Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been campaigning in Iowa yesterday and today with U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst. After the jump I’ve enclosed excerpts from some of the news coverage of Romney’s visit. Free publicity is always helpful in a close election, but I’m not sure Romney can bring any voters who aren’t already supporting Ernst into her corner.

Social conservative talk radio host thinks appearing alongside Romney “makes absolutely no sense”: “Ernst is being blasted in endless commercials for being a corporate shill, so why bring in to campaign for you a guy Iowans just rejected in the last election as a corporate shill? Ernst already has the moderate, corporatist GOP vote all locked up.” He thinks Ernst needs to do more public appearances with solid conservatives. I think that would alienate moderate voters. What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

The Des Moines Register’s headline-writers misrepresented a finding from the new Iowa poll by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg News. Among respondents who are “likely voters” in 2014, Romney leads President Barack Obama by 41 percent to 39 percent. The Register’s headline on Jennifer Jacobs’ article read, “In 2012 re-run, Romney wins.” Not really. Not only is that lead within the poll’s margin for error, a new presidential election would bring out a presidential-year electorate. This poll sampled likely midterm voters. We know that several Democratic-skewing groups (young people, unmarried women) are less likely to vote in a non-presidential year.

I don’t expect Romney to run for president again, but likely future presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio did a “telephone town-hall” with Ernst a few days ago. Past and future presidential candidate Rick Santorum will come to Dubuque and Davenport this week.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that in a separate piece on the latest Selzer poll, Jennifer Jacobs reported that Romney “leads Clinton in 2016 matchup.” Sorry, no. The poll shows Romney barely ahead of Hillary Clinton by 44 percent to 43 percent among Iowa respondents considered likely 2014 election voters. That doesn’t tell us whether Romney would be ahead among a presidential year Iowa electorate.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year, justices side-stepped the issue of state bans on same-sex marriage, either by statute or by constitution. Since that time, various U.S. Courts of Appeal have struck down state-level bans, using reasoning similar to the high court’s in U.S. v. Windsor. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will not hear appeals of five such rulings. As Adam Liptak reported for the New York Times, the move “may signal the inevitability of a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.”

The development, a major surprise, cleared the way for same-sex marriages in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Officials in Virginia announced that marriages would start at 1 p.m. on Monday.

The decision to let the appeals court rulings stand, which came without explanation in a series of brief orders, will almost immediately increase the number of states allowing same-sex marriage from 19 to 24, along with the District of Columbia. The impact of the move will in short order be even broader.

Monday’s orders let stand decisions from three federal appeals courts with jurisdiction over six other states that ban same-sex marriage: Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming. Those appeals courts will almost certainly follow their own precedents to strike down those additional bans as well, meaning the number of states with same-sex marriage should soon climb to 30. […]

Other appeals courts are likely to rule soon on yet other marriage bans, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. That court has jurisdiction over nine states. If it rules in favor of same-sex marriage, as expected, it is unlikely to enter a stay, and, given Monday’s developments at the Supreme Court, there is no particular reason to think the justices will.

It’s all over but the shouting. And speaking of shouting, I’ve enclosed below the reaction to today’s news from the FAMiLY Leader organization, which spearheaded the backlash against the Iowa Supreme Court over its 2009 decision in Varnum v Brien. No Iowa Supreme Court justices are up for retention this year. The remaining three justices who were part of the Varnum ruling will be up for retention in 2016: Chief Justice Mark Cady (author of that unanimous decision), Justice Brent Appel, and Justice Daryl Hecht.

The Alliance for Justice has compiled details on every federal court ruling related to marriage equality here. That organization’s president, Nan Aron, said in a statement today, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court declined to take any of the marriage equality cases decided by federal appeals courts.  In 2013, in its decisions on the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and on Proposition 8, the Supreme Court began to bend the arc of history toward justice on this issue. By declining to take these cases, the Court passed up an opportunity to finish the job.”

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is not going to fight against marriage equality in Wisconsin anymore. Accepting reality may work against him if he runs in the 2016 Iowa Republican caucuses.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve enclosed below a statement from Republican Party of Iowa Co-Chair Cody Hoefert. I am intrigued that Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann doesn’t seem interested in speaking out on this issue anymore. In 2011, he voted for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Kaufmann retired in 2012, and his son Bobby Kaufmann was elected to succeed him in the Iowa House. Bobby Kaufmann declined to co-sponsor a marriage amendment in 2013.  

This evening a U.S. military official confirmed to news media that airstrikes have begun in a part of Syria largely controlled by the terrorist group ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain are partnering with the U.S. on the airstrikes, though the extent of their cooperation is not yet clear. The Obama administration had previously announced plans for “targeted actions against ISIL safe havens in Syria — including its command and control, logistics capabilities, and infrastructure,” according to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. I don’t understand the endgame, since the Obama administration has vowed not to cooperate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Last week, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate authorized the Obama administration to train and arm “moderates” in Syria and Iraq. But in a pathetic act of cowardice, Congress approved the president’s request as part of a huge must-pass spending bill, rather than as a stand-alone measure. Why should anyone respect the separation of powers if most members of Congress would rather punt than have a serious debate over whether to get the country more directly involved in a civil war? Especially since no one seems to know who these moderate Syrian rebels are. For all we know, we will be inadvertently training the next group of terrorists in the region, or supplying weapons that will fall into the wrong hands.

The funding bill containing the military authorization language passed the U.S. House by 273 votes to 156, with bipartisan support and opposition. Iowans Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) were among the 114 House Democrats who voted yes. Representatives Tom Lataham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) were among the 159 Republicans who voted yes.

