Via the Stinging Nettle blog, I found this piece in Politics magazine by Marty Ryall, who managed Senator Elizabeth Dole’s unsuccessful campaign last year. Ryall’s main subject is the grotesque “Godless” ad that Dole ran against Kay Hagan in late October. He contends that contrary to widespread opinion, backlash against the ad did not cost Dole the election. Rather, the ad was “our Hail Mary pass” that ran only because they felt they had no other chance to win.

As you’d expect from an operative who worked on a failed campaign, Ryall goes out of his way to explain why Dole’s campaign was already in trouble before he came on in May 2008, and why she lost the election mostly for reasons out of his control. (For instance, Barack Obama targeted North Carolina and registered hundreds of thousands of new voters.) Ryall also claims that he and others intervened to make the final version of the “Godless” ad more fair to Hagan than the first cut. Whatever.

I was more interested in why Dole would have to resort to that kind of desperate attack. Ryall doesn’t explicitly address that point, but this passage in his piece suggests Dole simply had nothing else to say:

We knew we had three weaknesses. A report by Congress.org had ranked Dole 93rd out of 100 senators in effectiveness. She voted with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time. And during the two-year period when she was chairman of the NRSC, she only traveled to North Carolina a handful of times.

No doubt external conditions helped sink Dole. But if she had built up a solid record during her six years in the Senate, Dole would have had a better chance of withstanding the Democratic wave. At the very least she would have had a better final-week message for voters than, “Atheists held a fundraiser for my opponent.”

Democrats control the executive and legislative branches in Iowa and in Washington. Current economic trends suggest that they may face a challenging political environment in 2010. I hope they will draw the right lessons from Dole’s disgrace. Don’t blindly follow failed policies and do something substantial for your constituents.

Having a record to run on is no guarantee of victory if the prevailing winds are against you. My very effective 18-term Congressman Neal Smith (IA-04) lost in the 1994 landslide. But it helps to be able to remind voters of some big achievements. In the worst-case scenario you’ll lose with more dignity than Dole.

President Barack Obama formally announced on Monday that he is nominating Kathleen Sebelius to serve as Health and Human Services Secretary in his cabinet. She should be confirmed with little trouble, as various Republicans have already praised her nomination.

After the jump I’ve posted my initial thoughts on the pluses and minuses of this appointment.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced that 40 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be in the “Frontline Program,” which seeks to protect incumbents in potentially vulnerable districts. Once again, Leonard Boswell of Iowa’s third district will be a Frontline Democrat. Here’s what the designation means:

The Frontline Program is a partnership between the DCCC and Members which lays the ground work for the 2010 cycle by supporting and expanding their fundraising and outreach operations. Frontline Members must sign a memorandum of understanding, strengthened this cycle to reflect the challenging political environment, that requires Members to meet aggressive fundraising goals, accelerate volunteer and recruitment efforts, and increase their online networking.

The DCCC’s Frontline Program is a proven success. Frontline Members and the DCCC did its work effectively and early in the 2008 cycle.  As a result, the DCCC’s independent expenditure campaign made a significant investment in only 10 of 34 Frontline districts – approximately 15 percent of the IE’s budget.

I’ve put the DCCC’s press release after the jump. Most of the others named to the Frontline list appear to be in more vulnerable districts than Boswell. Republicans targeted Boswell during his first five re-election campaigns but did not make a serious challenge in IA-03 in 2008. Boswell defeated Kim Schmett by 56 percent to 42 percent in November.

Here’s an interesting fact from the DCCC’s statement, which underscores how the Republican Party has become increasingly uncompetitive in large parts of the country:

There are 83 Democrats in districts that President [George] Bush won in 2004, while there are only six (6) Republicans in seats that Senator [John] Kerry won.

Presumably a significant number of those 83 districts swung to Barack Obama in the 2008 election, as Iowa’s third district did. But the final presidential election results by Congressional district have not been calculated everywhere in the country.

I would be very surprised if the DCCC had to spend resources defending Boswell in the next election. Many House Democrats are in a more precarious position. Unfortunately, the irony is that re-electing Boswell in 2010 could make IA-03 a very tough hold for Democrats in 2012.

The DCCC is staying on offense as well, launching robocalls this week in the districts of 12 potentially vulnerable House Republicans. A few weeks ago the DCCC ran radio ads in 28 Republican-held House districts, including Iowa’s fourth district. Tom Latham is not being targeted in the current robocall effort, however. It’s just as well, since IA-04 does not appear to be among the top Democratic pickup opportunities for the next cycle.

Didn’t see this one coming. I learned via Iowa Politics that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running radio ads in 28 Congressional districts held by Republicans, including Iowa’s fourth district:

The ads focus on the Republicans out of step priorities by putting bank bail outs and building schools in Iraq before the needs of the Americans in the struggling economy. The Putting Families First ads begin airing on Tuesday morning during drive time and will run for a week.

In addition to the strategic radio ads in 28 Republican districts, the DCCC will also begin a grassroots initiative which includes targeted e-mails to 3 million voters and nearly 100,000 person-to-person telephone calls.

House Republicans just don’t get it.  They celebrate being the party of no and status quo, while more than 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs, the stock market has plummeted wiping out nearly $7 trillion stock market wealth and endangering thousands of investors’ nest eggs, and one in 10 homeowners was delinquent on mortgage payments or in foreclosure this fall.

“These are serious times, hard working families are worried about keeping their jobs, health care and homes – they want action, not House Republicans cheering about doing nothing,” said Brian Wolff, Executive Director of the DCCC. “Republicans’ champagne wishes and caviar dreams simply don’t connect with middle class families struggling to make ends meet and furious that their tax dollars are going to bail out banks, build schools in Iraq, or send American jobs overseas.  The Putting Families First campaign is only the first step, we will continue to go district by district to hold Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with party leaders and against the folks in their districts accountable.”

There are several versions of the ad (click here for transcripts). This transcript of an ad running in a Michigan representative’s district is apparently comparable to what the DCCC is running in Tom Latham’s district:

Did you know Congressman Thad McCotter opposed over $526 million to modernize crumbling Michigan schools, but supported building new schools in Iraq?  Times are tough, tell Thad McCotter to put American jobs first.

If you’ve heard any of these radio ads, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) to let me know what issue it covered.

