I know this is really long for a typical blog post, but this is a column I wrote for Drake’s newspaper today.  I just thought it was an interesting topic you folks might enjoy:

Democratic selection might not be known until national convention

by Patrick Rynard (Columnist)

Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: Opinion

By this time next year, we ought to know who the nominees for president are. The candidates will have slugged it out in the early states, and an early winner will have gained the momentum to sweep the 20-plus states that make up this cycle’s “Super-Duper Tuesday.” Before Valentine’s Day arrives, all but one candidate will have dropped out on either side.

Or at least that’s what the conventional wisdom predicts will happen. I believe we may see a much different, much more exciting nomination. One in which the final outcome isn’t even decided for the Democrats until the national convention come August 25. Which would mean, yes, a major convention floor fight for the presidential nomination – something we haven’t seen since 1968.

I know that VOICE has nearly universal support in the blogging world and among activists, but the truth is that it is definitely not happening this cycle and unlikely to happen in the future without a serious accounting of how Iowa campaigns are run, both by Democrats and Republicans.

Exhibit 1:  Mike Gronstal’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Exhibit 2:  Mary Lundby’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Both of these show six-figure donations and expenditures for Senators not even up for election in 2006.  They don’t represent even close to all the centralized money in Iowa politics, either.

The reason you see so much party-line activity in Iowa politics is because all the money is controlled by leadership.  If you cross them too much you can expect to have a very difficult time raising money in your next election, and everyone hates to raise money.  If you are a team player though your seat will be defended and you can focus more on shaking hands and kissing babies.

If Iowa implemented VOICE, leadership’s power would disappear.  Naturally, then, it is going to be very hard to convince Gronstal or Murphy to buy into something that will work to marginalize them.  And with Republicans temperamentally opposed to any sort of campaign finance reform, there is next to no chance of getting this passed without their support.

I don’t see VOICE being passed by 2008, nor necessarily should it be.  Ed Fallon isn’t our governor.  Elections have consequences.  But we should keep pushing it this year, and we should do our best to make it a voting issue in 2008.  With the Presidential races expected to combine to over a billion dollars, we’ve got the context for it.  With caucus coverage more expansive than ever, we’ve got the microphone.  And with luck and a little work, in 2008 we’ll have the votes.

I cannot believe that this poll by the University of Iowa made news.  I cannot even believe that the University of Iowa would let it be published under their name.

According to it, the biggest winner after the announcement of Elizabeth Edward’s cancer was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest loser was Barack Obama.

If you read all the way to the bottom of the press release, you find out the sample size of the poll for likely Democratic caucus-goers (and God only knows how they determined that status).  That size?  128.  They report a margin of error of 6% on that sample, though by my calculations it should be more like 8.7%.  Even under the generous assumption that this sample was divided exactly in half for pre- and post- announcement polling, that leaves the before and after numbers with a margin of about 12%.

You know what that means?  Nothing at all can be concluded from this poll.  Nothing.  You’d think a University would be able to figure that out, but maybe they don’t teach statistics 101 to Political Science Ph.Ds.

I think the Pew Research Center for People and the Press is one of the best resources out there for finding “non-partisan” survey data and polling.  The sample sizes are large, extensive, and peer reviewed.  According to their website:

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

They have a new report detailing “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007”.  My favorite part of the survey is below the fold…

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

So, I’m not sure how many folks have emailed or called their Representatives, but I know we’re being heard or read, just maybe not responded to.  After posting my original post both here and on Political Forecast as well as forwarding an email out to the Iowa Rapid Response email list, I know many other activists around Iowa have sought to contact Representatives in the Iowa House.  Jerry Depew of IowaVoters.org has been a leading voice on voting reform efforts in Iowa and has gotten the same standard response from Dave Jacoby that T.M. Lindsey received.  I emailed Reps. Jo Oldson, Dave Jacoby, Dwayne Alons, Pat Murphy, and Kevin McCarthy.  So far I haven’t received any responses.  DesMoinesDem called Jo Oldson and left a message, and as far I as I know has not heard back.

Meanwhile, I have a correction to report.  Dwayne Alons is not the Republican member of the subcommittee, but Rod Roberts is.  Here is his contact information:

• Rep. Rod Roberts (R)

  House District 51 — Carroll County

  Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us

Sorry about the original confusion.  Please make sure to contact Rep. Roberts and find out where he stands on VOICE, HF 805.

Even if folks aren’t responding to your calls and emails, keep following up and putting the pressure on them to support the bill.  There may be concerns about funding and implementation, but that doesn’t mean the bill should be killed: It means the democratic process should be implemented, there should be a subcommittee hearing on the bill that is open to the public and that they should consider the problems with the bill there and work to improve it, not just kill it and put it aside for next year.  Iowans shouldn’t have to wait for the necessary reforms to our campaign finance system.