When the same bill passed the U.S. Senate by 78 votes to 22, Senators Chuck Grassley (R) and Tom Harkin (D) both voted yes. Rebecca Shabad and Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill, “The ‘no’ votes included several senators seen as prospective presidential candidates in both parties, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and is considering a presidential campaign, voted no. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, considered a possible presidential candidate if Hillary Clinton does not run, voted yes.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. I will update this post as needed with Iowa political reaction to the airstrikes in Syria. But don’t hold your breath: last week I did not see any official statement from anyone in Iowa’s Congressional delegation about having voted to authorize weapons and training for rebel groups in Syria and Iraq.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced today that former State Senator Kent Sorenson has pleaded guilty to two charges related to hidden payments in exchange for supporting Ron Paul for president. When he abandoned his position as Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chair to endorse Paul less than a week before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, rumors immediately circulated about alleged payments for his support. Sorenson repeatedly denied those rumors. However, he has now admitted that he received $73,000 in concealed payments after endorsing Paul. As part of his plea agreement, he also admitted lying to journalists and giving false testimony to an independent counsel appointed to investigate various charges. Sorenson resigned his Iowa Senate seat last October, the same day that independent counsel filed a devastating report. Federal authorities have been investigating the case since last year.

After the jump I’ve enclosed the full Department of Justice press release, with more details about the plea deal. Sentencing has not yet been scheduled. As far as I can tell, these charges are unrelated to any payments Sorenson allegedly received from the Bachmann campaign earlier in 2011. A former Bachmann campaign staffer made those claims in complaints he filed with the Federal Election Commission and with the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee. Another former Bachmann staffer signed an affidavit containing details on Sorenson’s compensation for work supporting that campaign.

One mystery I hope someone will solve someday is whether Sorenson’s attorney, Ted Sporer, lied on behalf of his client, or whether Sorenson lied to Sporer along with everyone else. Even on the day he resigned from the state legislature, Sorenson maintained he was an innocent victim of a “straight-up political witch hunt.” A separate lawsuit that had alleged Sorenson stole a valuable e-mail list from a Bachmann staffer’s computer was eventually settled without any admission of wrongdoing by Sorenson.

UPDATE: Russ Choma has more details at Open Secrets, including the full plea agreement. Highly recommend clicking through to read that whole post. I’ve enclosed excerpts below.

Being charged with a crime is rarely good news for any public figure, but it looks like Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the exception that proves the rule.

Not only will his presidential aspirations survive the criminal case launched against him last last week, the governor’s prosecution will improve his standing among Iowa Republicans, for three reasons.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will be the star guests at Senator Tom Harkin’s final steak fry on September 14 at the Indianola Balloon Field. Doors open at 12:30 pm, event runs from 1-4. Traffic can be slow on the highway leading to the balloon field, so my advice is to allow extra time.

All of Iowa’s Democratic candidates for federal and statewide office typically speak at the steak fry, but the big crowds will be there to see Hillary Clinton in her first Iowa appearance since the January 2008 caucuses. While she’s in central Iowa, I would not be surprised to see her do an event for Staci Appel, Democratic nominee in the third Congressional district. Then State Senator Appel appeared at numerous events for for Hillary during 2007.

My opinion hasn’t changed regarding Clinton and the 2016 Iowa caucuses: if she runs for president again, she wins here. Vice President Joe Biden and everyone else are far behind in every Iowa poll I’ve seen. Other presidential hopefuls are waiting in the wings, in case Clinton decides against running, but are in no position to challenge her for the nomination.

More than a half-dozen potential presidential candidates have visited Iowa since Bleeding Heartland’s last news roundup on the field. Any comments about the 2016 Iowa caucus campaign are welcome in this thread. Lots of links are after the jump.

Lest anyone think that ordinary people are unable to influence public discourse, consider this: Rand Paul’s latest Iowa visit will likely be remembered for how he ran away from the DREAMers who confronted Representative Steve King.

Today was the 3rd The Family Leadership Summit hosted by The Family Leader. This event has become a kingmaking event for Bob Vander Plaats and The Family Leader with national and state Republican officials coming to kiss their rings. This event has been talked about as replacing the Ames Straw Poll. For the second year in a row – I decided to make the trek to see what this is all about with allied organization – Progress Iowa.

The Iowa State Fair opened a few minutes ago and runs through August 17. I’m a big fan of the event, and after the jump, I’ve posted some of my favorite tips for enjoying the fair, along with the schedule for candidate appearances at the Des Moines Register’s “soapbox” on the Grand Concourse. The Register will live-stream speeches by candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, as well as a few nationally known politicians from out of state.

The fair has almost endless free entertainment, but bring cash with you anyway, because the State Fair board had to backtrack on plans to eliminate cash purchases for food. Instead, vendors have been encouraged to accept credit and debit cards. I suspect most will stick with a cash-only system.  

Six-term Representative Steve King made news this week in typically cringe-worthy ways: talking about impeaching the president, getting caught on video mixing it up with a “DREAMer” who approached him.

Meanwhile, King’s Democratic challenger Jim Mowrer launched his first television commercial on August 1. I’ve posted the video and transcript of this 30-second biographical spot after the jump. According to the Mowrer campaign, the ad will run on broadcast television in Des Moines and Sioux City, and on cable in Des Moines, Sioux City, Mason City, and Omaha.

Rarely does a Congressional challenger introduce himself on television before an entrenched incumbent goes up on the air. But then, it’s rare for a first-time candidate like Mowrer to build up a good cash on hand advantage going into the general election.

Any comments about this race are welcome in this thread. As of August 1, the 39 counties in IA-04 contained 123,290 active registered Democrats, 179,745 Republicans, and 171,235 no-party voters.

P.S.- In a rant about “phony Sunday talk shows,” the Washington Post’s in-house conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin chastised news hosts who solicit King as a guest: “The real journalistic sin here is that no one has the nerve to explain that [King] is an outcast and reviled in his own caucus.” U.S. Senator and likely presidential candidate Rand Paul didn’t want to be near King during his conversation with the DREAMers. Later, Paul said he had to step away for a media availability. His body language suggested an urgent need to get away.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

Summer is passing quickly, with the National Balloon Classic wrapping up last night and the Iowa State Fair set to open on Thursday. The extended forecast is showing excellent weather for the first few days of the fair. Hope that holds.

After a few months of deliberations, the Iowa Democratic Party rolled out a set of proposals to make the Iowa caucuses more inclusive. On Friday, State Party Chair Scott Brennan presented five ideas to the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. I’ve posted the full announcement below, explaining the proposals as well as why Iowa Democratic leaders rejected other ideas (notably absentee ballots).