There is a lot of overlap between the 28 districts where DCCC ads are running and this list of the 20 most vulnerable House Republicans going into 2010, which Crisitunity compiled at Swing State Project last month. However, there are a handful of Republicans on Crisitunity’s list who are not (yet) being targeted by the DCCC’s ad campaign.

Conversely, the ads are running in some districts where the incumbents may not seem vulnerable at first glance. Latham did not make Crisitunity’s list after he won re-election by more than 20 points in November, despite the fact that Barack Obama carried IA-04. However, the DCCC clearly has not ruled out making a serious play for this district in 2010.

Remember, Iowa’s Bruce Braley is now the DCCC’s vice chair responsible for “offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.”

Taking out Latham in 2010 would make it highly likely for Iowa Democrats to hold three out of the four Congressional districts we will have after the next census. Even if we don’t beat him in 2010, running a strong campaign against Latham could bring down his favorables and improve our chances of holding IA-03 if that district includes Story County in 2012.

UPDATE: Brownsox demolishes Fred Hiatt’s criticism of this ad campaign.

Congratulations to Des Moines City Council member Michael Kiernan, who was elected to chair the Iowa Democratic Party on Saturday, along with First Vice-Chair Sue Dvorsky, Second Vice-Chair Chris Peterson, Treasurer Ken Sagar and Secretary Dori Rammelsberg-Dvorak.

I was pleased to read Kiernan’s remarks from his first press conference:

“We have over 100,000 new registered voters in this state who are Democrats, hundreds of new activists. I think our key is to keep these folks in the party, to bring them home permanently. I think they’ve stopped by for a visit, and it’s our job to reach out to those new voters and bring them home permanently.”  

Kiernan said Democrats will use new technology, social platforms and grassroots engagement to bring additional people into the party and bring newly registered Democrats home to roost.

“Now it’s about telling these folks that they’re welcome in our party and making sure that they know they have a seat at our table permanently” […]

Kiernan echoed these points in the press release from the Iowa Democratic Party, which I’ve posted after the jump.

It’s good to know the IDP’s leader understands that we can’t count on first-time Democratic voters to continue to support the party. This is especially true because President Barack Obama will not be on the ballot in 2010. Many newly-registered Iowa Democrats were mobilized by Obama’s presidential campaign.

Kiernan noted his family’s tradition of “Democratic public service” on Saturday. He seems to be no more than two degrees of separation removed from anyone who’s anyone in Iowa Democratic circles. Tom Harkin held one of his first steak fry events at the Kiernans’ family farm.

I expect that this political legacy will greatly shorten Kiernan’s learning curve as the new party chairman. His mother, Joan Kiernan, has been a Democratic activist for decades and served as the IDP’s secretary in the past.

Michael Kiernan has also had a close-up view of election campaigns at all levels. His father ran successfully for the Madison County supervisors. His mother was involved in Dick Gephardt’s presidential campaigns. Michael Kiernan managed Chet Culver’s first bid for secretary of state in 1998 and Preston Daniels’ successful mayoral campaign in Des Moines the same year. He also won a special election for a seat on the Des Moines City Council in 2004. (He has not disclosed whether he plans to seek re-election to that position this fall.)

With this extensive campaign experience, Kiernan has seen what works and what doesn’t work for Iowa Democrats. That’s bound to help the IDP’s “coordinated campaign” going into the 2010 midterms. The national political environment is likely to be less favorable for Democrats than it was in 2006 and 2008, so the IDP will have to be at the top of its game in getting out the vote. (It can’t hurt that Kiernan is on good terms with labor union officials.)

Turnout is always lower in midterm elections. In 2006, about 1.05 million Iowans cast ballots for governor, whereas turnout in the most recent presidential election was about 1.5 million. Clearly not all of the newly-registered Democrats will vote in 2010, but even if only half of them turn out, that could give Democrats a significant advantage.

Kiernan and other party leaders can do plenty to build on the IDP’s success with early voting, but the mechanics of GOTV efforts won’t be enough to keep new voters in the Democratic fold.

Here’s where Governor Chet Culver and the Democratic leadership in the state legislature come in. Coasting on the usual advantages of incumbency is not going to be enough, especially if the economy is still in bad shape in 2010.

The best way to change Iowa from a purple state to a blue state is for Democratic elected officials to deliver real, lasting change. That will involve taking on some big problems despite the political risks. In a time of budget scarcity, state legislators can’t just throw money at a lot of popular programs.

Nothing succeeds like success. If Democrats can show that their governance made a tangible difference in the lives of Iowans, it will be easier to give voters a reason to back Culver and Democratic legislators again in 2010. I’ve got a few suggestions:

-Reduce the influence of money in politics by approving a voluntary “clean elections” system on the model of Maine or Arizona;

-Reject new coal fired power plants (as several of our neighboring states have done) and increase our capacity to generate wind and solar power;

-Allow “local control” of large hog confinements (agricultural zoning at the county level);

-Make progress toward providing light rail in the Ames/Ankeny/Des Moines and Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridors.

I can’t say I’m optimistic about the Democratic leadership taking on any of those tasks, because powerful corporate interests could line up against them.

But I am convinced that we need to have something big to show for four years of Democratic control at the statehouse and Terrace Hill. Give Kiernan something to sell to the voters he’s trying to keep in the Democratic fold.

The IDP’s press release announcing Kiernan’s election is after the jump.

Swing State Project released their initial ratings for the 2010 Senate contests. They ranked three potentially competitive races as “likely D,” one as “lean D,” four as tossups, three as “lean R” and two as “likely R.” Click the link to view the chart and read their explanation for each rating.

Swing State Project views Iowa’s Senate contest as one of seven “races to watch.” I agree with DavidNYC’s assessment:

Grassley’s been the subject of a lot of retirement rumors, if only because of his age. But his tight relationship with Max Baucus, and his career-long posture as more of a process guy than a legislation guy, probably mean that his life in the minority is a lot better than average. If he bails, though, this race will probably attract the likes of Rep. Bruce Braley and shoot straight to Tossup.

I would prefer for Braley to stay in the House, because he’s set up to get a lot of good things done there. In any event, I don’t expect Grassley to retire.