One final update, the calendar for tomorrow in the House has not yet been released.  As soon as I know if the House Appropriations Subcommittee plans on meeting, I’ll let you know.  We’ve got to get calls and emails (and follow-ups) in ASAP.  Keep up the hard work.

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Today, we need action at the grassroots and netroots level to the bring Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections law out of subcommittee, to the full House Appropriations Committee, and then to the floor for debate in the Iowa House.  Ed Fallon (and his group I’m For Iowa) and former Governor Tom Vilsack both support HF 805 and right now the bill is in an appropriations subcommittee with instructions to kill the bill.

Members of that subcommittee include:

• Rep. Dave Jacoby (D)

  House District 30 — Johnson County

  David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Jo Oldson (D)

  House District 61 — Polk County

  Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Dwayne Alons (R)

  House District 4 — Sioux County

  Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us

Please email them or call the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221 to get a hold of them and ask them to support HF 805, the VOICE legislation.  The subcommittee is expected to meet either tomorrow or Wednesday — without large citizen support and efforts to communicate that support to them, they’ll kill the bill.  We cannot allow that to happen.  If the bill comes out of the subcommittee, it essentially becomes “funnel-proof” and must then be considered before the full House Appropriations Committee and would likely make it to the floor of the House for consideration.

When you contact your legislators, use this email from T.M. Lindsey as an example — and remember, be POLITE!  Also, include in your email if they plan on voting for the bill or against the bill, both in subcommittee and in further debate.  If they email you back, please post the response in the comments section and we can work to further inquire about the bill and where its going.  From these responses, we’ll start to put a list together of where each Representative stands and we can put the pressure on them.

It’s being held up in the house by around ten Democratic legislators who are all either firm no votes or on the fence.  A disproportionate number of them are women, suggesting that Speaker Pat Murphy’s strong-arm tactics might not work so well on legislators of the fairer sex.  Whatever the problem with getting these legislators on board, it almost goes without saying that they are wrong for holding out.  Almost.

If one were feeling charitable, one might say that they are merely confused.  If Fair Share is about people paying a fair share for the specific services provided them by the union, then why would there be any opposition to amendments designed to restrict the fee to the specific costs of representing individual workers?  Good question.

In truth, Fair Share is as much about employees paying their fair share as Right To Work is about people having the right to work.  The ability for unions to control who could or couldn’t work for any particular employer ended with the Taft-Hartley act, way back in 1947.  Now, even in the most union-friendly set up available to states, employees can be required to join a union after they are hired but cannot be fired merely because the union rejects them for one reason or another.  Everyone has a right to work to work in every state for every employer as far as unions are concerned, so there is no reason for Iowa to restrict unions further.

What this is really about is whether Iowa should be an open-shop state (no) or a union-shop state (yes).  Unions are a good thing, and unions should be stronger.  Union-shop states have much higher overall wages – $6000 more for the median household income.  While their economies may not be growing as quickly, they tend to already be strong.  Out of the twenty poorest states in the country, fourteen are open shop states.  That’s bad by itself, but even worse when you realize there are only twenty-two open shop states total.  Out of the top ten richest states, nine are union shop.  (This data brought to you today by the National Right To Work Foundation, the U.S. Census and Math.)

Most of this is academic though, since enough of the legislators holding out signed pledges that they would support Fair Share legislation if it came up.  Anyone who goes back on their word now – I’m looking at you Doris Kelley – deserves a vigorous (and I suspect well-funded) primary in 2008.

“Town Hall” in quotes in the title because, not unlike a Bush ’04 event, questions are being screened.  The theme of the town hall is “health care,” so it makes some sense to screen out the sensible priority spammers, but don’t look for any tough questions about her failed handling of the health care initiative during the first Clinton administration either.  If you watch it and feel like the questions are a little too softball, let Jennifer Wlach at ABC know what you thought.

Tom and Christy Vilsack are speaking right now at the DFA training in the Cedar Rapids. They are focusing on clean elections and grassroots organizing.

Dave Loebsack spoke over lunch at the DFA training in Cedar Rapids today.  Loebsack was very well recieved and thanked the group of activists that helped him get elected in the 2nd district.  Loebsack talked a lot about the Iraq War and the funding bill that was passed yesterday in the US House.

From Mark Schmidt at The American Prospect:

One that might be of interest to liberals thinking about whether to support Clinton is “Labor Relations.” In this section, Senator Clinton’s top advisor [Mark Penn]’s company says, “Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor’s coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating … That is why we have developed a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation.”