Having long been concerned by how many active Iowa Democrats are excluded from caucuses through no fault of their own, I was encouraged to see these proposals. They would allow many more politically engaged Democrats to participate in the presidential nominating process. Unfortunately from my perspective, the Iowa Democratic Party is not looking to change other key aspects of the caucus system, notably the 15 percent threshold for viability, which can distort caucus-goer preferences during the realignment process (see also here). I understand why the party doesn’t want to move toward a “one person, one vote” system, for fear of making the caucuses too much like a primary (jeopardizing our first in the nation status). Still, I don’t see why caucus-goers’ initial preferences, before realignment, couldn’t be recorded and announced in addition to county delegate totals. The state of New Hampshire hasn’t objected to the Republican Party of Iowa’s practice of announcing raw vote totals for each presidential candidate.

UPDATE: Added below the Iowa GOP’s comment on the proposals.

I strongly disagree with John Deeth’s assertion that “very, very few people who REALLY wanted to caucus” in 2008 were excluded. In my precinct alone, I talked to lots of engaged Democrats who were unable to attend because of physical limitations, work schedules, or the need to take care of family members. Later in the winter, I came across many more people who had followed the campaign closely but were unable to get the night off from work.

For years, prominent Iowa Republicans have hyped unfounded fears about “voter fraud.” So it’s ironic that yesterday, the state GOP attacked Brad Anderson’s proposal to help ensure that only eligible voters can take part in the Iowa caucuses.

Anderson is the Democratic nominee for secretary of state. After the jump I’ve posted his “caucus integrity” plan, including this idea: “Parties should be encouraged to utilize electronic poll book technology that would provide up-to-date lists and allow Iowans to check-in electronically. I believe the next Secretary of State should work with each of the parties to develop and support an affordable, efficient and effective electronic poll book that would allow caucus participants to easily check-in and allow volunteers to immediately confirm eligibility.”

I’ve also enclosed below an Iowa GOP press release. New Republican state party chair Jeff Kaufmann asserted, “Anderson’s plan is a problem in search of a solution. We must maintain the separation of politics and state.” Charlie Smithson, legal counsel for Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz since 2012, offered his opinion: “If government becomes involved with the caucus process, other states will argue that the caucuses have become the functional equivalent of a primary,” hurting Iowa’s efforts to remain first in the presidential nominating process.

That’s a real stretch. Anderson’s plan says straight away, “The caucuses are, and must remain strictly a party function run independently by the Republican Party of Iowa and the Iowa Democratic Party.” He hasn’t proposed involving county auditors or the Secretary of State’s office in setting caucus rules, or in tabulating or announcing Iowa caucus results. He’s talking about working with the parties ahead of time, so that on caucus night, they have tools to verify that only eligible voters residing in the precinct take part. Republicans could still hold their straw polls early in the evening, electing county delegates later, while Democrats maintain their system of dividing into preference groups, with a 15 percent threshold for viability in every precinct. Using a poll book for check-in wouldn’t change the fact that the Iowa Democratic Party announces only how many county convention delegates each candidate won, not raw numbers of caucus-goers who supported them.

If the Iowa caucuses ever produce another very close result, like the Republican outcome in 2012, any reports (credible or not) about ineligible voters taking part would boost the case for ditching Iowa as first in the nation. After the record-breaking Democratic caucus turnout in 2008, some people claimed that Barack Obama’s campaign had brought large numbers of supporters in from out of state. Although facts didn’t support those allegations, it would be easier to refute them if the parties had a better system for checking in caucus-goers.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Having worked in elections administration and volunteered at many Iowa caucuses, John Deeth explains how Anderson’s ideas could improve the check-in process on caucus night.

P.S.- I think Kaufmann meant to say that Anderson’s plan is a “solution in search of a problem.” Which is ironic, since he and Smithson have both lent their support to Matt Schultz’s photo ID crusade, the ultimate solution in search of a non-existent Iowa voter impersonation problem.  

It makes perfect sense for potential Democratic presidential candidates to visit Iowa, meeting activists and keeping their options open. That doesn’t mean any of them would run against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Case in point: Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. Having keynoted the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention last month, he’s coming here again this weekend, headlining events for State Senator Rita Hart and state Senate candidate Kevin Kinney on Saturday, then Council Bluffs and Sioux City events for gubernatorial nominee Jack Hatch on Sunday. Politico’s Maggie Halberman notes that O’Malley “has said he’s exploring a 2016 presidential run.” A Des Moines Register headline writer termed him a “possible rival” to Clinton. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post speculated, “O’Malley is term limited out as governor at the end of this year and undoubtedly thinks a credible run for president might bolster his chances of a spot in a Clinton Administration.”

I just don’t see it. Laying the groundwork for a potential campaign is not the same thing as preparing to embark on a suicide mission. O’Malley doesn’t come across as a guy like Senator Bernie Sanders, who knows he will never be president but might run to shine a light on issues important to him. O’Malley goes way back with Bill and Hillary Clinton. He stuck with Hillary for president even after Barack Obama dominated the 2008 Maryland primary. From where I’m sitting, CNN’s Dan Merica had it exactly right when he described O’Malley as an “understudy,” “angling to be the person who could step in” if Clinton does not run for president for whatever reason. Maryland’s term limits for governors make 2016 an ideal time for O’Malley to run for president, but he’s only 51 years old–young enough to wait until 2020 or 2024 if necessary.

Meanwhile, I hope all of this weekend’s events are successful, because Hatch, Hart, and Kinney are very worth supporting.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – Hart’s re-election bid in Senate district 49 is a must-hold for Democrats. Kinney’s running in the open Senate district 39, and if he wins, it would virtually guarantee a Democratic majority in the state legislature’s upper chamber for the next two years.

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland dedicated a thread to the potential 2016 presidential candidates. Please share any comments related to the next Iowa caucus campaign in this thread. Lots of links on various Democratic and Republican contenders are after the jump.