David Yepsen published a weird column in the Des Moines Register about Culver’s vulnerability in the 2010 election. Excerpt:

Culver’s been weakened by his handling of the state budget crisis, including the recent fiasco over the sale of the lottery. The state’s financial problems are only going to get worse, and that’s only going to make Culver’s re-election challenge more difficult.

Even before the lottery flap, Culver’s job-approval rating in the Iowa Poll was stuck at 60 percent. His disapproval rating has increased to 32 percent. (By contrast, Tom Harkin’s approval rating is at 70 percent, while Chuck Grassley sets the gold standard at 75.)

One gets a sense that Culver’s in over his head, and that there’s disarray in his administration.

Last year, he floated the idea of a pop-can tax. It bombed. This year, he floated the idea of selling the lottery. That flopped. His relations with the labor movement soured over his veto of their pet collective-bargaining bill last year and his handling of it.

Culver’s replaced some staffers to fix his problems, but glitches remain: For example, his Department of Natural Resources floated the idea of raising hunting and fishing license fees. Huh? How does that square with the governor’s position of not raising taxes in a recession? I thought we were trying to encourage those sports and related tourism. For sure, this alienates some hunters and fisher-persons, largely male constituencies the Democratic Party doesn’t have.

Yepsen makes it sound like an approval rating “stuck” at 60 percent (with only 32 percent disapproval) is a bad thing. Any campaign operative will tell you that an incumbent is considered vulnerable only if his or her approval rating drops below 50 percent.

Also, Culver did not “float” the idea of selling the lottery. He listened to other people floating that idea and waited too long to issue a statement ruling out the proposal.

Look how Yepsen glosses over his own incorrect prediction that the lottery sale was “a done deal”:

Culver’s troubles over the lottery got so bad his office issued a statement that, in part, blamed us pundits for their problems. Ah, shoot the messenger. Punish the pundit.

It may make a politician feel better to blame those of us in the media chattering class, but it wasn’t any of us who took thousands in campaign donations from the gambling industry. Nor did we meet with them in our office to talk about selling the lottery. Nor did we say for days the sale of state assets was under consideration.

Look, I wanted Culver to rule out the lottery sale a month ago, but it was Yepsen who went out on a limb last week and claimed the fix was in.

As for the bad blood between Culver and organized labor, I think most of that will dissipate if the governor signs one or more good bills on labor issues this year. (Sarah Swisher makes the case for “fair share” here.) I sincerely doubt labor will sit out the 2010 election if an anti-union Republican challenges Culver.

It’s really reaching for Yepsen to suggest Culver may be vulnerable because the DNR is considering raising hunting and fishing license fees. A declining number of Iowans are part of the “hook and bullet crowd” anyway.

Culver has several big advantages going into 2010:

1. He’s an incumbent. It’s been many decades since Iowans voted an incumbent governor out of office.

2. Since Culver won the 2006 election by a 100,000 vote margin out of 1.05 million votes cast, Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge. There are now approximately 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

3. He already has about $1.5 million in the bank, and even some Republican businessmen have cut him large checks.

Here are the danger signs for Culver:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010. There’s plenty of time for Culver’s approval rating to drop into the danger zone. Poppy Bush had 70 percent approval ratings in early 1991.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. Democrats control the legislative and executive branches in Iowa as well as Washington, and voters may punish Culver if they don’t like what they see. The governor is presiding over budget cuts that may be unpopular.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election (about 1.5 million Iowans cast ballots for president). Traditionally, lower turnout helps Republicans, although that didn’t prevent Iowa Democrats from winning gubernatorial elections in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

4. Culver’s campaign committee burned through a lot of money in 2008, spending more than half of what was raised. If the burn rate stays high in 2009, that war chest may not be big enough to scare off a serious Republican challenger.

Who might that challenger be? Yepsen thinks Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey might have a shot. He’d certainly be a stronger candidate than three-timer Bob Vander Plaats. (Vander Plaats thinks Republicans lost recent elections because they moved too far to the middle and can win again if they “effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism.”)

I still think it would be tough for the low-profile Northey to beat Culver. He doesn’t have a base in any of Iowa’s population centers. If the state budget outlook continues to worsen, I’d be more worried about State Auditor David Vaudt, who warned that last year’s spending increases would be unsustainable.

What do you think?

When a member of the U.S. House of Representatives dies, retires or takes another job, a special election is held in the district. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin plans to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring special elections to fill vacant U.S. Senate seats as well:

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end.  In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators.  They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people.  I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute.  As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

Feingold explained the rationale for his “new effort to empower the people” in this Daily Kos diary.

Since the November election, four Democratic governors have appointed new U.S. senators. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is in particular disgrace for allegedly trying to profit personally from the appointment to fill Barack Obama’s seat. After a convoluted chain of events, Blagojevich was eventually able to get his choice, Roland Burris, seated in the U.S. Senate. (Jane Hamsher wrote the best piece I’ve seen on the farce: I want to play poker with Harry Reid.)

New York Governor David Paterson didn’t cover himself with glory either during the past two months. I agree with Chris Cillizza:

Is it possible that this process could have played out any more publicly or messily? It’s hard to imagine how. Paterson’s final pick — [Kirsten] Gillibrand — is entirely defensible but the way he handled everything that happened between when Clinton was nominated and today cloud that picture. Will Paterson ultimately be a winner for picking an Upstate woman to share the ticket with him in 2010? Maybe. But, today it’s hard to see him as anything other than a loser.

The other two Senate vacancies filled by governors stirred up less controversy nationwide, but are also problematic in some respects. Governor Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware replaced Joe Biden with picked a longtime Biden staffer who has no plans to run in 2010. I love competitive primaries, but in this case Minner was mainly trying to clear the path for Biden’s son Beau Biden, the attorney general of Delaware who could not be appointed to the Senate now because of a deployment in Iraq.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter passed up various elected officials with extensive campaign experience and a clear position on the issues to appoint Michael Bennet, who had very little political experience and virtually no public record on any national issues. (Colorado pols were stunned by the choice.)

Discussing Feingold’s proposed amendment, John Deeth seems concerned mainly with the prospect of a governor appointing someone from the other political party to replace a retiring senator.

For me, the fact that all four Democratic governors appointed Democrats to the vacant U.S. Senate seats is immaterial.

