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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IA-01

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

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

IA-02

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

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

IA-03

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

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

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

IA-04

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

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

IA-05

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, October 15:

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

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15TH, 2008

Cedar Falls

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

2512 Whitetail Dr.

Cedar Falls, Iowa

Cedar Rapids

8:00 PM

Irish Democrat

3207 1st Ave SE

Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Council Bluffs

8:00 PM

Barley’s  

114 W Broadway

Council Bluffs, Iowa

Des Moines

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

1408 Locust St.

Des Moines, Iowa

Dubuque

8:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

2600 Dodge St Ste B4

Dubuque, Iowa

Mason City Area

7:30 PM

The Home of Mike and Diane Glynn

1008 1st Ave S

Clear Lake, Iowa

Ottumwa

8:00 PM

Tom Tom Tap (in The Hotel Ottumwa)

101 E. Second

Ottumwa, Iowa

Quad Cities

6:30 PM

Home of Jim Mika & Vicki Felger

843 Stagecoach Trail

Le Claire, Iowa

Sioux City

7:00 PM

Debate Watch Party with supporters of Barack Obama and Rob Hubler

The Home of Terri O’Brien

3444 Jackson St.

Sioux City, Iowa

Waterloo

7:00 PM

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change office

1015 East 4th Street

Waterloo, Iowa

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

9:00 AM

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

1015 East 4th Street

Waterloo, Iowa

11:30 AM

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

Iowa Veterans Home

Malloy Leisure Resource Center

1301 Summit Street

Marshalltown, Iowa

1:15 PM

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

Iowa State University

Memorial Union – Sun Room

2229 Lincoln Way

Ames, Iowa

3:00 PM

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

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change Office

1408 Locust St.

Des Moines, Iowa

4:45 PM

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

Mickey’s Irish Pub and Grill

50 East Laurel Street

Waukee, Iowa

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

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

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

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

From the Fairness Fund PAC:

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

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

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

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

Thursday, October 16:

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

9 a.m. Sheldon

10 a.m. Sanborn

11 a.m. Hartley

1 p.m. Marcus

3 p.m.Aurelia

4:30 p.m. Cherokee

7 p.m. Cherokee Dems Office Open House

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

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

Friday, October 17:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said, bizarre.

Share your thoughts and interpretations in the comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

Survey USA released a new Iowa poll today showing Barack Obama leading John McCain by 54 percent to 41 percent. Obama leads by 9 points among men and by 17 points among women. He also leads 2-1 among the respondents who said they have already voted.

Looking at the Iowa page at pollster.com, you can see that Obama has been at or above 50 percent in ten out of the last 11 Iowa polls. He leads by more than ten points according to the pollster.com average.

Sounds like a great time for McCain to waste half a day in Davenport!

Everyone doing volunteer work needs to remind voters to fill out the whole ballot, not just the oval next to Obama’s name.

The second radio debate between Becky Greenwald and  Tom Latham just ended. Kudos to KGLO-AM in Mason City for running a much better debate than WHO 1040 in Des Moines did on Monday. The questions by both journalists in the studio and callers were clear, substantive and balanced. I listened to the livestream, but I hope the station will make the audio available on their website (http://www.kgloam.com).

My overall impression was that Greenwald did just what she needed to do in the two radio debates. As I see it, her most important tasks were:

1. Demonstrate that she understands the issues and is able to speak comfortably on a range of topics.

2. Hold Latham accountable for his lockstep Republican voting record and failure to get key problems solved during his 14 years in Congress.

3. Remind voters that the country is on the wrong track, and she will be there to support Barack Obama’s efforts to put it on the right track.

Greenwald succeeded on all of those fronts.

As for Latham, I see his most important objectives for the debates this way:

1. Avoid acting like a jerk or making a big gaffe.

2. Distance himself from the Republican Party and George Bush’s failed policies.

3. Remind voters of his accomplishments as a member of Congress.

Only the first point can be considered a complete success for Latham, in my opinion. He was respectful toward his opponent and did not make any howlers. His answers did plenty to accomplish the second and third tasks, but Greenwald was able to rebut many of his claims during her own responses.

All challengers have to prove that they are “ready for prime time,” and there is no question that Greenwald did so. I share Chase Martyn’s perspective on the first debate; Latham and Greenwald debated as equals.

Greenwald answered the questions fluidly and precisely. In particular, she was very strong on health care, Social Security, Iraq, energy, taxes, and deregulation. She called Latham on his past support for Republican efforts to privatize Social Security. He repeatedly denied supporting “privatization,” but Greenwald pointed out that there is creating personal accounts (which could get decimated in bear market) is tantamount to privatizing a system that currently provides guaranteed benefits. After the jump, you can read a statement the Greenwald campaign issued on Social Security shortly after the debate.

Greenwald did not stumble or become flustered when faced with a hostile question. (This was also apparent during the first debate.) When callers brought up immigration, she talked about the need to enforce the laws for employers and asked why Latham hadn’t done anything to solve this problem before it got to the point of raids in Marshalltown and Postville. In both debates she also mentioned that many people are surprised to learn Postville is in the fourth district, because Congressman Bruce Braley has been so much more active in seeking enforcement of safety, labor and immigration laws with respect to Agriprocessors. Despite Latham’s claim that Greenwald supports “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, she made clear that she is talking about a path to some kind of legal status for employment (not necessarily citizenship), which could involve fines or in some cases returning to the home country to wait in line.

Greenwald’s closing statement hit on her campaign’s most important themes: the country has been going in the wrong direction for eight years, she firmly believes Obama will be elected president, and she wants to be there to help him change our direction.

As in Monday’s debate, Latham used every opportunity to bring up the bailout bill he voted against twice. In fact, I feel he should send House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a thank-you note, because he was clinging to his votes against the bailout like a life raft. Again and again, Latham cited the bailout as proof that he doesn’t always vote with Bush and stands with the little guy against Wall Street corruption.

He also used the bailout answers to claim that he supports better regulation of Wall Street. He blamed Democrats Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for Congress’s failure to better regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is only a small part of the overall picture, though. For the last 15 years, Republicans in Washington have been pushing for less regulation of corporations and more corporate subsidies, and Latham has been right there with them.

Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate subsidies.

Here’s Latham’s voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power.

Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Latham must be very grateful to be able to talk about the bailout instead of his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers. Greenwald mentioned Latham’s longstanding support for deregulation, but those matters have received less media attention than this week’s stock market declines, which Latham pointed to as evidence that the bailout failed.

Greenwald brought up provisions in the revised bailout bill that benefit Iowans (those were the additions that brought Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Bruce Braley on board). Latham avoided talking about the details of those “sweeteners” but spoke generally about opposing the Washington-style mentality that if you take a bad bill and add $150 billion in spending to it, it becomes a good bill. That’s probably the best argument he can make for why he voted against a bill containing the wind energy tax credit and tax breaks for flood-damaged businesses.

From where I’m sitting, the bailout was the best card Latham had to play, and he made full use of it. If not for that issue, today’s debate would have been a blowout for Greenwald.

Regarding health care, Latham stated clearly today that he would not support John McCain’s proposal as currently drafted, because it doesn’t address issues such as Medicare reimbursements. Earlier in the week, Greenwald’s campaign, the Iowa Democratic Party, and Americans United for Change had been hammering him on his apparent support for McCain’s plan during Monday’s debate.

In today’s debate, Latham did not mention the problem of insurance companies excluding coverage for pre-existing conditions, which Greenwald mentioned prominently in her answer on health care.

Latham expressed pride in many of the bills he has co-sponsored relating to health care, but Greenwald brought up the big picture, which is that the problems in our health care sector have gotten worse, not better, during Latham’s 14 years in Congress. For 12 of those years, he was in the majority party. Why hasn’t he accomplished more?

As for partisanship, Latham mentioned several times today that the Democratic mayor of Boone is supporting him. Here he tapped into the goodwill that often comes to members who serve on the House Appropriations Committee. I don’t think I heard him embrace any of Obama’s proposals, though.

Latham didn’t return to an argument he made several times in Monday’s debate, which is that Iowa’s Democratic members of Congress have more partisan voting records than he does.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the problem with his lockstep Republican voting record is not that it’s “partisan.” The problem is, the Republican policies he has supported down the line (from the war in Iraq to almost any domestic issue you name) have failed. They have put our country on the wrong track. We need to move in a different direction, and Latham isn’t going to support the change we need.

It’s always hard for me to put myself in the mindset of an undecided voter as I listen to a debate. My impression was that Greenwald helped herself a lot, especially since the voters of the fourth district are very likely to support Obama by a significant margin over McCain.

I don’t think Latham did much today to hurt himself, but I wonder whether his bailout votes will be enough to convince fourth district residents that he has been more than a loyal supporter of the most unpopular president in history.