Quinnipiac’s latest Iowa caucus poll adds to the growing body of survey research suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s supposed “Iowa problem” exists only in the minds of some political reporters. Details are after the jump.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? The Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention got overshadowed by the circus-like spectacle Republicans put on in Urbandale yesterday. We’re talking about David Young’s surprising nomination in IA-03 here. This is an open thread for all other topics.

After the jump I’ve posted several links about the Democratic convention and the full text (as prepared) of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s speech. He seems to have made a good impression, as he did at the Harkin Steak Fry in 2012. O’Malley won’t challenge Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination; he was loyal Clinton surrogate during the 2008 primaries, even after Barack Obama crushed her in his state. If Clinton decides against running for president again, O’Malley could have a lot of upside potential in Iowa. He’s much more familiar with this state than your average east-coast governor, having worked as a field organizer for Gary Hart’s 1984 Iowa caucus campaign. John Deeth wrote up O’Malley’s appearance for gubernatorial nominee Jack Hatch and running mate Monica Vernon in Iowa City.

UPDATE: Added below a short version of what would be the progressive case against O’Malley if he competes in the Iowa caucuses.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The Republican Party of Iowa held its state convention today in Des Moines. Links and highlights are after the jump.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

Did anyone get to the Clinton County Democrats Hall of Fame dinner last night to hear U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont? I wasn’t there, but judging from Lynda Waddington’s live tweets, he gave a great keynote speech, touching on economic inequality, climate change, education, and single-payer health care (which drew a standing ovation). Sanders thanked Iowans for sending Tom Harkin to Washington, where he earned his place in history.

Before the speech, Sanders told Waddington that he is considering running for president in 2016. The reception he gets in Iowa will influence his decision. I hope he runs, and not only because I would much rather caucus for him than for Hillary Clinton or “uncommitted.” Ben Jacobs predicts Sanders would “flop” against Clinton in Iowa, but I think he’s viewing the prospect through the wrong lens. People run for president for different reasons. Some are trying to win, while others are trying to drive the debate toward a certain set of issues. Of course Sanders doesn’t have a “path to victory” against Clinton in the Iowa caucuses–no Democrat would be able to beat her here. That’s not why he would be running. He explained his thought process in an interview late last year, which I’ve excerpted below. Sanders has always been elected to Congress as an independent, but I hope he would run for president as a Democrat.

The purpose of a progressive alternative in the race would be to force Hillary to focus more on issues of importance to liberals instead of spending all her time catering to Wall Street executives. On Friday she gave a “populist” policy speech about income inequality (excerpts are after the jump). Maybe she’s only pretending to care, but the more she goes on record promising to do something about these problems, the better. I believe Senator Elizabeth Warren when she says she is not running for president. In her absence, Bernie Sanders would be an outstanding voice for progressive values during the Democratic primaries.

The first Iowa survey by a brand-new Republican polling firm, Vox Populi, shows close races for governor and for the open U.S. Senate seat. Toplines for those races and for the 2016 Iowa caucuses are after the jump.  

Democrats hoping for a progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race need to look somewhere other than toward U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. Appearing on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday to promote her new autobiography, Warren couldn’t have been more emphatic about not running for president.

“I’m not running for president,” Warren, 64, of Cambridge, told reporter Mark Strassmann. Her autobiography, “A Fighting Chance,” hits bookstores Tuesday.

Strassmann persisted, however, noting that President Obama wrote “The Audacity of Hope,” like Warren, two years into his first term as U.S. senator. Epic, inspiring autobiographies have become a common political precursor to presidential runs, and speculation has swirled around Warren, who is seen as a alternative if Hilary Clinton chooses not to run, because of her popularity on her party’s left wing, as well as her success as a fundraiser for Democrats nationwide.

“I’m not running for president,” Warren cut him off. “You can ask it lots of different ways.”

No weasel words like “I’m focused on my work in the Senate” or “I’m happy in my current job, representing the good people of Massachusetts.”

Meanwhile, news broke a few days ago that Derek Eadon, a familiar figure in recent Iowa Democratic campaigns, will be the Midwest regional director for the “Ready for Hillary” super PAC. Eadon’s background: Iowa Democratic Party field organizer in Cedar Rapids during 2006, first field director hired by Barack Obama’s 2008 Iowa caucus campaign, Iowa State Director for Organizing for America beginning in 2009, Iowa Democratic Party’s “coordinated campaign” director in 2010, and general election director for Obama’s 2012 campaign in Iowa.

I still think Ready for Hillary is a huge waste of time and money. Whether she runs for president or not, she won’t need this super PAC’s help. However, it’s significant that early Obama supporters such as Jackie Norris and now Eadon are eager to identify supporters for a repeat Clinton presidential bid.  

Welcome news: Iowa Democratic Party leaders will have a real conversation about making the Iowa caucuses more accessible to people who can’t attend for various reasons.

“Everything’s on the table to talk about,” [IDP Chair Scott] Brennan said. “If there’s a way to enhance access and do it in a manner that keeps the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses and still lets peoples’ voices be heard, that’s what we want to do.”

Brennan has asked Norman Sterzenbach, the party’s former executive director, to conduct a “listening tour” to talk to “hundreds, if not thousands” of people about how absentee voting might be incorporated in the Caucuses.

I’ve supported Iowa caucus reforms since way before Bleeding Heartland existed. It is painful to talk with people who care deeply about the political process and want to participate in choosing a presidential nominee, but can’t get time off work or physically cannot leave their homes on caucus night.

Before the 2008 caucuses I wrote a series on the Iowa Democratic Party’s caucus system, linked here. Part 2, part 4 and part 9 discuss the barriers to participation in precinct caucuses. I’m glad to know Brennan and Sterzenbach are taking those problems seriously. Many Democrats who otherwise consider themselves inclusive have dismissed any criticism of the caucus system on this front. Introducing absentee ballots or proxy votes could address the problem, though each would also complicate the process in different ways–especially during the “realignment” period for caucus-goers whose first choice fell below the 15 percent threshold.

