston, president of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry.

Ralston’s group includes most large Iowa employers, but not Agriprocessors. He said he wouldn’t want Culver to make a habit of publicly criticizing specific businesses. However, he said Agriprocessors’ notoriety has damaged the state’s reputation, making it fair game for the governor’s ire.

Holy cow, is this ad cynical:

I can’t see John McCain gaining a lot of traction with this approach. Joe Biden is not an in-your-face pick for Clinton supporters. Hillary herself said she would consider Biden for any position. This ad is called “Passed Over,” but it’s not as if Obama passed Hillary over for a running mate who was less qualified than she is.

Competitors criticize each other in primaries–big deal. This is nothing worse than what Mitt Romney said about McCain during the Republican competition. This Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton will strongly endorse Barack Obama in front of a packed house in Denver.

What is McCain offering women on any of the issues Hillary championed during the primaries? Zero. And when he picks a down-the-line conservative as his running mate, that will become even more clear.

UPDATE: From CNN:

Clinton’s team immediately dubbed the ad misleading. “Hillary Clinton’s support of Barack Obama is pretty clear,” said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. “She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn’t. It’s interesting how those remarks didn’t make it into his ad.”

Icebergslim brings you pictures and speeches from today’s rally in Springfield.

Hope Reborn brings you lots of clips from journalists and bloggers reacting to Barack Obama’s selection of his running mate: “Glowing Reviews of Vice President Joe Biden: GOP ‘disappointed silence’”

Markos is not happy that Obama “filled a gap, rather than reinforced.”

Paul Rosenberg is disappointed for a different reason, as he explains in “Biden and the Primacy of the Inside Game.”

James L. of Swing State Project looks at what might happen to Biden’s senate seat from Delaware (Biden is up for reelection this year.)

dcprof says “Biden crimps McCain’s VP choice,” and I completely agree.

dday analyzes Ron Fournier’s hit piece for the Associated Press and makes the case that Fournier should recuse himself from covering the presidential campaign or be fired. He makes a strong case, since more and more newspapers rely on wire services like the AP for political coverage, and Fournier considered taking a job with John McCain’s campaign last year.

Steve Benen gives you the gory details on how bad Fournier’s piece is.

Firedoglake also put up an action item on calling for Fournier’s dismissal.

John Deeth’s take on Biden is here. You can find some of Iowa Independent’s greatest hits on the Biden family here.

MoveOn.org is giving away Obama-Biden stickers:

You can get one Obama/Biden sticker for free. For a $3+ donation, we’ll send you 5 stickers. For a $20+ donation, we’ll send 50 stickers. Stickers may take 4-6 weeks to arrive.

If you donate at least $30 to the Obama campaign, you’ll get an official Obama-Biden t-shirt with the campaign logo.

How do you feel about the ticket?

CNN noticed that Secret Service arrived at Joe Biden’s home in Delaware last night, which makes it almost official.

The case for Joe Biden as Barack Obama’s running mate is simple: he’s got a lot of experience at the federal level, particularly in foreign policy. That will reassure voters who may be concerned about Obama’s resume and blunt a major line of attack from John McCain (whose ads have been questioning whether Obama is “ready to lead”).  

But plenty of people in Washington have served in Congress for 20 or 30 years. What makes Biden better than most of them as a running mate? Media scripts about the “gaffe machine” notwithstanding, I submit that Biden’s campaigning ability will be a huge asset to Obama.

I know the stories about Biden putting his foot in his mouth, and I am old enough to remember the Clarence Thomas hearings, when Biden talked too much and didn’t put Thomas on the spot enough.

But he is a much better campaigner than people give him credit for.

Of all the presidential candidates, Biden got the best word of mouth from Iowans who attended his events last year. I don’t think I ever talked to anyone who went to hear him and walked away unimpressed. I wrote about this last summer and again right before the Iowa caucuses.

If you don’t believe me, read accounts by other people who listened to Biden take questions for an hour or more from voters, sometimes just about Iraq and foreign policy but more often about any topic Iowans felt like bringing up.

Biden is not going to need a crash course in federal policy to prepare for the vice-presidential debate, because he knows this stuff inside-out. And despite his reputation for long-windedness, he is able to answer questions in 30 to 60 seconds. In the Democratic candidates’ debates last year, Biden did extremely well despite consistently getting 30 percent to 50 percent less time to speak than the front-runners. He often had the most memorable one-liners from those debates too.

Speaking about the news media’s blackout of long-shot Democratic contenders, Elizabeth Edwards wrote in this op-ed for the New York Times:

And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.