UPDATE: Greenwald’s statement on Social Security is after the jump.

If you vote in Iowa, you’ll find a constitutional amendment on the ballot:

THE QUESTION: Iowa voters will be asked to strike the words “idiot” and “insane person” from a section of the Iowa Constitution that refers to people who are banned from voting. The words would be replaced with the more socially acceptable term “mentally incompetent.”

THE ACTION: An amendment needs to be approved by simple majorities in the Iowa House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies. It then needs to be approved by a simple majority of voters in the next general election.

THE HISTORY: Voters in Iowa may remember hearing about this amendment before. It was supposed to be on the ballot in 2006. But the secretary of state’s office, then headed by now-Gov. Chet Culver, and the then-chief clerk in the House failed to publish a notice of the proposed changes as required.

Representative Pam Jochum, who is one of the best we’ve got in the Iowa legislature, has been trying to get this done for years.

Don’t leave that part of the ballot blank–vote yes.

I was surprised to read in the Des Moines Register that John McCain is coming back to Iowa for a rally in Davenport this Saturday. Event details:

Join John McCain and your Iowa Ticket

for a Road to Victory Rally

Saturday, October 11th

Doors Open at 8:30 am and Program Begins at 10:30 am

River Center, 136 E. 3rd Street

Davenport, IA 52801

The Register quoted McCain staffer Wendy Reimann as saying the candidate is committed to keeping Iowa red and has opened eight more offices here. Sure enough, McCain does have more “victory offices” in Iowa now than he did in August. The campaign site lists offices in Urbandale, Ames, Marshalltown, Waterloo, Marion, Coralville, Davenport, Indianola, Ottumwa, Newton, Mt. Pleasant, Dubuque, Clear Lake, Sioux Center, Sioux City and Council Bluffs.

If you live in one of these communities, I would like to hear a report on the level of activity by staffers or volunteers for McCain. Do you see people out knocking on doors for McCain? Do registered voters seem to be getting phone calls from McCain’s campaign? If you walk by the office, does it look like a lot is going on there? You can post a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Sean Quinn of fivethirtyeight.com took a road trip to compare the Obama and McCain field operations in various states, and he wasn’t impressed by the work being done in the McCain offices:

Let’s be clear. We’ve observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn’t like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.

Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we’ve now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I’ll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.

Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again. […]

You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.

Getting back to the point of this post, nine of the last ten polls in Iowa show Obama at or above 50 percent in Iowa, with a significant lead. I am shocked that McCain would waste half a day campaigning here instead of in a state he must win (such as Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio or Florida). It’s not as if Illinois, just across the river from Davenport, is a swing state either.

I put up a poll after the jump where you can predict the presidential election result in Iowa.

In August I posted some questions about the accuracy of opinion polls on the presidential race. I wondered whether any of the following factors might introduce distortions in the polling:

-the growing number of voters who use only cell phones;

-the practice of polling on weekends (when certain demographic groups are less likely to be at home);

-the varying estimates of the partisan and demographic breakdown of the electorate;

-the enormous disparity in the two campaigns’ ground games (which is even more obvious now than it was in the summer).

Most of the factors I mentioned would lead polls to understate support for Barack Obama. However, some political analysts have also questioned whether polls might be overstating Obama’s support because of the “Bradley effect” (or “Bradley-Wilder effect”), whereby white people tell pollsters they plan to vote for a black candidate but act differently in the voting booth. Here at Bleeding Heartland, American007 has expressed concern about this possibility.

We won’t know how accurate the polls were until November 5, and even then we won’t be able to prove how much of the difference was related to last-minute external events and how much was related to pollsters’ errors in weighting their samples, or respondents lying about their intentions.

However, here are some pieces worth your time if you enjoy this kind of speculation.

The “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal doubts there will be a “perfect storm” leading to wildly inaccurate polling, because

the potential polling foibles may work in opposite directions and “cancel each other out.” A return of the Bradley-Wilder effect would work to McCain’s benefit, while an underrepresentation of younger, African American or “cell-phone-only” voters will likely benefit Obama.

Embedded in that piece is a link to a research paper (pdf file) by Daniel J. Hopkins, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard who analyzed data from 133 gubernatorial and Senate elections from 1989 to 2006. He found a Bradley effect in the early 1990s but no evidence that it still existed in more recent elections. If you don’t want to download the whole file, Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium summarized Hopkins’ findings in this post on “The disappearing Bradley effect.”

Sam Wang looked at the evidence about cell phone users here and believes this factor is probably only understating Obama’s support by about 1 percent.

But Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com compared the McCain-Obama numbers in many polls and found that Obama does 2 to 3 percent better in surveys by pollsters that call cell phone numbers in addition to landlines.

Silver is not concerned about the Bradley effect after analyzing the primary results. Obama did better than his pre-election polling numbers in more states than he underperformed.

I wonder whether the kind of person who would lie to a pollster about being willing to vote for a black candidate is more likely to vote in a general election than in a Democratic primary. That said, I do find Hopkins’ analysis persuasive, so I have decided not to worry about the Bradley effect either.

I’m not a pollster or a statistician, but my hunch is that the greatest potential for pollster error is in the assumptions made about relative turnout by certain demographic groups. Should we assume the proportion of Democrats, blacks and young voters will be about the same as 2004, or should we assume higher turnout in those groups? Being wrong in one direction or another could significantly skew the results, especially in states with large black populations.

The Research 2000 tracking poll for Daily Kos is assuming a higher proportion of Democrats in the electorate than Gallup and Rasmussen, for instance. I assume Democrats will increase their share of the electorate because of the trends in voter registration over the past year as well as the enthusiasm gap. However, Jerome Armstrong is among the skeptics who think the partisan turnout will look very much like 2004.

I would question any poll that assumes African-American voters will make up the same proportion of the electorate this year as they did in 2004, especially in states where Obama has a massive voter turnout operation and John Kerry did not compete (such as North Carolina, Virginia and Missouri). Even in Georgia, where Obama has significantly reduced staff since the summer, we can expect to see much higher black turnout if voter registration trends and early voting are any indication.

I am less confident about a surge in young voter turnout, but if that did happen, pre-election polls weighted according to the 2004 figures would understate Obama’s support.

If Latino turnout is higher than in 2004, Obama will benefit because McCain does quite poorly among Latinos, far worse than George Bush did in 2004.

What do you think? Are you counting on polls to be mostly accurate this year, or significantly off the mark in one direction?

This summer Senator Tom Harkin held a “Building Blue” contest for Democrats running for the Iowa legislature. Representative Eric Palmer and Senator Tom Rielly received the most votes on Harkin’s website, and their campaigns each received $5,000 from Harkin’s campaign fund. Another four House and four Senate candidates each received $2,000.

Today I received an e-mail from Harkin announcing a new Building Blue contest for county Democratic parties:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

There are just a few short weeks before Iowans go to the polls and there’s still plenty of work to be done.

You may remember that several months ago, we conducted a Building Blue contest that raised thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates across the state of Iowa.  Now, we need to continue to build upon our grassroots infrastructure for this November’s election.

To help do so, we have launched a second Building Blue contest on tomharkin.com.  This time, my campaign will provide $9,000 to support the get out the vote efforts of County Democratic Parties throughout the state.

We’re calling it Building Blue II: Counting the Counties.

Please visit www.tomharkin.com and nominate your county to receive up to $3,000 for November’s campaign.

The nomination round is open to all of Iowa’s 99 counties.  It begins today and runs until October 15th, so please forward this email and tell your friends and family to vote for your county today.

The ten counties receiving the most votes will each receive $500 and move on to the second round.

In the second round, which will run from October 15th until October 22th, the counties with the second and third most votes will get another $500 and the winning county will be awarded a grand prize of $2,500 for their fall campaign.

Please support your county today by taking part in the Building Blue contest and helping us continue to build a solid foundation for November 4th.

Thank you for your support and good luck!

This is an open thread to discuss which counties most deserve a little extra funding to support Democratic turnout efforts.

Let’s think strategically.

Should we try to steer Harkin’s donations toward the most populous counties? Those counties have the largest potential number of voters to reach. Then again, maybe those counties already have substantial GOTV operations in the works. Certainly they all have field offices from Barack Obama’s campaign.

Should we nominate counties where neither Obama nor any Congressional candidate has a field office? Maybe those counties need more help.

Should we nominate counties in the fourth or fifth Congressional districts, where we’ve got a chance to unseat Republicans?

Should we nominate counties where the most competitive statehouse races will take place (such as Scott County and Mahaska County)?

In other Harkin-related news, I have heard but not yet independently confirmed that Harkin donated $250,000 from his campaign fund to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee at the end of September. (The next round of Federal Election Commission reports will come out on October 15.)

Good for him. More and more Senate races are becoming competitive, and the DSCC needs the resources to help our strong candidates in states like Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi.