I hope IDP leaders will also be open to hearing about other ways the Iowa caucus system distorts Democratic voter preferences. Part 5, part 7 and part 8 of Bleeding Heartland’s Iowa caucus series discussed some of the problems created by caucus math. Instead of the “one person, one vote” principle that applies to all other elections, Iowa Democrats in some precincts can influence many more delegates than others, because of disparate caucus and general election turnout. Meanwhile, skilled operatives can sometimes manipulate the math, so that the number of delegates allocated to each candidate may not reflect the proportion of supporters in the room.

Any comments about the Iowa caucus system are welcome in this thread.  

The Suffolk University Political Research Center asked 800 Iowa “likely voters” about this year’s biggest races. The margin of error for the survey, conducted between April 3 and April 8, is plus or minus 3.5 percent. Suffolk’s press release summarizing the highlights is here. Full results are here (pdf). Tables are here (pdf).

Representative Bruce Braley leads all Republican rivals for U.S. Senate in the first Iowa poll conducted after Braley’s comments about Senator Chuck Grassley gained wide attention. Braley is still better-known than the GOP candidates, and more Iowans have a favorable than unfavorable impression of him. The bad news for Braley is that he is below 40 percent against each of the Republican candidates.

Suffolk’s poll indicates that the GOP IA-Sen primary is now a two-tier race, with State Senator Joni Ernst and Mark Jacobs each commanding more than 20 percent support, and the other candidates in the single digits. That makes sense, since Ernst and Jacobs have the most establishment support and are the only Senate candidates who have been able to raise their name recognition through paid advertising. But 40 percent of respondents were undecided.

Governor Terry Branstad’s still in positive territory, with 48.5 percent of respondents viewing him favorably and about 35.4 percent unfavorably. His lead over Democratic State Senator Jack Hatch is smaller in this poll than in any other Iowa survey I’ve seen, though: 42.4 percent to 32.1 percent.

Among respondents who said they are likely to participate in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, 63 percent favor Hillary Clinton. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren was far behind with 12 percent, followed by Vice President Joe Biden with 10 percent. It’s hard to say who is really in second place, since the margin of error for the Democratic caucus-goer subsample is quite large (plus or minus 8.4 percent). Nevertheless, Clinton clearly maintains a commanding lead.

I wouldn’t read much into the Iowa GOP caucus results from this survey. All the potential presidential candidates (Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, and Condoleezza Rice) are clumped close together, between 6 and 11 percent support. That’s within the the margin of error of plus or minus 8.7 percent for that subset of the Suffolk poll.

Politics ain’t beanbag. As a talk radio host with a sizable conservative audience in northwest Iowa, Sam Clovis must have been a valuable ally for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum during the 2012 Iowa caucus campaign. Clovis has explicitly modeled his U.S. Senate campaign on Santorum’s grassroots effort. But speaking to Iowa reporters yesterday, Santorum indicated that for now, he is staying out of the GOP primary for U.S. Senate.

“I have a very, very good friend who’s in the race – Sam Clovis who’s a terrific guy, is a good friend and someone who was a great support of mine, you know, Sam’s a #1, top-flight kind of guy,” Santorum says. “Right now I have sort of not gotten engaged in that race. I may.”

But Santorum said he is being selective about his endorsements because, he said, “the more you do, the less effective you are.”

You mean, less effective like endorsing State Representative Walt Rogers for Congress, only to see Rogers bail out of the IA-01 primary?

Santorum was in town yesterday to raise money for Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s Congressional campaign in IA-03. I wasn’t surprised when Santorum backed Schultz, but arguably, Clovis did a lot more to promote Santorum’s presidential aspirations than Schultz with his 11th hour endorsement. For sure Clovis was more influential than Rogers during the Iowa caucus campaign.

Unfortunately for Clovis, money talks, and he hasn’t raised enough of it to run an effective statewide Senate campaign. How tough to be blown off by Santorum, though. As a consolation prize, Clovis got the endorsement of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum yesterday. I wonder how many rank and file Iowa Republicans remember Schlafly, a conservative icon of the 1970s and 1980s.

UPDATE: David Bossie’s group Citizens United just endorsed Clovis as “the only full-spectrum conservative” in the IA-Sen race.

Time for a discussion thread on news that broke over the weekend: A.J. Spiker will step down early as chair of the Republican Party of Iowa in order to serve as an adviser to U.S. Senator Rand Paul’s political action committee. I’ve posted the Iowa GOP’s official announcement after the jump. It puts a positive spin on Spiker’s tenure, which began after Matt Strawn was forced out early over the 2012 Iowa caucus vote-counting debacle. Spiker’s critics have complained of poor fundraising and an insufficient focus on party unity and electing Republican candidates.

Spiker was a leading supporter of Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns in Iowa and benefited from the “Paulinista” dominance during the 2012 county, district, and state GOP conventions. However, Ron Paul loyalists were unable to repeat that performance at this year’s county conventions on March 8. In fact, some high-profile Paulinistas weren’t even able to win district convention delegate slots.

David Fischer, another prominent figure in the “Liberty” camp, stepped down as state party co-chair earlier this year. Danny Carroll, a former Iowa House Republican and unsuccessful candidate to lead the state party in 2009, won a very close State Central Committee election to succeed Fischer in that role.

Longtime social conservative activist Steve Scheffler made a deal with the Liberty crowd in the summer of 2012 to retain his position as Republican National Committeeman. He told the Des Moines Register that he expects “a huge turnover” on the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee after district conventions on April 26. Scheffler would like to see Carroll serve as the Iowa GOP’s interim leader until new State Central Committee members begin their terms this summer.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. P.S.- Some observers believe Spiker’s departure will spell doom for the Ames Straw Poll. I suspect the Iowa GOP will still organize some kind of candidate forum a few months before the Iowa caucuses, perhaps even a fundraiser. But new party leaders will likely be swayed by Governor Terry Branstad and other straw poll critics in planning that event next year.

UPDATE: Speaking to a conservative breakfast club on March 12, Danny Carroll confirmed that he will run for party chair this month and again after the new State Central Committee members are selected. He told Radio Iowa he’d like to see the straw poll continue, while making sure tickets are not overpriced and candidates are not charged “exorbitant rent for space at the venue.”