I can’t tell you whether Burris, Gillibrand, Kaufman or Bennet will do a good job in the Senate for the next two years, but I can assure you that none of them would have earned the right to represent their states in a competitive Democratic primary. That alone is reason to support Feingold’s constitutional amendment.

The power of incumbency is immense and will create obstacles for other Democrats who may want to challenge Gillibrand or Bennet in 2010. (Burris may be out sooner than that if Blagojevich is removed from office, but whoever his successor appoints would have the same unjustified advantage in a potential 2010 primary in Illinois.)

Special elections can be held within a few months. Let voters decide who should represent them in the Senate.

Earlier this week Senate Guru laid out some reasons why Senator Chuck Grassley might retire rather than seek a sixth term.

Iowa Independent asked the senator’s office about the rumors and got this reply:

“We appreciate you taking time to check with us. Those writing these reports haven’t ever done so,” said Beth Pellett Levine, Grassley’s press secretary. “Sen. Grassley has held eight fundraisers since Election Day, and 10 more are scheduled. Like he’s always said, Sen. Grassley is running for reelection to the U.S. Senate.”

I’m still in favor of a serious candidate taking on Grassley, but who will rise to the challenge?

Last month Chase Martyn discussed some possibilities on the Democratic bench.  

Over the weekend Republican insider Doug Gross speculated that attorney Roxanne Conlin, the Democratic nominee for governor in 1982, might run against Grassley. However, Conlin immediately denied the rumor:

“I can tell you that it never crossed my mind,” Conlin said. “Really, it’s not something I’m going to do.”[…]

“I really think this is a fund-raising ploy for Grassley,” she said. “That is the only reason I can possibly think Doug would have said such a thing because it’s not based in fact.”

That sounds about right.  

John Deeth recently made the case for “a strong challenge to Chuck Grassley” in 2010:

We can’t have another let sleeping dogs lie race here. A weak candidate here breaks the straight ticket at the very top, and hurts everyone below. Every election cycle there’s one contest that comes out of nowhere, and we need to be in position for it. Sometimes that out of nowhere candidate doesn’t fit the conventional mold (like Dave Loebsack); the key is being able to make a strong, credible, well-funded case. Sure, it could fizzle, like, say, Jim Slattery did in Kansas this cycle. But it could sizzle, like Tom Carper knocking off Bill Roth in Delaware in `96. The thing is, we don’t know-Grassley hasn’t has a serious challenge since he was the challenger.

I also favor running a serious candidate against Grassley, largely because I think doing so would increase the odds of Grassley retiring.

The question is, who among Iowa Democrats has the stature, the desire and the fundraising ability to take on this uphill battle? (There are five or ten Slatterys for every Carper.)

Grassley dodged a bullet when Tom Vilsack, the strongest potential Democratic candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate election, got a position in Barack Obama’s cabinet.

Please post your suggestions in this thread.

I should add that I agree with American007 that Grassley will probably run for one more term. But the very well-connected Marc Ambinder seems to expect Grassley to go.

With the Senate Republican caucus down to 41 members, and the GOP defending quite a few vulnerable Senate seats in 2010, it’s a good time for long-serving Republicans to call it a day. The odds are their party will remain in the minority for the rest of their careers.

Just this week two prominent Republicans have opted out of 2010 Senate races. Today Senator “Kit” Bond of Missouri said he will not seek a fifth term. On Tuesday former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said he won’t see that state’s open Senate seat.

Getting back to Grassley, he said yesterday that Attorney General nominee Eric Holder will not have a smooth confirmation hearing because

we need to know what the relationship is with Governor Blagojevich. And I don’t say that in denigrating in any way except Governor Blagojevich’s recent troubles raises questions with anybody that’s had a relationship with him.

As BarbinMD noted,

It seems that consistency isn’t a concern for Grassley, given that moments before he was insisting that Roland Burris should be immediately seated in the U.S. Senate.

The Des Moines Register has more on Grassley’s comments about Burris, who was appointed directly by the tainted Illinois governor.

Grassley may be less conservative than many other members of the Republican Senate caucus, but never let him try to claim he’s a moderate. His voting record shows otherwise, not to mention his willingness to throw a wrench in the confirmation of Holder, who is clearly qualified to run the Department of Justice.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has appointed two out of the DCCC’s three vice chairs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is the DCCC Vice Chair for incumbent retention. Bruce Braley of Iowa will be responsible for “offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.”

The third vice chair, yet to be named, “will seek to increase House member participation in DCCC efforts,” which presumably means getting more safe Democratic incumbents to pay their DCCC dues.

That’s going to be a big job, since the DCCC ended the 2008 campaign some $21 million in debt.

The debt has reportedly been reduced to $13 million, with the help of a $3.5 million transfer from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. But that is still a large debt, especially since Democrats have a lot of one-term and two-term representatives to defend in 2010, which will probably be a less favorable political environment.

According to Politico,

Democrats are gearing up for a tougher, more defensive cycle. While Democrats want to take advantage of Obama’s bank account, party officials are anxious about getting out of the red and are telling members and donors to pay up – quickly.

Democratic leaders put the squeeze on last month, asking each member in a memo for $35,000 before Christmas. The memo also listed, by name, those who had paid their committee dues and those who hadn’t.

Shortly before the election, Chris Bowers spearheaded an effort to put grassroots pressure on safe Democratic incumbents who had not paid their DCCC dues. We all have a lot on our plate this year, and Bowers is recovering from a broken arm, but the netroots need to assist the DCCC vice chair for member participation once that person has been named. We should not wait until a few weeks before the 2010 election to start pressuring incumbents who are delinquent on DCCC dues. The sooner the DCCC retires its debt, the easier it will be to recruit strong challengers and build a healthy bank balance for the next campaign.

If you are willing to help with this effort in any way (such as compiling a spreadsheet showing who has not paid and how to contact those representatives), please post a comment in this thread.

Bruce Braley was elected to Congress in 2006 with the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program. In 2008 he helped manage the DCCC’s Red to Blue efforts. For the next election cycle, he’s been promoted again:

The DCCC today named the second of its three Vice Chairs – Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services, responsible for the DCCC’s offensive efforts including recruitment, money, and training.  

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said, “The DCCC will stay aggressive this cycle and continue to challenge Republicans who are out of step with their districts.  As a former chair and former member of the Red to Blue program, Bruce Braley knows first hand what it takes to be a successful candidate; his battle tested leadership will be a real asset to our candidates facing tough elections.”