During Monday’s radio debate between Representative Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald (podcast available here), Latham did his best to run away from the Republican label and the failed policies of George Bush’s administration. In fact, he was eager to remind listeners of the only time in recent memory that he didn’t vote for something Bush wanted (the bailout).

Latham didn’t go out of his way to link himself with John McCain either, which makes sense, since McCain is going to lose Iowa. When one caller asked him about McCain’s health care plan, Latham hedged before acknowledging that he supports the concept of that plan.

Greenwald wants him to explain his position:

 October 8, 2008                                                                                          

Greenwald Calls on Latham Says to Explain His Support of John McCain’s Radical Healthcare Plan

Over 217,000 Iowans Would Lose Coverage Under McCain’s Radical Plan

Waukee, IA – This week, on the WHO 1040 AM radio debate, Tom Latham was asked if he would support John McCain’s radical health care plan. After skirting the question, Tom Latham said “…the general concept of it I would be supportive of.” In a conference call today, Becky Greenwald called on Latham to explain his support for a plan that would cost over 217,000 Iowans their healthcare.

“Tom, how can you support a radical healthcare proposal that would cost over 217,000 Iowans to lose their health insurance?” asked Becky Greenwald. “This is a classic Washington bait and switch. Tom Latham and John McCain would give you a tax credit with one hand, but raises your taxes with the other to pay for it. With Iowans being squeezed from all sides, we literally can’t afford two more years of Tom Latham.”

John McCain’s plan will tax health care benefits and lead 20 million workers, 217,346 in Iowa alone, to lose the coverage they get from their employers. He only offers a $5,000 tax credit to families to buy health insurance, but according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average family health insurance premium is over $12,000. McCain also said that he supports deregulating healthcare, just as he and Tom Latham did with the financial markets that have led to our economic crisis.

McCain’s Plan to Give American’s More Cost and Less Coverage

Over 215,000 Iowans Would Lose Their Coverage Under McCain’s Health Plan. In September 2008, the Economic Policy Institute, in their analysis of John McCain’s health care plan reported that up to 217,346 Iowans could lose their health coverage under McCain’s health care plan. [Economic Policy Institute: McCain Plan Accelerates Loss In Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance A State-By-State Analysis, 9/26/08]

McCain’s Health Plan Could Result In Tax Increase For Some Americans. McCain’s campaign “acknowledged. . .that the health plan he outlined. . .would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans.” According to the New York Times, “the campaign cannot yet project how many taxpayers might see their taxes go up.” [New York Times, 5/1/2008]

McCain Wanted to Deregulate the Health Insurance Market.  In Contingencies, a publication by the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain said, “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”  [Contigencies, Sept./Oct. issue via New York Times, 9/19/08]

The Cost For Employer Based Family Health Coverage Is $12,680. The Kaiser Family Foundation stated, “Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $12,680 annually for family coverage this year.” [Kaiser Family Foundation release, 9/24/08]

McCain’s Plan May Increase Health Costs. “Critics of McCain’s plan say it would not make insurance cheaper or more available and might prevent people with pre-existing conditions from getting coverage.” Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger “feels the plan does little to address the high cost of health care.” In addition, “McCain and his advisers say that giving health-care consumers more options will lead to substantial cost reductions, though they have yet to provide any figures.” [Reuters, 4/29/2008; Business Week, 4/29/2008; Bloomberg, 4/29/2008]

McCain Plan Would Cause 20 Million People to Lose Employer-Based Health Insurance.  Health Affairs reported in September 2008 that, “Eliminating the tax exclusion would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers.  This decline would be driven by three factors: the effective price of employer-sponsored coverage would increase, the nondiscrimination rules would no longer apply, and low-risk employees would have less incentive to remain in employer-sponsored groups…the elimination of the income tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance would cause twenty million Americans to lose such coverage. [Health Affairs, 9/16/08]

I challenge any family to shop for a private health insurance plan that costs $5,000 a year. That is a joke. Even young, healthy individuals often can’t get insurance for that price. I know this firsthand, because my family pays for our own health insurance.

The point about McCain wanting to tax health benefits is also important. I’m glad to hear Greenwald echoing the message that Barack Obama’s campaign is conveying through television ads, door-to-door contacts and direct-mail pieces.

If this issue comes up in Friday’s radio debate, I would encourage Greenwald to mention one more problem with McCain’s plan.

If you have a pre-existing condition, you may not be able to purchase health insurance for any price. Elizabeth Edwards pointed out six months ago that McCain’s plan does nothing to solve this problem.

Speaking of which, in a conference call last week, Elizabeth Edwards made the connection between our inadequate health care system and our economic problems:

she said that problems with payments of medical bills often lead to home foreclosures, a major factor in the current economic downturn. Elizabeth Edwards also said that residents without health insurance often are less productive because they miss work as a result of a lack of access to preventive care or early treatment for illnesses. She said, “Reform of our health care system is a very important part of the answers we’re going to need to solve our economic woes.”

Democratic candidates for office at all levels need to keep connecting those dots. Obama answered the health care question well in last night’s debate with McCain.

I will have more thoughts on the Latham/Greenwald debate once I’ve had a chance to listen to the 80-minute tape again.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign provided further event details for the RV tour, which you can find after the jump.

As I wrote over the summer, Barack Obama’s small-town outreach is crushing John McCain’s.

The latest example is an RV tour, starting today, which will promote early voting:

Des Moines, Iowa – On Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change will launch the “Vote Now for Change” RV tour.  From October 8th through October 10th, the “Vote Now for Change” RV – which will be decorated with a “Vote Early for Change” banner and other signs — will travel to communities across Iowa carrying literature to make sure Iowans know how they can vote and to engage Iowans in the democratic process.  At each stop, the campaign will discuss the importance of voting now for change. The Obama campaign is committed to opening up the political process to people who may have never taken part before and engaging as many Iowans as possible in our movement for change.

Early voting in Iowa has begun and the Obama campaign has set up a voter information hotline, 877 – IA08VOTE, for Iowans to call to get information on how they can vote. Iowans can also visit iowa.barackobama.com for more information.

“Voting in Iowa has begun and Iowans across the state have the opportunity to cast their vote for Barack Obama and help turn the page on the failed policies of the past eight years,” said Obama Iowa State Director Jackie Norris.  “Our country desperately needs change, which is why it is so important for Iowans to vote early, get their votes in the bank and then volunteer on Election Day to help us turn Iowa blue.  Iowans helped launch Senator Obama’s candidacy and now Iowans have the opportunity to once again help carry Senator Obama to victory, so we can finally have a President who will look out for middle class families instead of big corporations.”

The details of the “Vote Now for Change” RV Tour are below.  Additional details will follow in the coming days.

I’ve put those details after the jump. You can see that the RV is stopping in lots of Iowa cities and towns, including several college towns.

As you encourage your friends to vote early, don’t forget to tell them to fill out the whole ballot and not just check the box next to Obama’s name. Iowans also have the option of voting straight ticket, which automatically records your vote for all the Democrats running for office.

If you need talking points to help convince people to vote early, click here.

I’ll probably have to catch most of tonight’s big event on the replay later. I’ll update this post when I have a chance.

Use this thread to tell us what you thought about how Obama and McCain did in the debate, or to share any opinions about how the presidential campaign is going.

UPDATE: noneed4thneed is liveblogging the debate on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/commoniowan

SECOND UPDATE: I saw only a few minutes of the debate live, and I’ll have more to say after I watch the rerun.

The snap polls are giving it to Obama:

Update [2008-10-7 23:7:30 by Todd Beeton]:CNN’s snap poll: Obama won 54%-30%. Also, Obama’s favorables went up a net of 8%, McCain’s were UNCHANGED. Wow.

Update [2008-10-7 23:13:28 by Todd Beeton]:From Jonathan in the earlier thread: More actual results… CBS polling of undecided voters gave Obama the win by a 39 percent to 27 percent margin, with another 35 percent rating the debate a tie. Another wasted opportunity for the McCain campaign.

GQR focus group of undecideds split 42 percent for Obama at the end versus 24 percent for McCain.

More details on that CBS poll:

Forty percent of the 516 uncommitted voters surveyed identified Barack Obama as tonight’s winner; 26 percent said John McCain won, while 35 percent saw the debate as a draw.

After the debate, 68 percent of uncommitted voters said that they think Obama will make the right decisions on the economy, compared to 55 percent who said that before the debate. Fewer thought McCain would do so – 48 percent after the debate, and 41 percent before.

Before the debate, 59 percent thought Obama understands voters’ needs and problems; that rose to 80 percent after the debate. For McCain, 33 percent felt he understands voters’ needs before the debate, and 44 percent thought so afterwards.