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? The hour I lost with “spring forward” was the hour I needed to get the open thread up at the usual time. But better late than never. All topics are welcome.

For the past week, the Des Moines Register has been releasing results from its latest statewide poll. Selzer & Co surveyed 703 Iowa adults between February 23 and 26, producing a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent. This morning’s newspaper revealed that President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit a new low in the state he carried in the last two presidential elections. Just 36 percent of respondents said they approve of Obama’s job performance, while 59 percent disapprove. Those findings will embolden Republican candidates who plan to make this November’s elections a referendum on the president’s policies.

Looking ahead to the 2016 caucuses, 50 percent of Iowans, including 88 percent of the Democrats in the Register’s poll sample, think it would be good for Hillary Clinton to run for president again. Support for Vice President Joe Biden was much lower, with 33 percent of the full sample and 58 percent of the Democrats saying it would be good for Biden to run for president again. Like I’ve said before, there is no evidence Hillary Clinton has any lasting problem with Iowa Democrats.

U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s reputation with Iowa Republicans doesn’t appear to have suffered from being on the losing ticket with Mitt Romney in 2012. Selzer’s poll for the Register found that 67 percent of Republican respondents think it’s a good idea for Ryan to run for president. The full sample was split, with 41 percent supporting a Ryan presidential bid and 42 percent saying it would be a bad idea. In the Republican sub-sample, 65 percent said it would be good for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to run for president again, 50 percent said the same about Texas Governor Rick Perry, and 48 percent said the same about former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum.

My impression last year was that other potential candidates, including U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, are telling Iowa Republicans what they want to hear, while Santorum’s message is not striking the same chord. If Ryan runs for president, he will surely come under attack for recent deals with Democrats on the federal budget.  

It’s been a while since we had a thread about the 2016 presidential campaign on the Republican side. Spin your own scenarios in the comments.

Public Policy Polling’s latest survey of Iowa Republicans shows a jumble, with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee slightly ahead, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas notably trending up and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida trending down, along with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Highlights are after the jump, or click here for full results and cross-tabs. I’m not surprised to see Cruz’s favorability improve, as he wowed Republican crowds during two Iowa visits last year.

PPP’s robocall format only allows a maximum of nine candidates to be listed. I find it strange that the pollster included Huckabee and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, neither of whom seem likely to run for president in 2016. It’s all the more odd since the poll did not give respondents a chance to choose former Senator Rick Santorum, the narrow winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses, as a presidential candidate.

PPP’s poll also did not offer respondents a chance to choose Texas Governor Rick Perry, who came to Iowa this week. He appeared on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program, attended a “business roundtable” in Davenport organized by the Koch Brothers group Americans for Prosperity, and spoke to GOP activists in Polk County at a private fundraiser and a small “rally” at Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign headquarters. I’ve posted excerpts from Perry’s “Iowa Press” comments below. I was particularly interested in his take on Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoing a bill that would have allowed private businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. Perry provided a textbook example of how to pivot away from the question you don’t want to answer the question you wanted.

Another ambitious Republican excluded from PPP’s Iowa poll is former Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who recently agreed to headline the April 3 GOP dinner in tiny Ringgold County. Brown visited the Iowa State Fair last summer and spoke at a Scott County GOP event in November.  

Public Policy Polling’s latest Iowa survey should end any speculation that the 2016 Iowa caucuses will be competitive if Hillary Clinton runs for president again.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton continues to be completely dominant. 67% want her to be the nominee, compared to 12% for Joe Biden, 5% for Elizabeth Warren, 3% for Mark Warner, 2% for Andrew Cuomo, and 1% for Cory Booker. Clinton’s dominance is near total- she has an 82/9 favorability rating and polls over 60% with liberals, moderates, men, women, young voters, and older voters alike.

Click here for full results and cross-tabs. The general election could be highly competitive in Iowa if Clinton is the nominee, but there is no sign of any vulnerability in the Democratic caucuses.

Time for bloggers and political analysts to stop claiming that Hillary has some lingering “Iowa problem” due to her allegedly “dismal” 2008 caucus showing. Fact is, Clinton didn’t do as badly here as many think. There is no evidence of any lingering fallout from her alleged failure to connect with Iowa Democrats.

It’s also time for the Des Moines Register to stop dancing around to avoid asking Iowa Democrats directly whom they would support in the 2016 caucuses. If you want to argue that the caucuses are a wide-open contest on the Democratic side, show us a poll to prove it.

P.S.–Public Policy Polling’s survey suggests that if Clinton doesn’t run, the caucuses will be much more competitive, with Vice President Joe Biden the early front-runner.  

Addendum to yesterday’s post: I think the Ready for Hillary super PAC is mostly a waste of time. Hillary Clinton will either run for president, or she won’t. Her decision won’t depend on how successfully other people “grassroots organize” on her behalf.

That said, Ready for Hillary could become a vehicle for those who want to show the Clintons their usefulness, or at least make money selling a list of Clinton supporters to somebody’s future campaign.

It’s worth noting that State Representative Tyler Olson took a leading role in organizing last Saturday’s Ready for Hillary event in Des Moines. A year ago, he was a rising star, newly rubber-stamped as the Iowa Democratic Party chair and the ranking Democrat on an important Iowa House committee. He gave up the party leadership position to run for governor, and later bowed out of that campaign for family reasons. Olson has confirmed he’s not seeking re-election to the Iowa House in 2014. But he obviously isn’t done with politics. Helping to start an “informal conversation” about how to engage Hillary Clinton’s Iowa supporters may get him a paid staff or advisory position before the 2016 caucuses. He may feel pressure to jump on the bandwagon early, since he endorsed Barack Obama rather than Clinton in 2007. Still, he doesn’t have nearly as much to add to a Clinton effort as Jackie Norris, who was state political director for Al Gore’s 2000 Iowa campaign and was deeply involved in the mechanics of Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Of all the non-events to get major Iowa caucus coverage, this past weekend’s “Ready for Hillary” meeting in Des Moines must be among the most ridiculous.

