The past few days have been intense for candidates and their advocates, and unfortunately we’ve run into some problems with how comments at Bleeding Heartland are rated.

I take part of the blame for not posting clear guidelines on this subject before now.

You don’t have to rate comments (my personal style is to be sparing in handing out ratings), but if you do, you can give five possible ratings.

“4” is for excellent. That means the comment has valuable insight, original information or analysis, and makes a strong contribution to dialogue at Bleeding Heartland.

“3” is for good. You might use this if you largely agree with someone’s comment, but not with every point he or she makes.

“2” is for marginal. You might use this if you strongly disagree with the content of someone’s comment. Also, a 2 rating could be a “shot across the bow” to warn someone that the line of argument in the comment didn’t do much to advance dialogue here, or comes close to crossing a line.

“1” is for unproductive. If you not only strongly disagree with a comment, but feel that it detracts from the atmosphere here (for instance, because it is disrespectful or contains ad hominem attacks), you might give it a 1.

“0” is for troll. If more than one user gives a comment a zero, it will be hidden so that some Bleeding Heartland readers cannot see it.

Never use a zero rating to express disagreement with the argument someone is making. That is ratings abuse, and if you do it repeatedly, Bleeding Heartland administrators will either take away your ability to rate comments or potentially ban you from posting here.

A zero rating should be reserved for extreme circumstances, when the comment deserves to be hidden. For instance, if someone is impersonating someone else by choosing a different real person’s name as a screen name (for instance, if I signed up as “Leonard Boswell” and posted ridiculous comments pretending to come from him).

Comments that use racist or otherwise bigoted language also would merit a zero.

Trying to expose the real names of Bleeding Heartland users who choose to write under screen names will not be tolerated either.

Slanderous, ad hominem attacks could get a zero rating too, but be careful not to accuse other posters of slander just because you disagree with their point of view or interpretation of events.  

I have not seen estimates for the percentages of registered voters in each party who turned out today, but I have a few thoughts on turnout based on the election results.

The campaigns of Congressman Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon mobilized a lot of voters in the third district. Boswell received just over 20,000 votes, and Fallon received about 13,000. Turnout of 33,000 in this district is not bad at all for a Congressional primary. By way of comparison, 38,000 Democrats in the third district cast votes in the 2006 gubernatorial primary.

In the fourth district Congressional primary, turnout was much lower. It looks like fewer than 18,000 people cast votes on the Democratic side. Becky Greenwald is headed to victory with about 51 percent of the vote, which is impressive in a four-way race. But she has a lot of work ahead of her, because it does not appear that fourth district Democrats were highly energized about choosing an opponent for Tom Latham.

Naturally, it is easier to mobilize voters in the third district, which has only 12 counties and most of the residents concentrated in Polk County. Also, one would expect six-term Congressman Boswell and former state representative and gubernatorial candidate Fallon to have an easier time turning out voters, because of past campaigns they have run.

The fourth Congressional district spans 28 counties over a huge geographical area. In addition, none of the Democratic candidates running against Latham had held elective office before. They didn’t start their campaigns with large numbers of people having already voted for them at least once, the way Boswell and Fallon did.

I am not trying to take away from Greenwald’s achievement. I only want to point out that Democrats will need to engage many more fourth district voters if we are to have any chance of unseating Latham.

By the way, in the second district, Republican turnout in the three-way race to challenge Congressman Dave Loebsack was just under 17,000 votes. I do not expect Mariannette Miller-Meeks to mount a strong challenge to Loebsack.

Earlier today, TheRealWorld posted this in a comment:

The obama people and the IDP are dreading the fact that fallon might win this because of the massive amounts of problems that would cause to have a congressional candidate that cannot buy into the coordinated campaign and would cause the RNCCC to just spend money widely here. I know the obama people arent breaking for him in the numbers he needs because the obama people have been keeping there people in check and the boswell people have gone after them hard. they may be pissed about the clinton thing but since that is over now hopefully they wont hold it against him. Especially since they need the boswell cross over of veterans and republicans for obama to win this district and state in the general

Obama supporters, were you hearing from Obama precinct captains, delegates, or volunteers that Fallon winning the primary would make it harder for Obama to carry Iowa?