There is some good news for McCain, who still dominates Obama when it comes to perceptions of readiness to be president. Before the debate, 42 percent thought Obama was prepared for the job, and that percentage rose to 58 percent after the debate. But 77 percent felt McCain was prepared for the job before the debate, and 83 percent thought so afterwards.

FINAL UPDATE: The debate was not that interesting. The format was bad, the selection of questions was mediocre, and Brokaw was a lousy moderator. Jim Lehrer did a much better job of facilitating exchanges between the candidates.

Having watched the whole thing, I can see why the snap polls favored Obama. It’s not that McCain made any big mistake (though referring to Obama as “that one” was not classy), it’s just that his answers were often meandering and less on point than Obama’s.

The debates were not Obama’s best department during the primaries, but he was solid tonight. He briefly summarized his policy proposals well. He seems very comfortable and not easily rattled. He had to go first in answering that somewhat odd final question (What don’t you know and how will you learn it?), and he managed to come up with a decent joke and a segue into comfortable turf for him.

Obama also had some effective responses to McCain, like saying there are some things he doesn’t understand about Iraq, such as why we invaded a country that didn’t attack us when we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan.

Many of McCain’s claims about Obama during the debate (Obama voted to raise taxes 94 times, Obama got a $3 million earmark for an overhead projector) were false, according to the CBS Fact Check.

I didn’t hear anything from McCain that seemed likely to do harm to Obama, who has been leading all the latest national polls and many of the key swing state polls. He currently wins according to nearly 90 percent of the 10,000 vote projections at fivethirtyeight.com.

Tonight Barack Obama and John McCain will debate for the second time. If you were frustrated over the summer that Obama always seemed to be in reaction mode against Republican smears, you’ve got to be happy about the way the campaign is going now.

McCain isn’t leading Obama in a single state that went for John Kerry in 2004, and he has trailed in multiple polls in Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio. Obama is making it close in Missouri and Indiana as well. McCain and the Republican National Committee are working frantically to build up field operations in states where Obama’s staff and volunteers have worked for months. For instance, as McCain moves staff into Virginia, Obama has approximately 40 field offices open there.

Also in the swing states, the Obama campaign is sending out direct-mail pieces that attack McCain’s health care plan. That dovetails with television commercials and volunteer canvasses that focus voters’ attention on the health care issue.

On Monday, Obama’s campaign opened a new front of a attack by releasing a short documentary about “Keating Economics,” which recounts McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal of the 1980s. You can watch it here or at www.keatingeconomics.com:

I am old enough to remember the Keating Five scandal. It was a big deal.

The mainstream media have been strangely quiet about that part of McCain’s biography, given the banking sector’s current problems.

Will the Keating Five come up in tonight’s debate? I have no idea. McCain and Sarah Palin have been trying to change the subject, taking Obama’s words out of context and falsely accusing him of “palling around with terrorists.”

Trivia question: without using google or wikipedia, can anyone tell me who the judge was in the Keating Five trial? (CORRECTION: I meant to write “the trial of Charles Keating.” The Keating Five senators were never tried.)

I will give the answer tomorrow.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall posted an amusing note from a reader regarding the mainstream media’s handling of the Keating Five:

I saw this on CNN early this morning. John Roberts was talking about the smear campaign, trying to do the equivalency dance, and actually said (I’m paraphrasing) “Obama is trying to tie McCain to the Keating Five”. Now, maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t that like saying John Lennon was “tied” to the Beatles? He was a Beatle! John McCain WAS one of the Keating Five.

I’m seeing other reporters do this too.

Becky Greenwald and Tom Latham just debated on WHO radio. Chase Martyn liveblogged the event at Iowa Independent.

I will have more to say on this tomorrow after I listen to the tape again, but here are my initial thoughts.

There were no major gaffes, and both candidates presented their cases well. Greenwald did a great job of staying on topic and bringing up the relevant facts on a range of subjects.

She repeatedly mentioned his loyal Republican voting record, including his many votes to continue the war in Iraq, and promised that she would get to work for constituents right away.

So, when Latham brought up the bill he co-sponsored to deal with the nursing shortage in Iowa (more on that here), Greenwald said it’s a good bill and she hopes it will get out of committee. But she added that Iowa has had a nursing shortage for some time, and if she’s elected she won’t wait 13 years to try to deal with this problem.

Latham kept going back to his vote against the bailout in order to depict Greenwald as someone who would have given George Bush $700 billion to spend with no accountability. But will the voters let Latham evade responsibility for his long history of voting for Bush’s economic policies and deregulation of the banking sector?

WHO’s selection of call-in questions was outrageous. I will try to count later, but the overwhelming majority of questioners were antagonistic toward Greenwald. Some of them ranted without any apparent question.

WHO also made sure Latham got the last word during both the opening and closing statements.

I don’t know why I am surprised, since WHO has a nearly all-conservative lineup of talk radio shows, but I expected at least an attempt on their part to look balanced.

If they didn’t want to have journalists ask questions during the debate, they should have asked listeners to submit written questions beforehand, so they could have selected more concise and coherent questions, with more of a political balance. I give Greenwald a lot of credit for not getting thrown off her game by some of the callers who were so hostile.

The station will put up the podcast of this debate on their website sometime tomorrow.

The bad news is, it won’t stick to my car.

Is there a trick to this? I did clean off the area where I was trying to place the car magnet. Your suggestions are welcome.

What magnets and bumper stickers are on your car?

My Edwards ’08 sticker came down last month, but I do still have Fallon for Congress up, along with “Buy Local, Organic and Fair Trade.”

UPDATE: The American Civil Liberties Union just sent us one of their “I’m a Constitution Voter” bumper stickers. Mr. desmoinesdem plans to put that one on his car, which has been sticker-less since he took off the Denise O’Brien for Secretary of Agriculture sticker sometime last year.

I haven’t written much about the race in Iowa’s second Congressional district, not because I have anything against Dave Loebsack. I simply don’t consider this race competitive.

IA-02 has a partisan voting index of D+7, meaning that the presidential vote in the last two elections in the district was seven points more Democratic than the national average. That was before Democrats made massive gains in voter registration in Iowa. In 2004 registered Republicans slightly outnumbered Democrats in this state. Now there are about 100,000 more registered Democrats.

Furthermore, Barack Obama is going to win handily in this district and in its population centers (Johnson County and Linn County). John McCain has reportedly shut down his field office in Iowa City.

As if that weren’t enough, Loebsack’s main opponent, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, faced a tough three-way Republican primary that depleted her cash on hand. As of June 30, she had $16,458 in her campaign account, while Loebsack had nearly $470,000 on hand. (The latest round of Federal Election Commission financial reports cover the period through September 30 and are not yet publicly available.)

What has Loebsack been doing with all that campaign cash? I saw on his website that he is running this television commercial:

It’s a fairly standard positive message about what he stands for, without much detail about what he has accomplished. Bleeding Heartland readers in the second district, are you seeing this ad a lot? Have you seen other Loebsack spots on tv? Is he up on the radio? Does he have lots of yard signs out?

Note: Although Loebsack didn’t get help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, I’d like to see him donate at least 10 percent of his cash on hand to the DCCC this fall so that they can get behind more strong challengers.

On the Miller-Meeks campaign website there are several videos on the front page. Two look like positive television spots about the Republican candidate’s background, and one sounds like a 60-second radio ad slamming Loebsack for “not getting the job done.” I’d appreciate comments or private e-mails from second district residents about how visible the Miller-Meeks campaign is in the media.

The great blog about campaigns and elections, Swing State Project, does a weekly roundup of independent expenditures in Congressional races. I noticed in the latest edition that OPHTHPAC, the Political Action Committee of the American Academcy of Ophthalmology, is spending $12,500 on behalf of Miller-Meeks. Has anyone seen or heard these ads, or any other ads by independent groups supporting Miller-Meeks?

Looking at the page on OPHTHPAC at campaignmoney.com, this PAC seems to donate to a large number of incumbents in both parties. I assume they are supporting Miller-Meeks because she is an eye doctor, but I am curious about whether they are promoting her or making a case against Loebsack (and if so what case they are making). They’ve given to dozens of Democratic incumbents this election cycle.

This is an open thread for any comments or observations about the race in IA-02.

If you can pick up WHO radio on 1040 AM, tune in tonight (October 6) from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm to hear Representative Tom Latham debate Democratic challenger Becky Greenwald.

I will be curious to see how much the discussion focuses on local versus national issues.

Earlier this year, the National Republican Congressional Committee advised Republican incumbents in the U.S. House to make their campaigns about local issues and personal qualities. Latham’s first radio advertisement was about national energy policy, but his two television commercials have had more of a local focus on Iowa’s nursing shortage and Iowa’s small businesses. (I will have more to say on the latest ad in the next couple of days.)

It is looking more and more like a big Democratic year, so it’s in Greenwald’s interest to show how Latham has consistently backed the failed policies of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress. Latham avoids mentioning his own political party in his advertising and on his website.