Biden’s speaking style is more aggressive than Obama’s, which will help him be the attack dog Obama needs.

I also agree with Jonathan Singer’s point that Biden’s relative lack of wealth will reinforce the message that the Democratic candidates can relate to ordinary Americans on bread-and-butter economic issues.

Finally, Steve Clemons is absolutely right: Americans are going to love Jill Biden.

Biden wasn’t my number one choice for Obama’s vice president, but he is going to bring a lot to the table.

On Monday I received this release from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

Waukee, IA – Tom Latham this week continues to use taxpayer dollars to campaign using official Congressional events and mail pieces, instead of his campaign paying for his campaigning.

“Tom Latham has over $800,000 in his campaign account, yet he continues to hold events and send mail pieces paid for by the taxpayers,” said Greenwald Communications Director Erin Seidler. “With just two and a half months to Election Day, taxpayers are paying for Latham to campaign back in the district.”

This week, Tom Latham is holding official Congressional events in New Hampton, Cresco, Mason City, Forest City, Decorah and Waukon. He also sent out a four-page official Congressional mail piece earlier this month. The mail piece is attached to the release.

“Unfortunately, Tom Latham has chosen to campaign using tax dollars over the August recess, and he still refuses to debate with Becky Greenwald,” Seidler continued. “These same taxpayers that are paying for his events are voters, and they deserve to hear from both candidates on the issues.”

The Greenwald Campaign challenged Tom Latham to five debates, including four debates over the August recess. The Latham campaign declined the August recess debates. The Iowa Farmers Union then offered the Latham campaign a debate opportunity at their convention, an event Latham is attending. He also declined this offer.

Latham will be at the Iowa Farmers Union conference in Marshalltown tomorrow (Saturday). Maybe someone there will ask him to explain why he wouldn’t agree to a debate in that setting.

Speaking of which, drop me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you would be willing to show up in a chicken suit outside a Latham event in the coming weeks. Someone I know has a suit that activists can borrow.

I downloaded the Latham direct-mail piece alluded to above. It’s a clear abuse of the franking privilege, with the look and feel of campaign literature. I will put up the photos and transcribe the text in a future post. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for these glossy mailers.

Senator Chuck Grassley has four town-hall meetings schedule for this Monday:

   * Monday August 25, 9:15-10:15 AM: Buchanan County Courthouse Assembly Room – 210 5th Avenue NE, Independence 50644

   * Monday August 25, 11:15-12:15 AM: Hudson Public Library – 401 5th Street, Hudson 50643

   * Monday August 25, 2-3 PM: New Hampton Public Library Meeting Room – 20 West Spring Street, New Hampton 50659

   * Monday August 25, 4-5 PM: Cresco City Hall Council Chambers – 227 North Elm Street, Cresco 52136

The Sierra Club is encouraging constituents to attend these meetings and send Grassley the message that “drilling won’t lower prices at the pump and it’s time we invest in green solutions that will solve the energy crisis.”

Click here to let the Sierra Club know you plan to attend.

Click the same link to find facts, figures and talking points on why increased offshore oil drilling only benefits oil companies and why Americans need clean energy solutions. The same page contains a word document you can download and print out to take to the town-hall meeting.

If you go, please put up a diary afterwards, like IowaVoter did after he attended a Grassley town-hall meeting in June.

Most people seem to think Obama’s short list is Biden, Bayh and Kaine, but there’s a lot of late buzz about him surprising us all, perhaps with Hillary.

What do you think? I don’t think he will choose Hillary, because his people stupidly made a big point of saying earlier this summer that he didn’t want her on the ticket. If he chooses her now, it looks like he is acknowledging he can’t win without her, and I don’t think he wants to show weakness.

She would be a good choice, though. The right-wing hate machine has been doing a good job of rallying Republicans around McCain. The argument that choosing Hillary would galvanize conservatives against Obama no longer holds water.

UPDATE: Politico says Hillary was never vetted and Congressman Chet Edwards of Texas is on Obama’s short list. Please don’t let Obama be dumb enough to pick him. If he wants a conservative Democrat, it should at least be someone who puts a state in play. Also, Chet Edwards is not seasoned as a communicator on the national stage.

SECOND UPDATE: A friend of a friend of a source of Matt Stoller says Biden’s family is making plans to be in Springfield this Saturday:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

THIRD UPDATE: Marc Ambinder picks up on a chartered flight from Chicago’s Midway airport to New Castle, Delaware…possibly going to pick up Biden’s family?

http://marcambinder.theatlanti…

Earlier this year, Mrs. panstreppon wrote several stories on the conservative American Future Fund. You can find them here, here, and here.