Was there any organized effort by people affiliated with the Obama campaign to steer rank and file supporters toward Boswell for this reason?

Were you hearing this argument from Boswell field organizers or volunteers?

An Obama precinct captain I met recently told me that many of the Obama delegates at the third distict convention were supporting Boswell because he is “good enough.” She did not mention the points raised by TheRealWorld, though.

The big news of the day is that Barack Obama has picked up enough superdelegates, along with delegates pledged to John Edwards, to clinch the presidential nomination.

I’ve been trying to tell people at Daily Kos for months that the superdelegates would bring down the curtain after all the states had voted.

I think the extended primary season was on balance excellent for the Democratic Party, and I couldn’t disagree more with those who have been badgering Hillary Clinton to drop out for the past two or three months.

Early returns from South Dakota indicate that Hillary will win that primary, by the way.

Polls close soon in Iowa, and I will update this diary when I have some results to report.

UPDATE: With 46 percent of precincts reporting Boswell leads Fallon 56 percent to 44 percent. Not clear whether absentee ballots have already been counted. I would expect Boswell to have an edge there. Also not clear whether the big Des Moines precincts have reported.

UPDATE 2: Not looking good for Fallon–Boswell leads 57-43 with 60 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate candidates are bunched closely together with 25 percent of precincts reporting.

Still only 4 percent of precincts reporting in IA-04. Greenwald leads, but it’s way too early.

Peter Teahen is ahead in the GOP primary in IA-02 wih 30 percent of precincts reporting.

UPDATE 3: The Des Moines Register has called the IA-03 primary for Boswell. He leads 60-40 with 90 percent of precincts reporting.

Becky Greenwald has a huge lead in IA-04, with 52.6 percent of the vote after 59 percent of precincts reported. Kurt Meyer is in second place with 26.6 percent; William Meyers has 12.1 percent, and Kevin Miskell has 8.7 percent.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has a small lead over Peter Teahen, 44.3 percent to 42.3 percent with 82 percent of precincts reporting.

The GOP Senate race is very close with 79 percent of precincts reporting: Christopher Reed has 35.4 percent, George Eichhorn has 34.9 percent.

UPDATE 4: There may need to be a recount in IA-02. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Miller-Meeks leads Teahen by fewer than 100 votes, 43.5 percent to 43.0 percent.

The GOP Senate primary is also a squeaker, with fewer than 200 votes separating reed and Eichhorn.

Boswell leads Fallon 61-29 with 98 percent reporting.

Greenwald leads Meyer 51-27 with 84 percent reporting.

All the Democratic House incumbents who had primary challengers held on to their seats.

Jerry Sullivan won the primary in House district 59 with 78 percent of the vote despite the robocalls against him that I wrote about last night.

FINAL UPDATE: It looks like Obama won the Montana primary and Clinton won the South Dakota primary.

I didn’t see Obama’s speech to a huge crowd in the Twin Cities, but I am amused that John McCain stupidly scheduled a speech for this evening. His speech got cut off so the tv networks could devote coverage to the big story (Obama winning the nomination) and Obama’s big speech (which was apparently great).

In IA-03, Boswell beat Fallon by 61-39 percent with all the precincts in. That is comparable to Representative Jane Harman’s victory over Marcy Winograd in a California Congressional district two years ago. Harman’s voting record reportedly improved after that primary. Let’s hope we can expect the same from Boswell.

Final results from the IA-04 primary: Greenwald 50.7 percent, Meyer 27.6 percent, Meyers 13.2 percent, Miskell 8.4 percent.

Christopher Reed won the GOP Senate primary by about 400 votes out of about 70,000 votes cast. He had 35.3 percent of the vote, George Eichhorn had 34.7 percent, and Steve Rathje had 29.9 percent.