As I mentioned on my personal blog earlier today former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is expected to endorse former First Lady and current New York Senator Hillary Clinton in her bid for President at a Monday announcement here in Des Moines.  We can address my confusion about the situation over at Political Forecast, but in this post I want to focus on the substantive benefits of endorsements in the Iowa Caucuses.

David Yepsen has a front-page analysis on the endorsement on the Register’s website right now.  He argues that endorsements are part of the old politics in Iowa:

“In Iowa, endorsement politics is old politics. Nobody “delivers” anything anymore, particularly in high-profile races. Yet we media people make a big deal out of them, despite the fact Iowa just doesn’t have the sort of machine politics once seen in urban areas or ethnic neighborhoods. In those places, an endorsement from a key political leader or organization means something, because that leader can produce votes for the anointed candidate. Even in those places today, such influence is on the wane.”

To his credit, he does cite many examples like AFSCME’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 and Mike Blouin in 2006, Senator Tom Harkin’s endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004, and Vilsack’s endorsement of Dusky Terry in the Democratic Secretary of State primary as cases where high-profile endorsements don’t yield results.

In 2004, most statewide elected officials waited until late in the race to make endorsements.  According to the Democracy in Action 2004 page at GWU, most of the officials made their endorsements within the last two weeks in the lead up to the Caucuses.  Already in the 2008 race, Tom Miller and Michael Fitzgerald have endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy, while Sen. Harkin had endorsed Tom Vilsack.  Their page says this:

“Whether or not endorsements make any difference on Caucus Night is debatable, but they are important in the pre-primary period when developing campaigns strive to build credibility.  Campaigns go to considerable effort to round up endorsements.  The first targets are prominent party leaders including elected officials, former officials, erstwhile candidates, and party activists.  In addition, campaigns seek support of community activists and business and civic leaders; Democratic candidates also woo labor support.

The timing and format of endorsement announcements can be significant.  A mass endorsement, with elected officials lined up behind the candidate, can draw significant attention.  Alternatively, rolling out a steady stream of endorsements over a period of time can bolster the impression of a growing campaign.  Picking up a prominent supporter who had formerly been with another campaign is regarded as a coup, worthy of a press release or press conference. “

Admittedly, the debate all depends on the statistics and results one decides to pull out.

So far, Vilsack’s endorsement might only mean that he’s encouraging his former staffers to take jobs with the Clinton campaign.  To some degree, that’s already happening.  Vilsack’s Polk County Organizer, Amanda York, has already signed on to Clinton’s campaign and was at Wednesday’s Polk County Dems Off-Year Caucus.  His former Deputy Internet Director, Kevin Thurman, also now works for Clinton’s campaign.  But Vilsack’s encouragement also might not mean as much to former staffers.  Udai Rohatgi, another Internet staffer, now works for the Obama Campaign.  Teresa Vilmain, one of Vilsack’s seasoned presidential campaign experts, is likely to sign on with Clinton as well (if she hasn’t already).  So, we’ll see where the chips end up falling.

I’m of the opinion that endorsements by local leaders are more likely to make a difference early on in the race to give credibility to the candidate and to get organization going.  High-profile officials tend to be more beneficial later on in the race, when you’re trying to reach out to undecideds and use a popular, high-profile official to say, “Your respected leader has faith in me and my campaign, please support me in your precinct caucus.”  Then again, I’m not a seasoned caucus veteran.  So, tell me what you think in the comments below.

Voting field in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is doing his job?

Voting entry in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Murphy is doing his job?

Voting field in the extended entry.

Do you approve of the way Iowa Governor Chet Culver is doing his job?

UPDATE by Chris (12:05 PM): I just got done watching Sen. and Mrs. Edwards’ press conference.  She looks amazing and is going to be a fighter the rest of her life.  Treatment starts soon for the cancer that is in a rib bone on her right side.  Meanwhile, the campaign goes on and life goes on.  Truly, they are one courageous family.

– – – – – – – –

It looks like Sen. John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth might be headed for another health issue.  If you’ll remember, back in 2004 just a few days before the general election Elizabeth was diagnosed with breast cancer.  After a rigorous course of treatment and recovery, she was diagnosed as healthy.

However, something must be up, as Edwards has scheduled a press conference tomorrow with his wife at 11 AM CDT, according to Ben Smith at the Politico.  Yesterday he canceled a house party in event to be able to make it to an appointment Elizabeth had with her doctor this morning, according to a release issued by the campaign.

I met Elizabeth last year at a bloggers meeting and I also met the Senator himself and I can say they’re both courageous individuals and leaders.  I respect both of them and hope and pray for the best for Elizabeth and their family.

As Common Iowan noted on Monday, Rep. Tyler Olson of Cedar Rapids had introduced a bill creating what were called “Energy City Designations” for cities to create and implement innovative and efficient energy programs.  His bill, HF 773, passed the Iowa House today on a vote of 92-2.  The bill doesn’t directly create amounts or options for state grants for cities that receive this designation, however it calls on the DNR to create these regulations and implement the bill.