Congressman Bruce Braley brings his experience as chair of the DCCC’s successful and effective 2008 Red to Blue Program and as a former member of the Red to Blue Program.

Vice Chair Bruce Braley said, “I’m looking forward to continuing my work at the DCCC in this new leadership role.  It’s critical for us to continue assisting our candidates with the money, messaging and mobilization they will need to get elected in the 2010 election cycle.  I will work hard to help our candidates win their races.”

Congressman Bruce Braley will serve as Vice Chair for candidate services.  The DCCC’s candidate services include recruiting, money, and training.  A Vice Chair focusing on Member participation will be named at a later date.

Last month, Van Hollen named Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida the DCCC Vice Chair for incumbent retention. Given her refusal to endorse three Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents in south Florida, it was appropriate for Van Hollen to remove her from a leadership role in the Red to Blue program.

The third vice chair “will seek to increase House member participation in DCCC efforts,” which presumably means getting more safe Democratic incumbents to pay their DCCC dues.

So Braley’s niche will be finding and capitalizing on opportunities to pick up Republican-held seats. 2010 is likely to be a more challenging environment for Democratic candidates than the past two cycles, but it’s good to know the DCCC is planning to remain on offense as well. We have a chance to achieve a political realignment, given the Democratic advantages with certain demographic groups in recent elections. Building on our success in 2006 and 2008 will require the DCCC to do more than protect our own vulnerable incumbents.

Good luck to Representative Braley in his new role. He’ll be quite busy the next couple of years, with a seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a Populist Caucus to lead.

My apologies for not getting this in closer to the actual new year, but you could say that “a day late and a dollar short” has been the theme of the new year so far for me. Or five days short, as the case may be.

In any case, before we start the new political year for real, I thought it might be fun to share our predictions for the new year. Here are nine predictions of mine for two thousand and nine.

1. The state budget is in far worse shape then we think. Expect the fight over the budget to get ugly, quick.

The Iowa state fiscal year runs from July 1 2008 to June 30 2009–right in the heart of the economic meltdown. Given that the estimates for this period are just starting to come in, it's reasonable to assume that the stories we're currently hearing about the “budget crisis” represent only the tip of a much larger iceberg. Likewise, the 1.5% across-the-board cut currently proposed by Gov. Culver isn't going to be nearly enough to solve the crisis. It's going to get ugly and fast.

2. Unemployment will hit 10% by the end of 2009, and recovery will not come until early 2010.

Call me a pessimist, but I think things are going to get much worse before they get better. When you combine the potential failure of the Big 3 (a still unresolved issue, by the way), plus a global manufacturing slowdown, with the fact that up to 25% of retail stores may declare bankrupcy in the next year–you have the recipie for unmitigated economic disaster.  

To complicate matters, I do not expect President Obama's recovery measures to be passed before May of this year. (There are already signs that a long battle is ahead for this bill.) That means that many of the infrastructure projects given funds through the program will miss out on the summer construction window–meaning they likely won't start until Summer 2010. Many other measures, like tax cuts or social programs won't go into effect until 2010 as well…moving the light at the end of the tunnel further and further away.

3. The Big 3 will not survive in their current form. Get ready for the Big 2.

Regardless of whether the auto bailout was the correct move at the time, by the time the big ball drops in 2010–there will no longer be a Big 3 as we know them now. My best guess is that one of the Big 3 automakers (most likely Chrysler) will implode into disorganized bankrupcy. No buyer will be found, and the brand will simply cease to exist. This will spark a crisis that will either lead to the organized bankrupcy/restructuring of the other companies, or government assistance with severe Bob Corker style conditions. 

The good news is that out of the multitude of laid-off engineers and designers, we could see new  and innovative technologies, designs, and companies form. By 2020 we could all be driving solar hybrids designed and built by ex-Big 3 designers who started their own companies.

6. The Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage in the case of Varnum v. Brien.

Beware the ides of March rings true in Iowa in 2009. Expect a ruling on the case of Varnum v. Brien to come down with a rulings for several other cases on March 13, the conclusion of the Court's March session. When that happens expect a whirlwind of craziness to descend on the state: national media, a rush of spring weddings, celebrity attention, half-cocked legal challenges, right-wing rants, Fred Phelps-ian protests, legislative blustering, Steve Deace's head exploding, and who knows what else.

I don't think the moon turning to blood, the dead walking the streets, or any other Pat Robertson-style pronouncements will come true…but expect a wild ride.

5. The Republican candidate for Governor will be a serious contender who already holds a major elected office.

The current fight over the RPI chair has a definite and familiar theme: change. Old hacks are out, new hacks are in. While there is a faction of the GOP that clings to BVP like life preserver, the majority of the party is, I think, waiting for someone new to come along.

That someone is either State Auditor David Vaudt, Sec. of Agriculture Bill Northey, or 4th District Congressman Tom Latham.

Vaudt looks to emerge as one of the main faces of opposition to Culver on budget issues, a position he could use to slingshot him to the governorship. Northey is the darling of the Republican Party and, with agricultural issues on the back-burner this year and little to do, may find the Governor's race an attractive prospect. Latham, by all measures a low-importance member of the minority party might decide that its now or never for him. And he has nothing to lose: if he wins, he's the Governor; if he loses, he can run again as the elder-statesman in the dogfight that will be the new 3rd district.

Thanks to the reader who suggested the correction and clarification I’ve added below.

The U.S. Census Bureau confirmed this week that Iowa will lose a Congressional district following the 2010 census unless we experience unprecedented (for Iowa) population growth in the next two years:

During the past eight years, Iowa has gained as many people – about 76,000 – as states like South Carolina and Virginia gained between 2007 and 2008 alone.

To retain the congressional seat, the state would have to gain nearly twice that number by 2010, according to projections by Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that analyzes the impact of demographics on politics.

Don’t get your hopes up: we are going down to four Congressional districts. No one knows what the new map will look like, but it’s likely that the 2012 race in the new third district will determine whether Iowa Democrats (who now hold a 3-2 edge in U.S. House seats) gain a 3-1 advantage or have to settle for a 2-2 split.