IA-02 race called for Miller-Meeks. She won by a margin of 109 votes out of nearly 17,000 votes cast.

Nothing on the Des Moines Register’s site about recounts in the GOP Senate primary or Congressional primary in IA-02.

Today is the last day to select one Iowa House candidate and one Iowa Senate candidate you’d like to see Harkin give money to this year:

http://www.tomharkin.com/

Bleeding Heartland users advocated for various candidates in this thread:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

The gang at Blue Oregon set up this fun poll where you can rank any or all of 32 possible vice-presidential picks for Obama:

http://www.demochoice.org/dcba…

You rank the candidates you support, and you do not have to choose all 32 possibilities. I only voted for my top nine choices.

For an explanation of how instant-runoff voting works, click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…

Use this as an open thread to advocate for the VP candidate(s) of your choice.

I think Obama needs to choose someone who will help him 1) win the general, and 2) unite the party. In my opinion, that means either someone who helps in in polls across the board, someone from a crucial swing state, a Clinton loyalist, or Hillary Clinton herself.

Speaking of which, Matt Stoller has made a strong case for Wes Clark as the ideal VP for Obama.

OK, political junkies, show us your stuff. Who will win the high-profile primaries in Iowa today?

By that I mean, who will win the Democratic primaries in Iowa’s third and fourth Congressional districts?

Who will win the Republican primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district? (Iowa Independent and the Des Moines Register have profiled the three candidates seeking to take on Congressman Dave Loebsack.)

UPDATE: I forgot that you can also predict which of these three Republicans will become the chump who’ll be lucky to get 40 percent of the vote against Tom Harkin this November.

I will update this post later with my own predictions for the Congressional races.

John Deeth has an outstanding post up going over some of the key primaries in the Iowa House and Senate races. I don’t know enough about those races to make my own predictions, but I encourage you to mention them in your comments if you want to test your prognosticating skills against Deeth’s.

SECOND UPDATE: Finally ready to post my predictions.

Although the GOP establishment seems to be behind Eichhorn for Senate, I’m guessing that Steve Rathje will win that primary. I give him zero chance against Harkin.

In IA-02, I think Mariannette Miller-Meeks will win. I doubt she will give Loebsack much trouble, and I’ll explain why another day.

In IA-04, I think Becky Greenwald will win with at least 35 percent, enough to avoid having to pick the nominee at a district convention. I say this because she’s raised a lot of money, she has the best connections in the southern part of the district, and it doesn’t hurt to be one woman running against three men in a Democratic primary.

In IA-03, I think Boswell will win but by less than 10 points. To be more specific, I’ll go with 54-46 as my guess.

Mike Lux also thinks Boswell will win but warns that his “over-reaction” will make it closer than it should have been:

Boswell’s over-the-top negative campaign against Ed has caused a serious negative reaction, and has got everyone talking. I talked to at least half a dozen people who said they were planning to vote for Leonard, but have switched to Ed because of the mailings, and even Boswell’s supporters have been made nervous and set on edge by the mailings.

I have not seen the Fallon campaign’s internal numbers, and I do not know enough about the process that generated them. My impression is that they did some kind of random selection of voters from the database and then had people call to check their preferences (correct me if I am wrong). My worry is that a lot of polite Iowans may have lied about their intentions when called by someone from the Fallon campaign.

I wrote last week that Congressman Leonard Boswell’s closing argument is “I’m loyal, he voted for Nader.” A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday confirmed that impression.

I couldn’t jot down notes and have been unable to find an audio file of this ad on the web, but I will update this post with that information if someone can send it to me.

The ad used a female voice-over rather than Boswell’s voice. The first part of the ad relayed positive information about the incumbent:

-The teachers have endorsed Boswell because of his work on education.

-The nurses have endorsed Boswell because of his work on health care.