This week Jason Hancock wrote a good piece for Iowa Independent about this advocacy group, which is running ads in close Congressional races across the country. This part caught my eye:

Public records show the AFF also has connections to Iowa businessman Bruce Rastetter, who is widely believed to be considering a run for governor in 2010. Rastetter is a regular donor to the Republican Party and founder of Hawkeye Renewables, the fourth largest ethanol producer in the nation. Eric Peterson, business manager at Summit Farms, another of Rastetter’s companies, is listed on documents filed with the Iowa Secretary of State’s office as president, secretary and director of Iowa Future Fund, a conservative nonprofit that essentially morphed into American Future Fund.

The address listed on an AFF ad buy in Minnesota is a post office box used by Nick Ryan, a Des Moines lobbyist who works primarily for Rastetter’s companies and who served as campaign manager for 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle. In February, Ryan was acting as spokesman for Hawkeye Renewables when 29,000 gallons of ethanol was accidentally spilled at the company’s Iowa Falls plant.

Within the past year, Rastetter donated $1 million to the Iowa State Fair and $1.75 million to the Iowa State University Agricultural Entrepreneurship Program. That will build up a lot of good will across this state.

This morning, Politico reported that John McCain was unable to say exactly how many houses he and his wife own. Click the link to listen to the audio.

Within hours, Barack Obama’s campaign released this ad to run on cable television:

Also the same day, Obama and a bunch of Democratic surrogates pounded on this gaffe, linking it to McCain’s recent statement that he considers people making less than $5 million annually to be “middle class.” (In reality, an annual family income of $350,000 puts an American in the top 1 percent.)

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign tried to change the subject to the fact that he was a POW in Vietnam, the fact that Obama’s house is pretty big, and Obama’s relationship with Chicago businessman Tony Rezko.

A new conservative 501(c)4 organization has produced a hit piece on Obama to run on television in Ohio and Michigan. Ed Failor Jr., former McCain aide in Iowa and executive vice president of Iowans for Tax Relief, is a leading figure in this new group.

The good news for McCain today was that the Federal Election Commission unanimously decided to let McCain cheat by getting out of accepting public financing for the primaries. McCain used the fact that he’d qualified for public financing to secure loans to his campaign in 2007. He also used his public financing certificate to qualify for the Ohio ballot without collecting signatures. Then, once he won the nomination, he weaseled out of his promise. Adam B has more background and analysis of this FEC ruling.

But other than that, I have to agree with JedReport: It was a really bad day to be John McCain.

UPDATE: Seriously, how many houses does the McCain family own? Politico says eight properties, but ProgressiveAccountability.org says at least ten.

SECOND UPDATE: Karl Rove comes up with creative but not convincing spin: making fun of McCain’s housing gaffe is an attack on Cindy McCain, because the homes were bought with her money. So apparently Obama is now attacking McCain’s wife!

The members of the Rebuild And Grow Board of Directors submitted a public petition to the Cedar Rapids City Council this week requesting an intensive one-year plan for dealing with flood recovery and reconstruction in the city.

Rebuild And Grow is an affiliate of Beacon of Hope/New Orleans, and its leaders consulted with disaster recovery groups in New Orleans in forming the recommendations.

The full text of Rebuild And Grow’s petition to the Cedar Rapids City Council is after the jump. The council is expected to respond in writing within a week.

If you would like to send comments or support for this citizen petition to the mayor and council members, click here.

Rebuild and Grow has also written “a ten page report on what we learned during our intensive training and internship with Neighborhood Self-Help Disaster Recovery Groups in New Orleans.” To request a copy of that report, send an e-mail to floodsurvivor AT aol.com.

                                                   

I don’t see much evidence that Barack Obama has a problem with women voters. He leads among women by more than Al Gore or John Kerry did at the same time during their own presidential campaigns. The most recent Iowa poll shows Obama leading by six overall but by 12 among Iowa women.

(UPDATE: A new national poll commissioned by EMILY’s list shows Obama leading among women by 12. He leads among women of all age groups, but his narrowest margin is among baby boomer women. Like Digby said, Don’t put baby boomer in the corner.)

Among purveyors of conventional wisdom, however, there is still a perception that Obama has work to do among women voters, and particularly the women who preferred Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

The Obama campaign has been scheduling women’s outreach events to address this issue. Today Governor Kathleen Sebelius is campaigning around central Iowa, and one of her appearances is a lunch in Des Moines specifically geared toward women.