I’ll also be listening to see how well the moderator keeps Latham and Greenwald on topic. Jim Lehrer mostly did a good job moderating the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, but Gwen Ifill was a disaster during the vice-presidential debate last Thursday.

Ifill went on Meet the Press this morning and complained about Sarah Palin blowing her off, but what did she expect? She showed poor judgment by agreeing to moderate this debate without revealing that she was writing a book about Obama (to be released on Inauguration Day in January). Naturally, Republicans spent much of the last week warning that Ifill would be biased against Palin, since her book sales are likely to be better if Obama wins the election.

As a result, Ifill had to bend over backwards NOT to appear to be picking on Palin. And that played right into Palin’s strategy of ignoring the questions and reciting her prepared talking points.

Ifill should never have been in that chair on Thursday, because she was not able to do her job properly.

I sincerely hope that WHO Radio forces Latham and Greenwald to answer the questions asked, following up if and when the candidates are evasive.

Here’s the rest of Greenwald’s public schedule for Monday:

Fort Dodge Rotary Club

12 PM – 1 PM

Starlight Village Hotel

Highway 169 and Highway 7

Fort Dodge, Iowa

Mac’s World Interview

3 PM

98.3 WOW-FM

WHO Radio Debate with Tom Latham

7 PM – 8 PM

WHO 1040 AM

Barack Obama’s campaign is already running television ads that make the case against John McCain on health care.

Today they will send volunteers out knocking on doors in ten Iowa cities to “talk about the differences between the Obama plan to make health care affordable and the McCain plan to tax employees’ health benefits.”

SUNDAY: Obama Iowa Campaign for Change to Hold “Health Care Canvasses” Across Iowa

Des Moines, Iowa – On Sunday, October 5th, 2008, the Obama Iowa Campaign for Change will hold “health care canvasses” across the state to talk directly to Iowans about the choice they face this election when it comes to health care.  Senator Obama has outlined a detailed plan to stand up to the big drug and insurance companies and make quality, affordable health care available to every American. His plan lowers premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year and reduces costs for business and their workers.

In contrast, Senator McCain’s plan will tax the health benefits that workers receive from their employers for the first time in history.  His plan will make it more likely that your employer drops your health care plan because of rising costs. Independent analyses show that employers will drop at least 20 million people from coverage and force them to seek insurance in the individual market, where costs are higher, quality is lower, and coverage more uncertain.

“Affordable health care is one of the most important issues facing Iowa working families,” said Jackie Norris, Iowa State Director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.  “There is an enormous difference between the two candidates when it comes to health care.  Senator Obama has a detailed plan to cover every American and lower costs for families by $2,500.  This is in stark contrast to Senator McCain’s radical plan, which will do nothing to reduce the number of uninsured and will tax health care benefits for the first time in history. Iowans can’t afford four more years of health care policies that leave families at the mercy of insurance companies.”

The details of the canvasses are after the jump.

I think it’s smart for the Obama campaign to be pushing this point about McCain wanting to tax health care benefits, but don’t imagine that this is the only thing wrong with McCain’s health care plan.

Elizabeth Edwards made a strong case against other aspects of McCain’s plan this spring (see also this article about her speech to the annual meeting of the Association of Health Care Journalists). One of the biggest problems with McCain’s plan is that insurers could continue to exclude people with pre-existing conditions, including cancer survivors like McCain and Elizabeth Edwards.

Whether or not you canvass today, you may want to bring up these points as well as the tax issue if you talk with undecided voters about the difference between Obama and McCain on health care reform.

UPDATE: We were out today, but the Obama volunteers in Windsor Heights left a “vote early for change” door-hanger at our house. Thanks, I will!

I am sorry to be missing the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner tonight. My family had to be somewhere else. I’m sure Al Gore will be great. I was fortunate to see him keynote the 1994 JJ dinner here.

Whether or not you are going to tonight’s big event, I encourage you to call your county Democrats and volunteer to help on election day, if you can take time off work. Here is an e-mail I got from the Polk County Democrats a few days ago:

Be a part of history and help this election day as we “Get Out The Vote” on election day!

If you are not already signed up to do something this election day, do it now.  Share in the excitement and know you were a part of making history happen not just in Iowa, but for the country!

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4th and there is still alot to do from now right through that day.  We need pollwatchers, phoners and people to give rides to the polls.

POLLWATCHERS

We are currently filling shifts for pollwatchers in all 183 Polk County precinct.  A pollwatcher sits at the polls and keeps track of who votes and alerts headquarters of any voting problems if they occur at that precinct.  We provide a method to keep track of who has voted.  As people vote the poll worker hands the pollwatcher a slip with info for that voter to the Democrat pollwatcher if the voter is a Democrat and vice versa if they are Republican to your Republican counterpart.  You then cross reference that with the information you have and give the slips back to the poll workers.  At the end of the day we have a record of who has not yet voted.  That information is then delivered by the last person at the poll to the assigned phone bank location so they can call through and get people out to vote.

Shifts are 7am to 9:30am, 9:30am to 12:30pm, 12:30pm to 3pm, and 3pm to 6pm.

ELECTION NIGHT PHONER

We need people who can volunteer as phoners on election night specifically for 6:30p – 9:00p.  You will be assigned to one of the many regional offices that will be operating around Polk County that night.  When the pollwatchers drop off the information on who has not voted, your job is to call through and find out if they forgot, need a ride or what we need to do to help them get out to vote if possible.

RIDES TO POLLS

People based out of different regional offices to give rides to people in those areas as necessary throughout the day and evening when the polls are open.

If you have not already been contacted and will be available to help on election day – reply to this email or call us!

Thank you!

Tamyra Harrison, Executive Director

Polk County Democrats

515-285-1800

polkdems@gmail.com

This is an open thread for talking about any kind of volunteering you’ve been doing or plan to do for this election.

The snap polls suggested Joe Biden won last night’s debate with Sarah Palin (which hasn’t stopped conservative swooning over the winking governor).

In less than 24 hours, the Obama campaign had a television commercial ready that featured one of my favorite moments from the debate:

A simple explanation and great one-liner from Biden on an important issue.

Meanwhile, John McCain’s campaign today contradicted Palin’s statement on bankruptcy law changes–among very few comments she made about bankruptcy before changing the subject to her record on energy policy.

Your Palin comedy of the day is adennak’s Sarah Palin debate flow chart.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign released a second ad on the same theme today.

No doubt many of you plan to attend the Jefferson-Jackson dinner this Saturday. Most elected Democrats from Iowa will be there, and if you happen to speak with any who are in uncompetitive races, I hope you will ask them to donate a portion of their campaign funds to be used in competitive districts.

Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are all running in Democratic-leaning districts in a year when Democratic voter registration has surged in Iowa, and Obama leads John McCain.

Tom Harkin will certainly defeat Christopher Reed by double digits and could conceivably win by 20 points.

If you meet any member of our Congressional delegation, please ask him to donate 10 percent of his campaign fund to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

If Iowa’s representatives in Congress give more to the DCCC, there is a better chance of the DCCC getting involved on behalf of Becky Greenwald and Rob Hubler.

Outside Iowa, more and more seats are in play as well. For instance, Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate are within striking range in states like Kentucky and Georgia (see the Swing State Project blog to keep up to date with all the latest polls).

If every safe Democratic incumbent gave just 10 percent of his or her cash on hand to the DCCC or the DSCC, millions more dollars could be put to work electing Democrats in tossup or lean-Republican races.

Just 10 percent–that’s all we ask. Please pass along this message to Braley, Loebsack, Boswell and Harkin.

For more information on the Use It or Lose It campaign, read this piece by Lucas O’Connor and this piece by Sven at Silver State.

Speaking of Use It or Lose It, here’s an excerpt from an e-mail Senator John Kerry sent out on Tuesday:

We need the strongest Democratic majority possible to get the change we need in Washington. We need to make sure a handful of Republican Senators can’t block President Obama as he tries to get our country back on track.

It’s time to push even harder to completely change Washington. We need to aim to get 60 votes in the Senate to push real change in our country.

So I have an announcement: I just gave a million dollars from my campaign to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to try to make this happen. I’m making this announcement to you here in the johnkerry.com community first because I want you to join me in my commitment to get this change.

I don’t know whether I’ll be online later this evening, but use this thread to discuss tonight’s big debate.

It seems that expectations for Sarah Palin couldn’t possibly be lower. How do you think Joe Biden should handle this? I think he needs to ignore any gaffes she makes. Let the media handle that. Biden should focus on promoting Obama’s policies and attacking John McCain.

Note to conspiracy theorists: this diary by ipsos suggests it would not be easy for Palin to get away with wearing an earpiece during tonight’s debate.

I still believe George Bush was wired during his first debate with John Kerry in 2004.