Note: A non-partisan commission draws up the new Congressional map after each census in Iowa, so Democratic gerrymanders will not take place, even if Governor Chet Culver wins re-election in 2010 and Democrats hold their majorities in the state House and Senate. (Clarification: if the Democrats maintain control of the legislature, they have the option of rejecting the first and/or second map produced by the non-partisan commission. Republicans rejected the first map proposed after the last census.)

Most of what’s now the fifth district, represented by Republican incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King, is likely to become the new fourth district. It makes no difference whether the new counties added to IA-04 come from the current third or fourth districts–that is going to be a safe Republican seat.

Given the voting trends in eastern Iowa, I assume the new first and second Congressional districts will still be relatively safe for Democrats. (Remember, fewer than 10 Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any kind of Democratic partisan lean.) Either Bruce Braley or Dave Loebsack may need to move if the new map throws Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the same district as Mount Vernon (Linn County), but that should not present much of a problem.

The big question mark is what happens to IA-03. Polk County will remain the largest county in the district, but it won’t be as dominant in the new district as it is now. Roughly 75 to 80 percent CORRECTION: A majority of the votes in the current third district come from the county containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.

In which direction will IA-03 expand? If the counties added to it come mostly from the southwest, Republicans will have a better chance of winning the district. One reason Greg Ganske beat longtime incumbent Neal Smith in the 1994 landslide was that Smith’s fourth district had lost Story and Jasper counties, and gained a lot of southwestern Iowa counties, following the 1990 census.

If IA-03 includes more counties from the southeast, Democrats would be better positioned to hold the seat, although it’s worth remembering that Ottumwa resident Mariannette Miller-Meeks carried seven southern counties in her unsuccessful challenge to Loebsack in IA-02 this year.

Speaking at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines last month, Miller-Meeks said she was leaving her ophthalmology practice at the end of 2008. She strongly suggested that she will run for office again. Whether that means another bid for Congress or a run for the state legislature was unclear.

Miller-Meeks has little chance of winning a district as strongly Democratic as IA-02, but I could easily see her taking on Leonard Boswell if Wapello County ends up in IA-03 after the next census. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Boswell’s challengers before and would back any credible Republican opponent against him.

The Republicans’ best chance in a third district stretching to the south, though, would be to run someone with strong Polk County connections to keep down the Democratic margins there. I don’t have any idea which Republicans have their eye on this race.

If IA-03 expands to the north, it’s good news and bad news for Democrats. Story County and Marshall County are reasonably strong territory for the party. On the down side, current fourth district incumbent Tom Latham lives in Story County. Latham is a mediocre Republican back-bencher; what else can you say about a seven-term incumbent whose big achievement on health care, according to his own campaign, was co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee?

However, Latham has obviously used his position on the Appropriations Committee to build up a lot of goodwill in the district. He just won re-election by 21 points in a district Barack Obama carried by 8 percent, and he even carried Story County.

I don’t care to run Boswell or a non-incumbent Democrat (in the event of Boswell’s retirement) against Latham in a redrawn IA-03. I’m not saying Democrats couldn’t hold the seat in those circumstances, but I feel it would be a tough hold.

We would be better off electing a new, ambitious Democrat to Iowa’s third district in 2010, so we can run a rising star in the majority party against Latham, if it comes to that. Actually, we’d have been better off if Boswell had retired in 2008, allowing someone new to compete for this seat as a two-term Democratic incumbent in 2012. But what’s done is done.

Anyone think there’s a chance Boswell will reconsider his promise to run for re-election in 2010?

If Democrats still control the state legislature after 2010, should they reject the first new Congressional map suggested by the non-partisan commission if that map puts Story County in IA-03?

What kind of map would give Democrats the best chance of holding the third district?

I look forward to reading your absurdly early speculation about the 2012 races in the comments.

For those who are interested in the national implications of the post-census reapportionment, DavidNYC created a chart showing which states are likely to gain or lose Congressional districts.

Chris Bowers has already created a 2012 electoral college map, and even with one fewer electoral vote, Iowa will remain important to Obama’s re-election chances. You should click over and read the whole post yourself, but the good news is that Obama has a clear path to 270 electoral votes in 2012 even if he loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.

UPDATE: John Deeth looked ahead to the 2012 Iowa races in this post last week. He concluded that in order to win three out of the four Congressional districts, Iowa Democrats will need to 1) beat Latham in 2010, and 2) get Boswell to retire in 2012. Click over to read how he reached that conclusion.  

UPDATE: Barack Obama announced the key appointments in his energy and environmental team today. Meteor Blades has a good piece up on the “Green Team” of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, “energy czar” Carol Browner, Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson and head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley.

On Saturday Obama devoted his weekly address to the housing crisis (click the link to watch the video) and announced that New York City Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development Shaun Donovan will serve as Housing and Urban Development Secretary in his cabinet. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York commented,

Shaun Donovan has been one of the most effective housing commissioners in New York City’s history. At this time, with the housing crisis raging, he is exactly the kind of person we need as HUD secretary.

Sam Dillon of the New York Times discussed some possibilities for Secretary of Education and noted,

As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to announce his choice for education secretary, there is mystery not only about the person he will choose, but also about the approach to overhauling the nation’s schools that his selection will reflect.

Despite an 18-month campaign for president and many debates, there remains uncertainty about what Mr. Obama believes is the best way to improve education.

Will he side with those who want to abolish teacher tenure and otherwise curb the power of teachers’ unions? Or with those who want to rewrite the main federal law on elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act, and who say the best strategy is to help teachers become more qualified?

UPDATE: Obama reportedly plans to nominate Arne Duncan, the head of Chicago’s public school system, as Secretary of Education. Duncan is also a longtime friend of Obama’s.

Meanwhile, nearly 45,000 people have signed this online petition at Food Democracy Now. Excerpt:

As our nation’s future president, we hope that you will take our concerns under advisement when nominating our next Secretary of Agriculture because of the crucial role this Secretary will play in revitalizing our rural economies, protecting our nation’s food supply and our environment, improving human health and well-being, rescuing the independent family farmer, and creating a sustainable renewable energy future.

We believe that our nation is at a critical juncture in regard to agriculture and its impact on the environment and that our next Secretary of Agriculture must have a broad vision for our collective future that is greater than what past appointments have called for.