Last Friday I attended a different women’s event featuring Dana Singiser. She served as Director of Women’s Outreach for Clinton’s presidential campaign before joining the Obama campaign as Senior Adviser for the Women’s Vote.

Singiser wrote the Obama campaign memo on John McCain’s “woman problem,” released earlier this week.

Join me after the jump for more.

According to the Des Moines Register,

An investment group that included the late Ed Boesen has informed Des Moines school officials that it is pulling out of a deal to develop the former Rice Elementary School site.

Rice Development Partners told school officials that it intends to terminate an agreement to purchase the vacant school site at 3001 Beaver Ave. for $650,000.

The article quotes the attorney for the Des Moines school district as saying, “we have a valid and enforceable contract,” but I don’t see how they will be able to squeeze money out of this investment group. A long line of creditors are suing Ed Boesen’s estate.

It’s just as well to go back to the drawing board on Rice field. Perhaps it’s better to leave Beaverdale residents to enjoy this green space. If it is developed eventually, let’s hope there are no major conflicts of interest linking policy-makers to the developers selected for the site.

If you’ve never seen Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius in person, you’ve got plenty of chances tomorrow. She’ll be campaigning for Barack Obama and Becky Greenwald, candidate for Congress in Iowa’s fourth district.

The one time I heard Sebelius speak in person, I was very impressed. Come out to hear a woman who is on Obama’s short list for vice-president and may well run for president herself someday.

All events take place on Thursday, August 21.

A women’s brown-bag lunch event will be held at the Scottish Rite Consistory, 519 Park Street in downtown Des Moines. Doors open at 12:30. Becky Greenwald will speak around 12:45. Governor Sebelius will speak at 1:00. Bring your own lunch and enjoy.

Greenwald and Sebelius will hold a community gathering at 2:45 at Funaro’s Deli and Bakery, 201 N Buxton Street in Indianola. (Side note: Take home some of that wonderful Funaro bread!)

At 4:00, Sebelius and Greenwald will hold a meet and greet with voters at the Becky Greenwald Campaign Headquaters and Obama Campaign for Change Office, 144 E Laurel Street in Waukee.

Finally, Sebelius will kick-off a volunteer phone bank at 5:30 at the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office, 1408 Locust Street in Des Moines.

If you attend any of these events, post a comment or a diary afterwards to let us know how it went.

If you regularly buy food directly from farmers, you have probably noticed that this year’s severe weather disrupted the growing season in Iowa. To make matters worse, many sustainable farmers (such as fruit and vegetable growers) do not qualify for federal crop insurance. Yet a huge amount of time and money is involved in replanting or replacing lost crops.

I enclose an e-mail describing an assistance effort geared toward family, sustainable and market farmers in Iowa. These grants may seem very small to you, but even $500 can make a difference to a cash-strapped small farmer.

The links did not come through when I copied and pasted, but you click here to donate to the project. If you are a farmer in need of assistance, click the same link to find application guidelines and forms.

The Iowa Farm Disaster Relief Coalition — fourteen Iowa farm, faith and rural organizations including the Center for Rural Affairs is collecting donations and making emergency funds available for Iowa’s family, sustainable and market farmers who suffered losses due to storms, rain and flooding in Iowa earlier this year.

Applications and guidelines are available on the coalition’s website. Donations may be made to the fund on the website as well.

Farmers may apply for up to $500 in relief to help offset household expenses, which in turn will free up finances for replanting, clean up, repair, etc., on the farm. It is our hope that assisting as many qualifying farmers as possible with grants up to $500 to cover expenses will help ease some of the pain of the tough times created by these disasters.

Again, please find applications instructions and grant guidelines on the coalition’s website.

Applications will be reviewed as quickly as possible by a committee of representatives of the state’s membership based sustainable agriculture groups. The deadline for the first round of applications is Sept. 30, 2008. Additional rounds of grants will be made available as funding allows.

For more information, contact John Crabtree at 402-687-2103 extension 1010, or by email at johnc@cfra.org.

Whether or not you can apply or contribute, please help us get the word out by letting others who may be interested know about the project.

—

Farm Aid is supporting the disaster-relief efforts of the coalition, which includes Buy Fresh Buy Local Iowa, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Farmers Union, Iowa Network for Community Agriculture, Iowa Organic Association, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Women Food and Agriculture Network, Edible Iowa River Valley, Iowa Valley Resource Conservation and Development, National Farmers Organization, Churches’ Center for the Land and People, Atlantic farmer and advocate Denise O’Brien and the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska which is serving as the project’s fiscal sponsor.

Thanks to all the participating organizations and to Denise O’Brien, one of the best advocates for sustainable agriculture that Iowa has ever known.