One significant piece of news emerged from the pro-Hillary super PAC’s first foray to Iowa, though. Jackie Norris, who managed Barack Obama’s 2008 general election campaign here, is now publicly on the Hillary bandwagon. In other words, one of the most important early Obama supporters in Iowa has just told any other would-be 2016 Democratic presidential contenders, “You’re on your own.”  

Here’s your mid-week open thread, Bleeding Heartland readers. All topics welcome.

I hope no one had a worse day than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. E-mails and text messages emerged showing that the governor’s staff “had advance knowledge of the traffic nightmare at the George Washington Bridge that crippled Fort Lee in September. And his top officials at the Port Authority did indeed close the lanes as a form of retribution against the town’s mayor.” The lane closures caused delays for school buses and first responders as well as for thousands of commuters. The e-mails directly implicate Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly. It looks like she’s about to be thrown under the proverbial bus, along with Port Authority official David Wildstein, a Christie appointee. The governor said in a statement today that he did not know about his staffer’s involvement and warned that “people will be held responsible for their actions.”

Christie needs this story to go away fast and be old news by the time he runs for president in 2016. I was amused to read recently that the New Jersey Republican State Committee sent Christmas cards on Christie’s behalf to Iowa GOP lawmakers, including State Representatives Bobby Kaufmann and Jake Highfill.

My favorite reaction to the latest news about the New Jersey governor came from Iowa conservative talk radio host Steve Deace: “Hilarious to see liberal media tearing part Chris Christie, who is Hillary’s best shot to win in 2016. Knock yourselves out!” Contrary to Deace’s fantasy world, where Republicans can win nationwide elections by moving to the right, polls taken in Iowa and many other states suggest that Christie would be the most competitive potential Republican candidate against Clinton. I still think he would lose.

UPDATE: I had no idea that newly elected Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Greg Maddux pitched for the Iowa Cubs in 1986 and 1987.

SECOND UPDATE: I should have mentioned that to his credit, Christie held an event this week to celebrate the New Jersey “DREAM Act” bill he signed in December. The new law allows children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at New Jersey colleges and universities. Needless to say, this decision won’t help Christie in any future Iowa caucus campaign.

Governor Terry Branstad’s re-election campaign collected more than $3.4 million in contributions during 2013 and ended the year with more than $4.1 million cash on hand and no debts, the campaign announced yesterday. I’ve posted the press release after the jump. The huge war chest means that the governor’s campaign will be able to pay for an extensive GOTV program, if (as appears likely) the Republican Party of Iowa lacks the funds to do so later this year.

The first real test of the Branstad campaign’s vaunted organization will be the off-year caucuses on January 21. The governor’s team are encouraging supporters to attend precinct caucuses with a view to being elected delegates to Republican county conventions, district conventions, and eventually the state convention. The goal is to undercut any potential state convention challenge to Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds as the governor’s running mate. Last week an Iowa caucus GOTV piece from the governor’s campaign hit Republican mailboxes (you can view it here).

Speaking of the lieutenant governor, some Iowans suspect that Branstad intends to step aside at the last minute and allow Reynolds to file as a candidate for governor this March. I don’t believe in that scenario for several reasons, not least because under Iowa law, the Branstad campaign could not simply transfer its enormous bank balance to a Reynolds for governor effort.

The press release I’ve posted below quotes Reynolds as “pleased with the progress we’ve made to bring 137,000 jobs to Iowa.” That alleged job creation figure is highly misleading, because it counts only jobs gained and not jobs lost in recent years. The upshot is that the Branstad administration claims credit for job “gains” even in months when Iowa had a net loss of jobs. In any event, no matter who is governor, fluctuations in Iowa’s unemployment rate track closely with changes in the national unemployment rate.

Final note on the Branstad campaign: its new spokesperson is Tommy Schultz. His predecessor Jimmy Centers moved to the position of communications director for the governor last month after Tim Albrecht (who ran communications for Branstad’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign) left the governor’s office to join a new political marketing firm called Redwave Digital, a partnership with longtime Republican strategist David Kochel.

Like the latest Des Moines Register poll, Quinnipiac’s new Iowa poll shows Governor Terry Branstad in a commanding position heading into next year’s election.  

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? I saw Peter Jackson’s new Hobbit film, and it’s a good movie if you don’t mind the director taking major liberties with the plot of the novel. If you’re a dedicated fan of Tolkien’s story, you will probably agree with Christopher Orr, who called it “bad fan fiction.” What I appreciate about Jackson is that unlike George Lucas (massively overrated as a director in my opinion), he didn’t try to make his film too much of a kids’ movie. There were plenty of children in the theater audience, but The Hobbit doesn’t include as many stupid characters or cheap laughs as the Star Wars movies.

Today’s edition of the Sunday Des Moines Register contains some findings from the latest Iowa Poll by Selzer & Co. The margins of error are large due to small sample sizes of Iowa Democrats and Republicans, but the headline news is that Hillary Clinton’s favorable/unfavorable numbers are 50 percent/45 percent with all Iowa respondents and 89 percent/7 percent with Democrats surveyed by Selzer between December 8 and 11. In other words, this poll does not support the narrative I’ve argued against repeatedly, which holds that Clinton “needs” to do more retail campaigning here to compensate for her allegedly poor Iowa caucuses showing and failure to connect with Iowans. In my view, Clinton didn’t do as badly here in 2008 as some people believe, nor is she as unpopular among rank and file Iowa Democrats as some bloggers imagine. She will not have any substantial Democratic competition here or anywhere else if she runs for president again.

Speaking of unfounded beliefs, backers of proposed casinos in Cedar Rapids and Jefferson (Greene County) talk a good game about the economic development their projects will bring. Economists Ernie Goss of Creighton University and Dave Swenson of Iowa State University threw cold water on those claims during this weekend’s edition of Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program. Excerpts are after the jump, including Goss’ memorable comparison of some casinos to a “neutron bomb” that “destroys” surrounding local businesses such as restaurants.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.  

Supporters of Ron Paul dominated the delegate slates at the 2012 Iowa Republican county conventions, district conventions, and the state convention.