Presently, farmers face serious challenges in terms of the high costs of energy, inputs and land, as well as continually having to fight an economic system and legislative policies that undermine their ability to compete in the open market. The current system unnaturally favors economies of scale, consolidation and market concentration and the allocation of massive subsidies for commodities, all of which benefit the interests of corporate agribusiness over the livelihoods of farm families.

Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has set a goal of 100,000 signatures for this petition.

Steph Larsen discussed some names on the short list for Secretary of Agriculture here. Sustainable agriculture advocates would love to see the job offered to Chuck Hassebrook, executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs. Hassebrook wrote this guest opinion for the Des Moines Register a few weeks ago, saying

Nothing better illustrates the broken politics of Washington than farm and rural policy. The federal government spends billions subsidizing mega farms to drive smaller farms off the land and often penalizes the best environmental stewards with lower payments. It largely fails to invest in the future of America’s rural communities.

For example, in 2005 the Department of Agriculture spent nearly twice as much to subsidize the 260 biggest farms across 13 leading farm states than on rural development initiatives to create economic opportunity for the 3 million people living in those states’ 260 most struggling rural counties. That does not help family farms or small-town Americans. It does not serve the common good.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is among those who want to see Obama nominate a “secretary of food” with a broad vision for agriculture. He named Hassebrook as a good candidate for the job.

The Center for Rural Affairs has launched its own online petition asking Obama’s future Secretary of Agriculture, whoever that may be, to promote a new vision for rural America. It’s a long petition, advocating priorities such as:

policies to support grassroots entrepreneurship in rural America, such as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program, the Value Added Producer Grant Program, and the Farmers Market Promotion Program;

a plan to get affordable high-speed internet service to every rural business and home;

policies to support local ownership of wind turbines by farmers and ranchers, communities, and the rural workers who maintain wind turbines;

a plan to find the right approach to biofuels;

federal policies that work for family-size farms, including caps on payments;

better land and water stewardship using the Conservation Stewardship Program and other programs.

According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Obama’s two finalists for Secretary of Transportation are former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Steve Heminger, executive director of the San Francisco Bay area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Kirk was an early Obama supporter and the first African-American mayor of Dallas. Heminger has the strong backing of California’s large Democratic Congressional delegation. I don’t know enough about either man’s views on transportation to have an opinion about who would be better for this job.

New names continue to emerge in the speculation surrounding Obama’s Secretary of the Interior. Among the names previously floated, environmentalists have advocated for Raul Grijalva and against Mike Thompson. Now the Denver Post says Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado is a finalist for the job. Traditionally, someone from the west is named to head the Interior Department. Salazar is up for re-election in 2010, and Swing State Project already has a thread up to discuss possible Democratic candidates to replace him if he leaves the Senate for a cabinet position.

UPDATE: CBS news in Denver says Salazar has accepted Obama’s offer to become Secretary of the Interior. Not a great choice, and it leaves Democrats an open Senate seat to defend in Colorado in 2010.

Post any relevant thoughts or opinions in the comments.

Daily Kos commissioned Research 2000 to poll a hypothetical Senate matchup between Chuck Grassley and Tom Vilsack. Click the link for the full crosstabs. Here are the eye-catching numbers:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 12/8-10. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Grassley (R) 48

Vilsack (D) 44

Grassley’s approve/disapprove numbers are 57/36, while Vilsack’s are 55/36.

If I were running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, I would immediately commission an internal poll to check these numbers.

Republicans will try to dismiss this poll because Research 2000 is the firm hired by Daily Kos, the leading Democratic blog. But Research 2000’s final poll of the Tom Harkin/Christopher Reed Senate contest in late October was close to the mark, showing Harkin leading 57 percent to 37 percent. (Harkin beat Reed by 63 percent to 37 percent.)

As I’ve written before, taking on Grassley will be an uphill battle for any Democrat. However, I would love to see Vilsack take a shot at this race. A strong and well-funded challenge from Vilsack would in my view increase the chance of Grassley retiring in 2010.

UPDATE: A spirited debate about Vilsack’s chances against Grassley is going on in this thread at Swing State Project.  

Writing today about the Senate elections of 2010, Marc Ambinder casually added,

But… more Republican retirements are expected, including at least two in blue states (Chuck Grassley of Iowa and George Voinovich of Ohio. (A Voinovich spokesperson denies the retirement rumor.))

Anyone know why Ambinder would seem so sure Chuck Grassley is retiring? I don’t know anyone here who thinks it’s even 50-50 that he’ll go.

Click here for more speculation about why Grassley might retire rather than seek a sixth term.

We’re destined to find out whether the Republican minority in the U.S. Senate can break the record number of filibusters they set in 2007 and 2008.

Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss dramatically improved on his November 4 showing to win the runoff Senate election in Georgia by at least 10 points. The result doomed Democratic hopes of a 60-seat majority in the upper chamber.

It’s disappointing but not too surprising. Chambliss would have won outright on November 4 if not for Georgia’s unusual state law requiring the winner to receive 50 percent of the vote. Furthermore, Chambliss would have received 50 percent if not for extremely high black turnout with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, which benefited Democratic Senate candidate Jim Martin. Also, a Libertarian candidate won enough votes from Georgia conservatives last month to keep Chambliss from winning a majority.

I appreciate the tremendous campaign that Martin ran, which made a race out of what was supposed to be a Kansas or Oklahoma-style romp for the incumbent in this very red state. Unfortunately for Martin, turnout was light today, especially among black voters any Georgia Democrat needs to have a chance of winning a statewide election.

Democrats still have a chance to gain a 59th seat in the Senate, depending on what happens this month in Minnesota. The state canvassing board will consider thousands of challenged ballots, and the margin between Al Franken and Norm Coleman appears to be very slim. The outcome may depend on whether more than 1,000 absentee ballots that were rejected because of clerical errors are counted. Many observers expect this contest to end up in court. It’s also possible that the U.S. Senate could get involved, as it did following an extremely close and disputed Senate race in New Hampshire in 1974.

Don’t despair, Democrats: we still have a decent number of Senate pickup opportunities in 2010. Just today, Florida Republican Mel Martinez announced that he does not plan to run for re-election.