UPDATE: For entertainment value, it’s hard to beat TPM’S Ultimate Sarah Palin Video Guide.

POST-DEBATE THOUGHTS; Palin was smart to look right into the camera almost the whole time she was speaking. There weren’t any deer in the headlights moments, but on several occasions she transparently sidestepped the question and plugged into some programmed response full of buzzwords. I have no idea how it’s going to play with relatively uninformed voters, but I would hope that they could see past her repetition of certain phrases. I also couldn’t believe she kept winking at the camera!

Biden didn’t make any mistakes as far as I could see, other than looking too much at Gwen Ifill and not enough at the camera. However, he did look at the camera more during the second half of the debate, which was good.

On several answers he was devastating, pointing out the contrasts between Obama and McCain. I liked that he kept bringing the focus back to economic issues. I liked how he repeated that McCain was wrong about the war in Iraq being easy. I loved how he repeated that we spend more every three weeks on combat operations in Iraq than we have in six and a half years in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden has been. It was great the way he put the lie to McCain’s “maverick” image, showing that he hasn’t been a maverick on any of the issues important to Americans, like health care and education.

Although Biden’s not flashy, I felt he turned in a very solid performance tonight. I would be surprised if the snap polls show Palin winning. I know I’m not her target audience, but I felt she looked and sounded programmed. It seems like the people already supporting McCain would love her, but I’m not sure how she played with undecided voters and independents.

What was your favorite Biden moment? I loved when he talked about McCain’s flawed health care plan being “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.”

The election is only a month away. Every weekend Democratic candidates need help knocking on doors, delivering yard signs, making phone calls, and more.

Find a good candidate for Congress, state legislature or a local office in your area and offer to help this weekend.

You don’t have to have any experience, and you don’t have to volunteer for a specific job. Just ask what kind of help they need.

I listed more events coming up this weekend in this post.

Rob Hubler met with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board yesterday, and I recommend this article about him and the fifth district race.

Here’s one of my favorite passages:

Hubler, who said he has gone without health insurance for three years, also supports a national health insurance program as well as setting a timetable to withdrawal troops from Iraq.

Hubler is an advocate of renewable energy, specifically ethanol, wind and nuclear production. He accused King of not adequately embracing alternative fuel expansion.

“We have a congressman who continually cuts ribbons for ethanol plants and yet has voted against every attempt to raise the amount of ethanol produced in Iowa,” Hubler said.

Speaking to the Register’s editors, Hubler explained why he can beat Steve King. I agree with all the points he made and had more  to say on that subject here.

Remember, Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan index of R+8. Two dozen Democrats in Congress represent districts that are at least R+5. Nancy Boyda beat a Republican incumbent in Kansas’ second district (like IA-05 mostly white and rural) in 2006, and her district has a partisan index of R+7.

By now we’ve had a month to be scared by Sarah Palin’s ignorance and unpreparedness for the vice presidency. For instance, did you know that this person who could be appointing Supreme Court judges as early as next year is unable to name a single Supreme Court ruling other than Roe v Wade?

Fortunately, Palin provides some comic relief from time to time. I’m not talking about Tina Fey’s impressions on Saturday Night Live, I’m talking about the unintentional comedy that emerges when Palin goes off script.

Here’s Palin answering Katie Couric’s question about which newspapers or magazines she has read regularly in the past (hat tip to Hilzoy at the Political Animal blog):

Comedy gold. The Saturday Night Live writing team couldn’t top that.

Steve Benen, who also blogs at Political Animal, highlighted this gem. Apparently Palin got a big laugh from a Republican crowd in Ohio by saying that she’s been hearing about Joe Biden’s speeches since she was in the second grade. After the event, this exchange between Couric and Palin took place:

   Couric: You made a funny comment, you’ve said you have been listening to Joe Biden’s speeches since you were in second grade.

   Palin: It’s been since like ’72, yah.

   Couric: You have a 72-year-old running mate, is that kind of a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden’s been around awhile?

   Palin: Oh no, it’s nothing negative at all. He’s got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we’ve been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he’s got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I’m the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he’s got the experience based on many many years in the Senate and voters are gonna have a choice there of what it is that they want in these next four years.

Benen points out the obvious:

New energy and new ideas vs. many years in the Senate. Voters, Palin said, are going to have to choose between the two.

She is aware of the dynamic surrounding the two presidential candidates, isn’t she?

I always thought Palin was a poor choice of running mate for McCain, but she is turning out to be even worse than I expected.

By the way, Democracy for America is organizing debate-watching parties for the Palin-Biden matchup tomorrow night. Click here to find one in your area.

You would think that John McCain would realize Iowa is a lost cause for him. George Bush won the state by about 10,000 votes (out of 1.5 million cast) in 2004, when registered Republicans slightly outnumbered Democrats. Now Iowa has 100,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Moreover, five separate polls in the past month have shown Barack Obama above the 50 percent mark in Iowa and leading McCain by at least 10 points. Only the Big Ten Battleground poll showed this state tied.

I figured that the recent McCain/Palin rally in Cedar Rapids was the last Iowans would see of the Republican ticket this year.

However, McCain is still running television ads in Iowa, and to my surprise, McCain visited Des Moines yesterday. Several Republicans quoted in this story by the Associated Press insist that the race is still close enough for McCain to win Iowa. I have my doubts, but if he wants to waste time and money here, that’s fine by me.

While McCain was in Des Moines, he met with the Register’s editorial board. Click here to watch video from that interview.

The same day, Governor Chet Culver held a press conference in Des Moines to chastise McCain for opposing ethanol subsidies. A press release from Barack Obama’s campaign is after the jump.

I believe that McCain’s opposition to ethanol subsidies is the main reason he underperforms in rural Iowa (along with the fact that he skipped the caucuses in 2000 and 2008).

I would still like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers regarding McCain’s field offices in Iowa. Are they still up and running in your area? Do they seem empty or focused on other Republican candidates? The McCain office in Iowa City was reportedly abandoned not long ago. Please post a comment in this thread, or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

Another strong and presidential-looking commercial from Barack Obama:

Although I worry again about whether people will sit through a two-minute ad, I think he is in good form here. The message is clear and to the point. The Republicans are hitting Obama with tax-and-spend ads all over the place, so I think it’s helpful for him to explain what’s in his economic plan and that he won’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

Also, the relatively intimate setting of Obama speaking directly to the camera is a good antidote to the Republican spin about him being a hyped-up celebrity. Don’t know where this is running.

I also love this new anti-McCain ad called “Parachute,” which Obama is running on national cable networks:

We almost never watch television. Is anyone still seeing Obama or McCain ads in Iowa (I mean other than on national cable news networks)?  

Every dollar you give to good Democrats today is worth a lot more than money you might give them in October. They need to show strong fundraising to get outside groups to help during the final weeks of the campaign.

So no excuses. Write a check dated September 30 and put it in the mail today, or go online to donate by credit card.

In the comments, let us know which candidates you’ve given to this quarter and why.

I’ve donated to the Obama-Biden campaign (still waiting for my car magnet!), Rob Hubler, Becky Greenwald, and several statehouse candidates via noneed4thneed’s ActBlue page called Iowa Blogs Expanding the Majority (Jerry Sullivan, Elesha Gayman, Tim Hoy, Eric Palmer).

I wrote this piece primarily for readers outside Iowa, but since Bleeding Heartland has some of those too, I’m posting it here as well as at several national blogs.

Growing up liberal during the Reagan years taught me to go into elections expecting to be disappointed. Watching high-ranking Democrats in Congress fail to challenge the premise behind the dreadful and unnecessary proposed bailout of Wall Street, I share thereisnospoon’s concern that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

But looking at the polling trends in the presidential race and in key Senate races, even a pessimist like me has to admit that a big Democratic wave seems quite possible.

Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including a few districts where the Republican incumbent never saw it coming.

Waves can drag down well-funded incumbents with tremendous clout. Democratic losers in 1994 included House Speaker Tom Foley and my own 18-term Congressman Neal Smith.

This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4.

I’ll get the ball rolling by telling you about Iowa’s two House districts currently held by Republicans.

In the fourth district (D+0), Becky Greenwald faces Tom Latham, who has remarkably little to show for his seven terms in Congress. I went over many reasons I think Greenwald can win this race here.

Latham understands that it will be a big Democratic year in Iowa, judging from his first television commercial (which glosses over his lockstep Republican voting record). David Kowalski noticed that Latham’s campaign website avoids mentioning that he is a Republican (see, for instance, this bio page). Aside from the odd newspaper clipping on his site that refers to him as R-Iowa, you would never be able to tell which party he belongs to.

IA-04 shows up as “likely Republican” on House rankings, in part because Latham sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because he has been re-elected by double-digit margins in the past. However, 2002 was the only time Latham faced a well-funded challenger, and that was a bad year to be a Democrat running for Congress. Greenwald had raised more by June 30 than our 2006 candidate against Latham raised during his whole campaign, and she’s fundraised aggressively since then. She is already up on television and recently got the endorsement of EMILY’s list.