-Working families support Boswell because he stands up for them.

-Al Gore and Tom Harkin are also supporting Boswell.

Then the ad shifts gears with language about how it’s a different story with Ed Fallon. Fallon supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore in 2000. Because Fallon campaigned for Nader instead of Gore, Democrats have been stuck with eight years of President George W. Bush, with a lousy economy and an unending war in Iraq.

All of the above is a paraphrase based on my best recollection. If anyone else has heard this ad (or better yet, has a recording of it), I would love to post a more precise version of its contents.

On one level, I am not surprised that Boswell is talking about Nader in his radio ads, because that is clearly his trump card.

On the other hand, I expected Boswell to stick to all-positive advertising in broadcast media. Typically an incumbent does not go negative on a primary challenger unless there is some concern about the outcome.

By the way, on Saturday and Monday I didn’t receive any direct-mail from either Boswell’s campaign or the anti-Fallon group Independent Voices.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign’s attempt to draw a contrast between Boswell and Fallon regarding methamphetamine got no traction in any Iowa mainstream media. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if you have seen media reports on that issue in the past couple of days.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign manager Scott Ourth sent out his final mass e-mail yesterday. I’ve put the full text after the jump.

I live in Iowa House district 59, which includes Windsor Heights, Clive and parts of West Des Moines. Republicans have held this seat since before I was born, but I am convinced that Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan has a strong chance to flip this district for the Democrats.

Judging from two calls I received in the past 48 hours, some Republicans are worried about that possibility too.

On Sunday evening I got a robocall from “Survey 2000” claiming to have a brief 30-second survey for me to answer. The first question was whether I planned to vote in the June 3 Democratic primary. The second was whether I planned to vote for Jerry Sullivan or Mark Matel in the primary. Then the push-polling started.

I jotted down what I could with pencil and paper, but the robocall voice went fast, so I don’t have anything close to the verbatim wording of the call.

One question asked whether a candidate’s position on a woman’s right to choose was important, and followed up with some language suggesting that Jerry Sullivan does not support that right.

The next question asked whether I thought elected officials should keep our taxes low, and followed up by saying that Windsor Heights property taxes were very high while Sullivan was mayor.

Finally, there was a question and follow-up information relating to Sullivan’s support for last summer’s Project Destiny referendum, which failed by a huge margin.

This call had all the telltale marks of a push-poll. No demographic information was collected, so the results could not be analyzed in any useful way by a campaign or a public polling firm. Only negative information about one candidate was pushed. In contrast, a legitimate message-testing poll, such as the one commissioned by Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign in January, will test positive and negative messages about one or more candidates.

I jotted down the phone number given at the end of the call. It went by fast, but I think I wrote it down correctly: 703-263-2511. I tried to call that number and got only busy signals.

On Monday at about 4:15 pm, I got a different robocall. This was not a fake poll, but it was otherwise similar to the call I received Sunday night.

This time a woman’s voice said she was calling from “Survey 2008” (which was pronounced “Survey two zero zero eight”) with important information about the primary coming up on June 3.

First, she said that Windsor Heights property taxes went from one of the lowest to the second-highest in the Des Moines metro area while Jerry Sullivan was mayor.

Then, she said that Sullivan worked to pass Project Destiny, which was supported by wealthy business interests.

Then, she said Sullivan was believed to support ending a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The phone number given at the end of this call was 703-263-1908, which probably is a different phone line at the same office that produced the call I got Sunday evening.

First things first: I contacted Sullivan’s campaign manager and confirmed that the candidate is pro-choice. There is no basis for these calls suggesting that he would seek to end a woman’s right to choose. I suspect that they tried that line because Sullivan is Catholic and has a Catholic-sounding name, and they figured this argument would hurt him with Democratic primary voters.

A neighbor called me yesterday to report getting a nasty robocall about Sullivan. When we compared notes, it was obviously the same call. She assumed that Sullivan’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Mark Matel, was behind the call, but my hunch is that these calls were not arranged by any of the rival candidates for this seat.