Nate Silver is handicapping the 2010 U.S. Senate races at Fivethirtyeight.com and had this to say about Iowa’s seat, held by five-term incumbent Chuck Grassley:

Grassley will be 77 in 2010 and could retire, in which case the race probably leans Democrat. Absent a retirement, a kamikaze mission by someone like Tom Vilsack against the popular incumbent is unlikely to succeed.

Over at Iowa Independent, Chase Martyn begs to differ:

Grassley has not had a truly difficult race in some time.  […]

In 2004, Art Small […] received no institutional support from the Democratic party, which essentially conceded the race before it began.

In 2010, the picture is very different.  While Grassley’s approval rating remains high, almost everything else has changed.

Democrats have begun to truly dominate Iowa’s political scene. […]

What happens if former Gov. Tom Vilsack jumps into the race for Senate?

Fending off Vilsack’s challenge, Grassley could face deficits in both fundraising and name identification for the first time in decades. […]

Far from a ‘kamikaze mission,’ as Silver calls it, the emerging conventional wisdom around here is that Vilsack would have a real chance against Grassley in 2010.

Perhaps “kamikaze mission” is too strong a phrase, but we need to acknowledge that Tom Vilsack or any other Democrat would be a serious underdog against Grassley. Yes, Iowa now has far more registered Democrats than Republicans (about 106,000 more, last I heard), but Grassley has always benefited from a strong crossover vote.

Grassley will face substantial pressure not to retire in 2010, in part because several other Republican-held Senate seats are likely to be vulnerable. Furthermore, Iowa Republicans hoping to unseat Governor Chet Culver would love to be able to focus their spending on that campaign, rather than divide their resources between the gubernatorial race and defending an open Senate seat.

As I see it, four factors could push Grassley toward retirement:

1. A health problem (God forbid).

2. An unpleasant 2009 in the Senate minority. Grassley loves his job and has gotten along well with Montana Senator Max Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. But what if the enlarged and emboldened Democratic majority doesn’t need to cut as many deals with Grassley as Baucus has done in the past?

3. Deteriorating relations between Grassley and the social conservatives who dominate the Republican Party of Iowa. For background on this tension, click here or click here.

4. A top-tier Democratic challenger who can raise a lot of money and has free time to campaign.

And that brings me to the paradox in the title of this post. Clearly Grassley’s retirement would give Democrats the best chance (some might say only chance) to win this seat. However, Grassley is more likely to retire if Tom Vilsack or another major-league Democrat jumps in now, instead of waiting a year or longer to see whether the incumbent will decide to step down for some other reason.

Challenging Grassley means embarking on long and exhausting uphill battle. But putting Grassley on notice soon that Democrats will not give him a pass is one of the few things we could do to improve the odds that he will retire.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Can Iowa Democrats recruit Vilsack or another top-tier challenger for this race?

I keep hearing chatter about a possible primary challenge to Governor Chet Culver in 2010. This scenario strikes me as extremely unlikely, but I want to encourage others to weigh in on this comment thread.

Running a statewide primary campaign is expensive. Who has the money for that? I can’t think of any self-funding candidate who would step up to challenge Culver. Anyone else have names in mind?

Organized labor has money and is unhappy with the governor, largely because he vetoed a collective-bargaining bill during the 2008 legislative session.

But most labor unions supported Mike Blouin in the 2006 primary, and their backing wasn’t enough to defeat Culver before he was an incumbent. Culver will go into the next campaign with huge institutional advantages he didn’t have as the secretary of state.

It would seem more logical for organized labor to continue the strategy they adopted this year: focus their political giving on statehouse candidates likely to support their agenda. If Culver continues to disappoint, simply don’t donate to his re-election campaign. That is cheaper than spending lots of money on a primary challenger.

I think there’s a decent chance the 56 Democrats who will be in the Iowa House in 2009 will be able to pass either “fair share” legislation (which would weaken Iowa’s right-to-work law) or a collective-bargaining bill like the one Culver vetoed. Getting those bills through the new Senate will be no problem. As I’ve written before, Culver supports fair share, and it wasn’t his fault it couldn’t get through the House in 2007. I also doubt Culver would veto a collective-bargaining bill a second time.

If labor unions decide to go all out against Culver, who could they find? I can’t think of many politicians with enough stature to pull this off. A few people have named sitting legislators in conversations with me, but I find it hard to believe any of them would take that risk. Look how the Democratic establishment reacted when Ed Fallon challeged the thoroughly mediocre Leonard Boswell in the third district Congressional primary.

Anyway, none of the current leadership in the House and Senate would be likely to win the support of other Democrats who have their own reasons for being disappointed with Culver. For instance, environmentalists who wish the governor would back agricultural zoning at the county level (also known as “local control” of CAFOs) have gotten zero help from statehouse leaders since Democrats regained the majority. Ditto for liberals who want to see the legislature adopt campaign finance reform (the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections act).

One person suggested to me that a primary challenger would not be able to defeat Culver, but could damage him enough to cost us the governor’s chair in 2010. I find this scenario unlikely as well. Let’s say organized labor backs someone like Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal for governor. I don’t think he will run against Culver, I’m just throwing out his name because he is well known and could raise a significant amount of money. He hasn’t put muscle behind local control or clean elections–on the contrary, he insulted a group of activists who came to the capitol in April 2007 to lobby for the VOICE act. I don’t see him getting enough traction in a primary campaign to do real damage. If anything, he could help Culver with swing voters in the general election, by showing that the big, bad “special interests” are unhappy with the governor.

I don’t mean to sound complacent. The Republican Party of Iowa is bruised and divided now but could rebound by 2010 with the right gubernatorial candidate. More important, the fiscal outlook is terrible at both the national and state level. That and other continuing economic problems pose a much bigger threat to Culver’s re-election than the prospect of a Democratic primary challenger.

What do you think?

Noneed4thneed noticed that Steve King (who represents Iowa’s fifth district in Congress) spoke at the GOP’s second district convention last weekend. He wonders whether King might be weighing a run for governor in 2010:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.co…

All I can say is, may it be so.

I’ve been hoping that King would get bored with being in the minority party and retire from Congress. In all likelihood the GOP would hold on to the seat, but maybe they would elect someone less embarrassing.

If Chet Culver running for an open governor’s seat beat a Congressman from eastern Iowa by 100,000 votes, I’m guessing that as an incumbent running against a Congressman from western Iowa, Culver would win by 200,000 votes or more.