Whatever pork Latham has brought back to his district is nothing compared to what Neal Smith brought to central Iowa during his 36 years in Congress, and that didn’t stop voters from giving Smith the boot in 1994.

Now let’s look at Iowa’s fifth district (R+8), where Rob Hubler is running against one of the most atrocious House Republicans, Steve King. I laid out my case for why Hubler can win this race at Bleeding Heartland, but here are the highlights.

Hubler is the first Democrat to run a real campaign against King, who does not have a big war chest and has not been campaigning actively. Although Republicans maintain a voter registration edge in IA-05, Democrats have made big gains since 2006, putting Hubler in position for an upset if he wins independents by a significant margin. King’s extreme views and tendency to make bigoted, embarrassing statements are a turn-off to moderates.

Also, an internal poll of the district for Hubler’s campaign showed the generic ballot for Congress virtually tied at 36 percent for the Democrat and 38 percent for the Republican.

Nearly three months ago, the editor of the Storm Lake Times newspaper wrote:

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Like I said at the top, upsets happen in wave elections. After winning in 1974, Tom Harkin represented most of the southwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for five terms, until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for six terms, until he retired because of health problems caused by Lyme’s disease.

Despite Sarah Palin’s presence on the ballot, I do not believe Republicans in western Iowa are going to be fired up to turn out this November. During the past month five separate polls have shown Barack Obama above 50 percent in Iowa and leading John McCain by double digits. McCain has never campaigned much in Iowa, skipping the caucuses in 2000 as well as 2008. He’s against ethanol subsidies, which causes him to underperform in rural Iowa. Certainly McCain lacks the appeal George Bush had to conservatives here in the last two elections.

Harkin is cruising against a little-known Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate, and King is not giving his supporters any reason to believe he’s concerned about Hubler. Why should the western Iowa wingnuts put a lot of effort into getting their voters out?

Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign has at least half a dozen field offices in both IA-04 and IA-05 to drive up turnout among Democrats and other Democratic-leaning voters.

Clearly, Greenwald and Hubler go into the home stretch as underdogs. But who thought Dave Loebsack was going to beat Iowa Congressman Jim Leach two years ago? Democrats put tons of money and effort behind a strong challenger to Leach in 2002 and came up short. As a result, Loebsack got no help from the DCCC or outside interest groups in 2006, and just about everyone viewed IA-02 as “likely Republican.”

Carol Shea-Porter’s amazing victory in New Hampshire’s first district seemed just as improbable two years ago. She was massively outspent by the Republican incumbent and got no help from the DCCC. By the way, NH-01 is D+0 and mostly white, as is IA-04.

The partisan lean and demographic profile of IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural) is similar to KS-02 (R+7), where Nancy Boyda came from behind to beat a Republican incumbent in 2006. The DCCC did get involved in that race, but it didn’t appear to be a very likely pickup before the election.

Two weeks ago Stuart Rothenberg mocked the DCCC for putting “absurd races” (including the Hubler-King matchup) on its list of “Races to Watch” and putting long shots on the “Red to Blue” and “Emerging Races” list. James L. already took down Rothenberg in this great post for Swing State Project, so I won’t pile on.

I will say, however, that I have put my money where my mouth is by giving as much as I can afford to Hubler and Greenwald.

Somewhere, somehow, some unheralded challengers will give House or Senate Republicans the surprise of their lives on November 4. So, Bleeding Heartland readers, who’s it gonna be?

The Obama campaign continues to hold events promoting early voting, and former Missouri Senator Jean Carnahan will tour southern Iowa with this message today and tomorrow:

Des Moines – On Monday and Tuesday, former Missouri Senator Jean Carnahan will travel to South-central and Southeast Iowa to hold town hall meetings on the issues facing Iowans in this election and to talk about the importance of early voting.

“With so much at stake in this election we are thrilled to have Senator Carnahan back in Iowa to talk about Barack Obama’s commitment to issues important to Iowans and to encourage Iowans to early vote,” said Jackie Norris, Iowa State Director for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

Senator Carnahan will be talking about issues important in this election, as well as encouraging Obama supporters to vote early so they can volunteer on election day.

Early voting in Iowa has begun and the Obama campaign has set up a voter information hotline, 877 – IA08VOTE, for Iowans to call to get information on how they can vote. Iowans can also visit iowa.barackobama.com for more information.

DETAILS FOR SENATOR CARNAHAN’S STOPS:

MONDAY, September 29th

Creston Early Vote for Change brown bag lunch

11:30 AM

209 N. Maple St.

Creston, IA

Lamoni Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

1:30 PM

Linden St. Coffee House

104 S. Linden St.

Lamoni, IA

Centerville Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

4:00 PM

Tangleberries

104 West Jackson St.

Centerville, IA

Ottumwa Early Vote for Change townhall meeting

6:00 PM

Wapello County Campaign for Change Field Office

226 West Main Street, Suite 203

Ottumwa, IA

TUESDAY, September 30th

Fairfield Early Vote for Change coffee

8:15 AM

Jefferson County Campaign for Change Field Office

108 West Palm Drive

Fairfield, IA

Keokuk Early Vote for Change brown bag lunch

11:45 AM

The Hotel Iowa

401 Main St.

Keokuk, IA

Great ad, “Zero,” released by Barack Obama’s campaign less than 12 hours after the presidential debate:

The Democratic political blogs seemed to think Obama’s best moment of the debate was when he pounded John McCain on being wrong about Iraq.

I liked that clip, but I think this ad is very smart, because the economy is a bigger issue for most voters than Iraq.

At fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver analyzes last night’s snap polls and explains why the snap polls and focus groups showed an advantage to Obama:

TPM has the internals of the CNN poll of debate-watchers, which had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. The poll suggests that Obama is opening up a gap on connectedness, while closing a gap on readiness.

Specifically, by a 62-32 margin, voters thought that Obama was “more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you”. This is a gap that has no doubt grown because of the financial crisis of recent days. But it also grew because Obama was actually speaking to middle class voters. Per the transcript, McCain never once mentioned the phrase “middle class” (Obama did so three times). And Obama’s eye contact was directly with the camera, i.e. the voters at home. McCain seemed to be speaking literally to the people in the room in Mississippi, but figuratively to the punditry. It is no surprise that a small majority of pundits seemed to have thought that McCain won, even when the polls indicated otherwise; the pundits were his target audience.

[…]

McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience — is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.

EDIT: The CBS poll of undecideds has more confirmatory detail. Obama went from a +18 on “understanding your needs and problems” before the debate to a +56 (!) afterward. And he went from a -9 on “prepared to be president” to a +21.

Click the link, because Silver’s piece is worth your time.

Speaking of the pundits who were McCain’s target audience, the Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen thought McCain won the debate.  

I’ve been hoping for weeks that Barack Obama would find some way to get under John McCain’s skin during the first presidential debate. In less than an hour we’ll see what he’s got.

I have to believe Obama walks onto the stage with a huge psychological advantage. McCain’s ridiculous stunts this week failed to achieve any favorable outcomes:

1. He failed to demonstrate any ability to handle a crisis. Instead, he looked like an uninformed hothead, saying he would fire the head of the Securities Exchange Commission, when the president has no such authority. Later in the week, he admitted that he had not read Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s bailout plan, even though it’s only three pages long.

2. He failed to deliver a deal on the bailout. On the contrary, it looks like McCain’s presence in Washington was detrimental to the negotiations.

3. He backed down from his promise not to attend the first presidential debate unless a bailout deal had been reached. One thing I’ve learned from parenting is never make a threat if you are not willing to follow through.

4. He failed to delay the vice-presidential debate by getting the first presidential debate rescheduled for October 2.

5. Tracking polls and key state polls are not moving in McCain direction. Instead, Obama now has a five-point lead in the tracking poll average, his largest of the campaign.

Debating is not Obama’s strong suit, but McCain has to be feeling more pressure tonight after his disastrous week.

I’ll watch the repeat later tonight. Meanwhile, this is an open thread for any comments related to the debate, the bailout, or the state of the presidential campaign now.

UPDATE: I caught part of the first half. McCain landed a punch regarding Bush’s terrible energy bill. Ouch. Of course Obama can’t say the truth, which is that he (and other good Democrats such as Tom Harkin) voted for a bad energy bill because it had subsidies for corn-based ethanol and coal.

However, then McCain made a big deal out of being for constructing a bunch of new nuclear power plants. Are Americans for more nuclear power? I’m not sure.

SECOND UPDATE: Listening to most of the second half on the radio, I feel Obama has done very well. However, I regret that McCain hasn’t made any big gaffes or unpresidential comments, from my perspective. I think he is wrong about a lot of things, but I doubt that a typical uninformed voter would see through his rhetoric.