From the House, the bill was messaged to the Senate, were it was referred to the Natural Resources and Environment Committee, where Sen. Dennis Black is the chair.  He lists his occupation as conservationist — and he’s from Grinnell — which leads me to believe that he and his committee will work hard to make sure this bill passes the Senate and truly creates a program that works with the Iowa Power Fund and other legislative and executive projects to help Iowa achieve energy independence and become the renewable fuels capital of the world, while at the same time achieve efficiency in the way our cities and towns operate.

When we have days like today where former Vice President Al Gore testifies before a House Committee and has to confront Republican climate change skeptics, it clearly shows just how far we have to go in this country to make sure that global climate change is a problem and that we must work harder to become energy independent, efficient, and innovative.  At least Iowans can be proud that this bill passed in a bipartisan manner.

By a vote of 54-45 the Iowa House of Representatives approved of election day voter registration.  You can tell how desperate were the opponents of this bill by the fact that they raised this argument:

“Support the Troops!”

It’s just incredible.  One representative said that since soldiers died for the right to vote, we all could at least bother to register an arbitrary 10 days before the election. 

How much more charitable it would have been to reverse the argument, saying “Voting is a right worth dying for, so don’t try to keep people from the polls by throwing up needless roadblocks.”  Actually, Rep. Wessel-Kroeschell  did answer the troop argument by reminding opponents that young adults are most of the missing voters as well as most of the war casualties. 

A generation ago the US Supreme Court said registration deadlines could not be set except as a way to manage the workload of election officials.  Yet we never heard the case made that removing the deadline makes elections unmanageable.  Instead we heard attacks on the diligence, awareness, and honesty of voters.

Shameful.

Congratulations to those who advanced election law by voting for this bill.

On Friday, March 9th the first-ever Drake University-IowaPolitics.com Luncheon was held.  The Luncheons will be monthly features at Drake with leaders from both parties, possibly presidential candidates, and other political big-wigs talking about issues, strategies, and everything else.  The first luncheon featured Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan and Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chair Leon Mosley.  Chris Dorsey, Bureau Chief for IowaPolitics.com, acted as the moderator.  You can listen to an MP3 of the event here through IowaPolitics.com (be warned: it is very scratchy).

My initial opinions of the two leaders was that Brennan clearly came prepared and ready to talk about the issues as a seasoned political professional while Mosley was the down-home Republican who said what he meant, even if it was offensive or wasn’t politically correct.  Largely, it made me wonder how this man could possibly be chosen to represent a party as their chairman.  While his down-home style, seemingly like most ordinary Iowa Republican caucusgoers, might be appealing to some I think it was a big turnoff to those in the audience seeking a more enlightened and vigorous discussion about the issues, not just gut reactions.  He did frustrate a lot of people who asked questions and did get confrontational with some in the audience over Iraq.  But with such a divisive issue, that’s to be expected.

My friend Matt Clark has a write up of the event here for IowaPolitics.com (Matt’s got an internship with them and has been doing some great reporting) and I think it demonstrates Mosley’s approach to the discussion.  If that doesn’t clearly show it, the audio of the event will.  I’m not sure if any of you readers were there, but if you were, I’d like to hear your thoughts.  Or after you listen to some of the audio, feel free to leave your reactions as well.

After the event, the staff of IowaPolitics.com collected surveys filled out by those in attendance with questions relating to who they’d want to see at future events and asking for an overall rating of the event.  My suggestion for the next luncheon was to attempt to get the Caucus Directors for both the IDP and the RPI to come in and talk strategy a bit.  While this early most strategy would still be speculation, talking about what has worked in the past and what hasn’t could be mighty interesting to see.

I’ll openly admit this is me copying Markos’s work over at Daily Kos, but I think that if we started doing leadership polling in the Iowa blogosphere, we can start to determine just how responsive our Democratic leaders are to the concerns of the people at the grassroots and netroots level in Iowa.  While at the early stages these polls will likely not mean a lot (only 40 or so votes for each position isn’t scientific nor fairly representative) I think that the results could help us hone in on the leaders we feel are problematic or less than responsive.

In my eyes, doing polls on Governor Culver, Speaker of the House Pat Murphy, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, and IDP Chairman Scott Brennan would be the best way to look at and judge the leadership of the Iowa Democratic Party at the Executive and Legislative level.  Going beyond five different leadership polls begins to dilute the polling, in my opinion, and would be pushed off the front page too quickly.

What are your thoughts?  Depending on the comments, I’m likely going to put the polls up by the end of the week.  Oh, and to start off measuring support, make sure to take the poll in the extended entry.