I doubt that either Matel or Republican Susan Murphy have the resources to fund this kind of operation, even if they wanted to. I assume that Chris Hagenow, the favorite to win the Republican nomination, is focused on winning his primary race, although he may have raised enough money to fund calls like these.

The language on taxes used in both calls suggests to me that a Republican interest group is behind them. Iowans for Tax Relief has endorsed Hagenow, so that group might be a prime suspect. I am sure they would rather not see the relatively inexperienced Hagenow run against someone with Sullivan’s background in business and public service.

It’s also possible that the Iowa Republican Party decided to spend money on roughing up Sullivan in the Democratic primary. Presumably the seat would be easier for Republicans to hold if Sullivan loses the primary, or if they can damage his reputation among the loyal Democratic voters who show up for primaries.

The phone numbers given at the end of the calls should point toward the firm that produced them, but that would not necessarily reveal what candidate or entity paid for the calls.

If you receive calls pushing negative information on any candidate this year, please take as detailed notes as you can. That’s easier when there is a live caller, because you can ask him or her to repeat the questions. Stay on the line until the end of the call and write down the phone number, which they are legally required to give. Then contact the campaign of the candidate being attacked in the call, so they know right away what is going on.

I also encourage Bleeding Heartland users to put up a diary at this blog if you receive any push-poll or obnoxious robocalls this year.

Also special thanks to the authors of Bleeding Heartland for promoting my diaries and the diaries of my opponents over the last few months.  We all appreciate your dedication to giving us front row.

I hope my next posting will be signed as Democratic Nominee.  

Thanks again and FORWARD MARCH!

Special thanks to the Midwest Democrat for their endorsement of me.

http://www.midwestdemocrat.com/2008/06/iowa-endorsements.html 

Below is a list of great Chicken Crossing the Road jokes.

I am sure Becky, Kevin and Kurt would rather you all poke fun at us in this manner than attacking each other.  The jokes below will serve as a good guideline.

Let's see who can come up with the best additions pertaining to ALL FOUR OF US CANDIDATES.  KEEP IT CLEAN, BUT HAVE FUN WITH IT.  ALL FOUR OF US DO HAVE GREAT SENSES OF HUMOR. 

Becky, Kurt, Kevin and myself have been through hell for the last few months and this evening ALL FOUR OF US are stressed to the max.  I am sure not a single one of you have any idea what we are going through this evening.  I guarantee Becky, Kevin and Kurt are just as awake and overwhelmed with anxiety as I am.  Not only have we stressed ourselves financially, but physically, and mentally.  All of our families have suffered through this process.  We have been through more than you could ever know in this quest for the nomination.  We have done this to make our nation BETTER FOR ALL OF YOU.

While we all appreciate having passionate supporters, the last thing we need are phone calls regarding cat fights on blogs.  It would help ALL FOUR OF US immensely for all of you to kiss and make up and instead channel your positive energy for tomorrow evening.

That being said, Steve I am glad you came here and posted under your real name to clear up that attempt to pit our families against each other.

Sue, (mom #2) I am glad you have done the same.

For those of you who have attacked my credibility, no it did not work.  I know how hard it is right now, because I am living it.  Your attacks do not make it any easier on the people you are representing, especially when you are making false accusations as a paid staffer. I don't know if you did the same thing with B's campaign, but I am sure he would have never allowed it if he knew.

Others with questions, please contact through my website: meyersforhouse.com and I would be happy to answer ANY of your questions.  I am not posting here to debate, but to introduce and inform and promote not only myself, but the agenda of our party.  If you would care to attack me, then at least have the guts to use your real names, as I have used mine.

Lastly, I would like to personally invite any of you to join my family, friends and I for a primary election gathering in Boone tomorrow evening.  We will be at the Colorado Bar and Grill, located on South Marshall Street beginning about 8 P.M.  Map below. 