Now Governor Terry Branstad’s re-election campaign is recruiting loyalists to become convention delegates next year, in an apparent effort to prevent any Republican faction from mounting a serious challenge to Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds.

A Harper Polling/Conservative intel survey of 390 “likely Republican caucus-goers” on November 23 and 24 indicates that 17 percent of respondents would support New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if the Iowa caucuses were held today. Another 17 percent were “not sure,” followed by 16 percent for U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, 13 percent for U.S. Senator Rand Paul, 11 percent for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, 9 percent for U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, 7 percent for Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, 6 percent for U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, and 3 percent for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

I am skeptical about any poll that identifies “likely caucus-goers” more than two years before the caucuses, and I doubt Christie has any chance of winning here. Then again, he could win a plurality if he’s the only perceived “moderate” in a crowded field of conservatives. I expect Iowa Republicans to gravitate away from sitting members of Congress and toward governors, but I think Walker will have more appeal here than Christie.

When Harper Polling/Conservative Intel tested Hillary Clinton against each of the Republicans among the full poll sample of 985 “likely voters,” she led everyone but Christie, who led her by 43 percent to 38 percent. Keep in mind that the party breakdown in this poll sample closely matched the 2010 turnout in Iowa. Presidential-year turnout is higher among all partisan groups, but especially among independents. In the 2010 general election, 281,546 no-party voters in Iowa cast ballots. But nearly 500,000 Iowa no-party voters cast ballots for the 2012 presidential election.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told a New York audience on Monday

that his party needed to abandon a strategy of appealing to “older white guys” and that it “doesn’t take a rocket scientist” to understand that demography matters in politics. […]

Republicans can’t win new voters “by narrowing your party and purifying your party and all this nonsense,” he said.

And he blasted some of the rhetoric from congressional Republicans against immigration, such as Iowa Rep. Steve King as “shameful and so insulting … [it’s] totally out of the mainstream of conservative thought.”

Iowa blogger Shane Vander Hart fumes,

If [Bush] is running in 2016 then he’s running a clinic on how to guarantee one loses the Iowa Caucus.

First lesson if you want to lose attack Congressman Steve King (R-IA).  […] The grassroots identify with Congressman King and his position on the issues. So when Bush takes a crack at him in New York of all places… well that shows he lacks the sense to run a successful campaign in Iowa.

I doubt Jeb Bush is focused on winning the Iowa caucuses. I think he’s focused on the GOP not losing presidential elections until the end of time.

Winning the presidency is not about pandering to social conservatives in Iowa. Republicans can’t win just by improving their performance among white voters. They need more support from fast-growing demographic groups. Specifically, as Bush knows very well, they need to do better among Latino voters in Florida. King may have won the battle against comprehensive immigration reform, but his national prominence on this issue is a nightmare for Republican strategists.  

Roughly 800 people came to Altoona on Saturday night to celebrate Governor Terry Branstad’s birthday and raise money for his re-election campaign. The featured speaker was House Budget Committee Chair and 2012 Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan. Listening to his remarks at Radio Iowa’s website, I didn’t hear a serious contender for the presidency in 2016.

Three big things were missing from Ryan’s speech.

Scott Brown and Rick Santorum have a lot in common besides both visiting Iowa this week. Both are former U.S. senators who lost re-election bids. Both are considering running for president in 2016. Both claim humble roots and have called on the Republican Party to do more to appeal to working-class voters.

The two men have very different views on how GOP candidates can accomplish that goal.

Catching up on news from last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry spoke at a lunch hosted by Americans for Prosperity and headlined the Polk County GOP’s fall dinner in Des Moines on November 7. O.Kay Henderson posted the full audio from Perry’s evening speech at Radio Iowa. After the jump I’ve posted some highlights from his remarks as well as an interview Perry gave the Des Moines Register and comments he made to Iowa reporters.

The Texas governor is trying to reinvent himself as a guy focused on economic policy and pragmatic problem-solving. I tend to believe in the adage, “You only get one chance to make a first impression.” Perry blew his big opening in the late summer of 2011, and I expect Iowa Republican caucus-goers to be more interested in other governors, such as Scott Walker of Wisconsin or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. That said, Republicans have on several occasions nominated a candidate during his second run for the presidency, and I think governors tend to be more appealing to GOP primary voters than current members of Congress. Furthermore, several candidates will be fighting over the “uncompromising conservative” niche, so Perry might as well distinguish himself by rejecting purity tests and saying, “I’d rather have a half a loaf than no loaf.”

Any comments on Perry’s prospects in the 2016 Iowa caucuses or the presidential primaries are welcome in this thread.  

Yesterday’s election results were ideal for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s presidential ambitions. He won re-election by an enormous 60.5 percent to 38 percent margin.

In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by over 700,000, Mr. Christie won decisively, making impressive inroads among younger voters, blacks, Hispanics and women – groups that Republicans nationally have struggled to attract.

The governor prevailed despite holding positions contrary to those of many New Jersey voters on several issues, including same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the minimum wage, and despite an economic recovery that has trailed the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, hard-right Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor’s race to a very unappealing Democrat, Terry McAuliffe.  

Mainstream Republicans and pundits will draw the obvious conclusion: to have a shot at winning the presidency in 2016, the GOP needs someone who doesn’t put social issues front and center, someone who can win in a blue state. Christie will lead the Republican Governors Association next year, giving him more access to big donors across the country. He’s already got a fan club among prominent Iowans on the GOP’s business wing.

My hunch is that despite yesterday’s elections, the GOP base will still demand someone more conservative than Christie in the 2016 presidential primaries. If he does become the nominee, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he could win electoral votes in blue states. His opponent in the governor’s race was third-tier. At least two exit polls taken yesterday indicated he would lose his own state to Hillary Clinton in a presidential contest. He didn’t have any coat-tails, as New Jersey Democrats held all their state Senate seats.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? UPDATE: Added comments from Bob Vander Plaats below. SECOND UPDATE: Added comments from other social conservatives below.

THURSDAY UPDATE: Added comments from Representative Steve King. He and Christie go way back.