I don’t like the way McCain keeps saying Obama is naive, doesn’t get it, etc. That seems like a talking point the right-wing noise machine could hammer mercilessly for days. It’s of course false, but when has that stopped them before?

On the plus side, over at Daily Kos georgia10 posted this:

If you’re watching the debate on CNN, they have a “dial” reaction chart on the bottom of the screen.  If the audience likes what the candidate is saying, they dial up and the lines go up. If they don’t, they dial down and the numbers tank.

Generally speaking, independents (and obviously Democrats) are registering far more positives for Obama than McCain.  Indeed, at certain points, the numbers among indys have taken a nosedive when McCain sets forth Bush’s his policy proposals.

I also thought Obama did a great job of repeatedly pointing out how the Bush administration dropped the ball on getting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan because we’ve been focused on Iraq.

THIRD UPDATE: I missed Obama’s closing statement but caught part of McCain’s. Again, I am concerned that he was able to keep on talking about his record of bipartisanship and/or opposing his own party when necessary. I feel that makes it hard for Obama to characterize McCain as George Bush’s third term.

I don’t think Obama hurt himself tonight at all, but I am afraid McCain may have helped himself.

On the other hand, since Obama is leading, perhaps it’s good enough for him to have turned in a solid performance with no big mistakes.

Let’s hope the vice-presidential debate shines a spotlight on McCain’s habit of making rash decisions without thinking things through.

FOURTH UPDATE: CBS snap poll of uncommitted voters finds 40 percent think Obama won, 38 percent think it was a tie, and 22 percent think McCain won.

Obama won the CNN snap poll as well. I was particularly struck by the some of the subgroups: huge gender gap, with McCain doing slightly better among men but Obama crushing McCain by nearly 30 18 points among women. Amazingly, CNN respondents over 50 thought Obama won by a 48-40 margin. That’s McCain’s strongest age group.

FIFTH UPDATE: Daily Kos user Eileen B pointed me toward this clip. When Obama makes fun of McCain for not knowing who the leader of Spain was, McCain says, “Horsesh*t.”

I was listening on the radio and didn’t catch this. Will the media pick it up?

Or was McCain saying, “Of course?”

The Des Moines Register reports that major labor unions in Iowa are giving to Democratic candidates for the state legislature this year, but not to Governor Chet Culver. The article mentions the Iowa State Education Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 61, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among others.

The bad blood between Culver and organized labor stems primarily from the governor’s veto of a collective bargaining bill that was rushed through the legislature this year.

As I’ve written before, I think labor advocates are wrong to put all of the blame on Culver for the mess surrounding the collective bargaining bill.

But I think they are absolutely right to focus their giving on the state legislative races now. The bigger the Democratic majority, the better the chance of getting good bills on labor issues through the legislative process. The collective bargaining bill could be revived and passed the normal way, without limited debate.

The “fair share” bill that cleared the Iowa Senate in 2007 but not the House could probably be passed with a pickup of a handful of House seats this year. Culver said in 2007 that he supported “fair share,” and I think he is almost certain to sign such a bill if it reaches his desk.

There’s no reason for unions to give Culver money now. It’s far more important to expand the Democratic majorities in the legislature. There will be plenty of time for them to donate to Culver’s gubernatorial campaign in 2009 and 2010, depending on his actions during next year’s legislative session.  

I’ve written before about why Democrats should support Rob Hubler, who’s running against Steve King in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

We can all agree that Hubler is a good Democrat with a compelling biography, while King is among the worst of the worst House Republicans.

But when I talk to Democrats about this race, I’ve noticed that too many people assume King cannot be beaten because Iowa’s fifth district is too Republican (its Cook Partisan Voting Index is R+8).

In fact, ten Democrats currently represent Congressional districts with a partisan index of R+8 or higher, and another 14 Democrats represent Congressional districts that have a partisan index between R+5 and R+8. In 2006, Democrats came close to winning several districts that tilt far more strongly to Republicans than King’s.

2laneIA and DemocracyLover in NYC have written good pieces on why Hubler is a solid contender in IA-05. Click those links to read about Hubler’s active campaign, King’s strangely dormant campaign, and an encouraging poll of the fifth district (which among other things showed the generic Congressional ballot virtually tied). King has faced only token opposition in past elections, but Hubler and his staff have been working in all of the 32 counties.

I want to step back and examine the partisan lean of IA-05 and how it relates to other red districts represented by Democrats.

As I mentioned above, IA-05 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of R+8. That means that averaging the results from the last two presidential elections, the Republican candidate received about 8 percentage points more than the national average in Iowa’s fifth district.

The partisan index number reflects only the presidential vote. However, plenty of Congressional districts lean Republican for president while electing Democrats to represent them in the House. Such ticket-splitting has occurred in western Iowa. During the 1970s and 1980s, Tom Harkin represented many of the southwest counties now in IA-05 for five terms, and Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest counties in the district for six terms.

It’s worth noting that Harkin and Bedell were first elected in the Democratic wave election of 1974, but they were able to hold their seats even in strong Republican years like 1978 and 1980 (and in Bedell’s case 1984; Harkin ran successfully for Senate that year).

Also, remember that this year’s Republican presidential nominee is not nearly as popular in the fifth district as George Bush was in 2000 and 2004. On the contrary; some polls have shown Barack Obama leading John McCain even in western Iowa. McCain has little field operation here, while Obama’s campaign has at least a half-dozen offices in IA-05 to help maximize Democratic turnout.

Democratic voter registration has greatly increased in all parts of the state. While Republicans still have a voter registration edge in the fifth district, the growing ranks of Democrats can put Hubler in position for an upset if he beats King among independent voters by a significant margin.

Certainly the Republican candidate has to be favored in a district with an R+8 lean, but it is by no means unprecedented for a Democrat to overcome that partisan slant. Here’s a list of the Democrats who represent Congressional districts that are at least R+5 (please correct any omissions in the comments):

Dan Boren in Oklahoma 2 (R+5)

Melissa Bean in Illinois 8 (R+5)

Bill Foster in Illinois 14 (R+5)

Charlie Melancon in Louisiana 3 (R+5)

John Spratt, South Carolina 5 (R+6)

Collin Peterson, Minnesota 7 (R+6)

Zach Space in Ohio 18 (R+6)

John Salazar Colorado 5 (R+6)

Bud Cramer in Alabama 5 (R+6)

Ben Chandler in Kentucky 6 (R+7)

Nancy Boyda in Kansas 2 (R+7)

Baron Hill in Indiana 9 (R+7)

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11 (R+7)

Don Cazayoux in Louisiana 6 (R+7)

Chris Carney in Pennsylvania 10 (R+8)

Brad Ellsworth in Indiana 8 (R+9)

Travis Childers, Mississippi 1 (R+10)

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, South Dakota at-large (R+10)

Ike Skelton, Missouri 4 (R+11)

Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota at-large (R+13)

Nick Lampson, Texas 22 (R+15)

Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4 (R+16)

Chet Edwards, Texas 17 (R+17)

Jim Matheson, Utah 2 (R+17)

You would think that all of these Democrats would be skating on thin ice, representing such Republican territory. However, if you look at lists of competitive House districts (for instance, at Swing State Project, Open Left or the Cook Political Report), you will notice that many of these seats are considered safe for the Democratic incumbent.

Boyda, Herseth-Sandlin and Pomeroy are among the Democrats representing deep-red districts with demographic profiles similar to IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural).

Another notable fact is that Democrats seem to pick up several deep-red seats in good years for the party across the country. So, Boyda, Space, Shuler, Carney and Ellsworth all won their seats for the first time in the 2006 election. Cazayoux, Foster and Childers all won their seats in special elections during 2008.

I also want to mention several districts where Democrats lost narrowly in 2006 despite a massive partisan advantage for the Republicans. Those include Wyoming’s at-large seat (R+19), Idaho’s first district (R+19), Ohio’s second district (R+13), and Colorado’s fourth district (R+9). This year Colorado’s fourth and Alaska’s at-large seat (R+14) are both considered tossups.

My point is that it would not be unprecedented for a Democratic challenger to defeat a Republican incumbent in a district like IA-05. King is still favored to win here, but there are good reasons the DCCC put this seat on its “Races to Watch” list.

If you live in the fifth district, I encourage you to sign up to volunteer for Hubler’s campaign. This Saturday is a district-wide volunteer day. You can also help by telling your friends and neighbors about Rob and encouraging them to vote for “a servant, not a King.”

Whether or not you live in the district, I hope you will donate to Rob’s campaign. King’s war chest is not particularly large for an incumbent. Strong fundraising for Hubler by the September 30 deadline will help persuade the DCCC to become more actively involved in this race.

With your help, Iowa’s west can be won.