If we don’t want to see John McCain elected president, we need to chip away at his “maverick” image and demonstrate how he has marched in lockstep with the Bush White House.

This web video produced by the Democratic National Committee is a step in the right direction:

Help this video go viral by sending the link to friends, or putting it up on your blog if you have one. Alternatively, reward good behavior by making a donation to the DNC.

Mr. desmoinesdem is reading Jan Crawford Greenburg’s book Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. (It was reviewed here at the Volokh conspiracy blog.)

When Justice William Brennan left the court at the beginning of Poppy Bush’s presidency, Kenneth Starr was the early favorite to get the nomination, but Bush’s Attorney General Richard Thornburgh rejected him as “unacceptable” because he was not reliably conservative enough.

So Bush’s chief of staff John Sununu (a former governor of New Hampshire) and New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman prevailed upon the White House to nominate David Souter instead. Oops!

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley was among the Senate Republicans who were deeply concerned by the answers Souter gave during his confirmation hearings. But according to Greenburg, Republicans

could not abandon a man the White House had assured them was a reliable conservative. Some assumed Souter was simply pandering to Democrats to get through the committee, and they refused to believe he meant what he said.

Souter was the last “stealth conservative” you’ll ever see a Republican president nominate for the Supreme Court. If John McCain gets elected, expect more like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Greetings from the road!

I am doing my best to type this quick message on an IPod Touch from an interstate rest area (great perk for travels in Iowa).

I am the only individual representing my campaign on this blog or any other blog.  I have posted here myself (opposed to other candidates), and have used my real name.

It is refreshing to see three other individuals on this blog who have also had the courage to use their real names.  There have been individuals who have posted and have tried posting in support of me, who I have never met and are certainly NOT working/volunteering for my campaign.

As always, there seems to be a very dirty side to this game and those of you who have attempted to tarnish another using ficticious information or identities should be ashamed of yourselves. 

Greetings from the road!

I am doing my best to type this quick message on an IPod Touch from an interstate rest area (great perk for travels in Iowa).

Please note that this evening on KCCI Channel 8, all four candidates will be presented.  2 (me) candidates at 5 PM and the other 2 at 6 PM. 

I learned from Representative Tyler Olson today that the Iowa Department of Public Health has released draft regulations to implement the public smoking ban set to go into effect on July 1. Go to www.iowasmokefreeair.gov to read and comment on the regulations.

I was tough on the House Democrats earlier this year for putting so many exemptions in the smoking ban, but I understand that those were necessary to get the bill through the lower chamber.

Legislators removed some of the exceptions when the House and Senate versions were reconciled in conference. My hope is that a court may strike down some of the exemptions that remained in the final version of the bill.

For those who are still bent out of shape about the new law, I again offer my 10 suggestions to help smokers stop whining about the smoking ban.

The press release I got today from Representative Tyler Olson is after the jump.

I was at Valley West Mall today with my two-year-old, and a woman walks by holding the hand of a girl who looked to be about two or three. The girl had on a white t-shirt that said:

HOOTER GIRL

(in training)

I ask you, what kind of person would put that shirt on a young child?

It’s not the strangest t-shirt I’ve ever seen on a child. That would still have to be the toddler’s shirt that said this on the front:

Cardinal Ratzinger fan club

Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981

And this on the back:

“Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” Cardinal Ratzinger

I am not kidding. That shirt was so bizarre that it prompted me to write a diary at Daily Kos back in the day when I mostly lurked and hardly ever wrote anything for any blog.

Consider this an open thread for discussing the oddest t-shirts or bumper stickers you have seen.

Today is the first anniversary of the death of Steve Gilliard. As I’ve written before, I loved his blog and miss his writing. You’ll see why if you click on any of the posts I linked to in that diary.

Steve meant a lot to many others too, as you can see from reading the comments below a diary I posted about him at Daily Kos.

Use this as an open thread to tell us about your favorite bloggers. Whose work should we be reading, and why?