The Democratic National Committee is putting together a Democratic Change Commission to review possible changes to the presidential nominating process. According to the Associated Press, DNC leaders want to reduce the number of superdelegates and “regain control of the primary calendar”:

A goal of the new commission would be to establish a calendar in which only a handful of states would be allowed to hold nominating contests before March.

This diary at MyDD contains the full text of the press release. Here is an excerpt:

Today the Obama Campaign and the Democratic National Committee announced a proposal to establish a special commission to recommend changes to the Democratic Party’s rules for delegate selection and presidential primary timing for future presidential cycles. The proposal will be presented to the Convention Rules Committee on Saturday in Denver.

The ‘Democratic Change Commission’ will address three issues 1) changes to the opening of the window and pre-window, 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) changes to the caucus system. The goal of the commission will be to ensure that no primary or caucus is held prior to the first Tuesday in March of 2012, with the exception of the approved pre-window states, whose contests would be held during February 2012.

I’m all for reducing the number of superdelegates and strictly limiting the number of states that can hold primaries or caucuses before March.

But if we are going to increase the relative importance of pledged delegates, we need to be aware that the pledged delegate count does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

Longtime readers know that I am not a big fan of the caucus system even in Iowa, where voters and party officials have a lot of experience with it. I don’t think any of the alleged benefits of caucuses outweigh the barriers to participation that caucuses create.

Furthermore, no state but Iowa can claim any genuine party-building benefit from caucuses, because other states didn’t have multiple campaigns organizing at the precinct level for months.

Many states switched from primaries to caucuses in order to save money, figuring the nomination wouldn’t depend on that state’s vote anyway. As a result, poorly-trained precinct chairs presided over chaos in many parts of Nevada.

Even where caucuses ran relatively smoothly, turnout was unnecessarily limited, and results were skewed.

Consider Minnesota. Probably Obama would have won a primary there, but would he have won it by a 2-1 margin, as he did the caucus delegate count? Seems unlikely.

In Colorado, Nebraska, and several other states, Obama emerged with three or four times as many delegates as Hillary Clinton. Again, he probably would have won a primary in those states, but not by that kind of margin.

Even worse, in Nevada and Texas, Obama emerged with more pledged delegates even though more voters turned out to support Hillary. I would want to change the way pledged delegates are allocated so that no candidate could lose the popular vote in a state while winning the pledged delegate count.

Not only that, one caucus-goer in Wyoming had as much influence over the pledged delegate race as 19 primary voters in California (here is the link). That’s partly because caucuses attract lower turnout and partly because smaller states have a disproportionate number of delegates in the Democratic Party’s current nominating system.

I will be interested to see what this commission recommends with respect to caucuses. My preference would be to ban caucuses for purposes of presidential candidate selection, but I’m sure that a commission created with the participation of the Obama campaign would never agree to that reform. My guess is that they will propose some nominal changes to caucuses but will do nothing to discourage states from holding caucuses instead of primaries.

Before anyone gets upset in the comments, please note that by criticizing the caucus system, I do not intend to excuse the strategic failure of the Clinton campaign to have a game plan for the caucus states.

But if we are going to reduce the number of superdelegates, or require superdelegates to get behind the pledged delegate leader in their states or districts, then we better have a more equitable system for allocating the pledged delegates.

It was wrong for Obama to net as many pledged delegates from a low-turnout caucus state as Hillary netted in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. She exceeded Obama’s popular vote count by more than 200,000 in each of those states.

The Trust for America’s Health has released a comprehensive analysis of public health indicators in all 50 states.

You can view all the statistics for Iowa here. As you might expect, it’s a mixed bag. We do pretty well in terms of proportion of people having health insurance (40th in percentage of uninsured adults, 45th in percentage of uninsured children). We also rank 43rd in infant mortality.

On the other hand, we rank 19th in obesity, 15th in terms of shortage of dental care, and 15th in terms of the percentage of high school students who currently smoke.

Click over to find many more facts and figures.

His problem attracting women voters, that is.

The memo is after the jump. Its author, Dana Singiser, did several women’s outreach events for the Obama campaign in Iowa last week. I attended one of those and will write it up when I have the chance. She was very impressive.

Singiser thoroughly documents the gender gap revealed by recent opinion polls on the presidential race. Her memo also gives several reasons why John McCain’s stand on the issues would not appeal to women voters.

The just-released University of Iowa Hawkeye poll showed Barack Obama leading McCain by five or six points overall (depending on which voter screen you use) but by 12 points among Iowa women voters.