Public Policy Polling’s new poll on the Iowa governor’s race has a lot of bad news for Democratic incumbent Chet Culver. The poll was in the field from May 25 to 27 and surveyed 1,277 Iowa voters, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent.

Former Governor Terry Branstad, the likely Republican nominee, leads Culver 52 percent to 37 percent. Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts lead the governor by smaller margins, 43-38 and 40-38, respectively, but it’s bad for an incumbent to be below 40 percent against all challengers. Only 28 percent of PPP’s respondents approved of Culver’s performance, while 56 percent disapproved.

I don’t have much to add to PPP director Tom Jensen’s comments:

[Branstad] has a 49-33 advantage among independent voters, and wins 20% of the Democratic vote while losing only 7% of the Republicans to Culver. Branstad’s not overwhelmingly popular, with 42% of voters viewing him favorably to 37% with a negative opinion. But more important than the way voters view Branstad may be the way they see Culver, and the current Governor’s approval rating is only 28% with 56% of voters giving him bad marks. His approval with independents is 22% and with Republicans it’s 4%, and even among Democrats he stands only at 56%. […]

It’s a long way until November but for now Republicans are in pretty good shape in this race. Culver can’t get reelected with these approval numbers- he will somehow have to make voters change their minds about him.

You can download PPP’s polling memo (pdf file) here or read it at Iowa Independent.

To my knowledge, 28 percent is the lowest approval rating ever recorded for Culver by any pollster. Incumbents below 50 percent approval are usually considered vulnerable, and incumbents below 40 percent are highly vulnerable. If Culver’s approval really is 28 percent, calling this election an uphill battle would be an understatement.

Branstad needs to make this race a referendum on the incumbent, while Culver needs to make it a choice. Branstad’s record has yet to come under much scrutiny, and he keeps throwing stones from his glass house. Under Culver and the Democratic-controlled legislature, Iowa’s fiscal health has been strong during difficult times for state budgets across the country. In contrast, “Mastercard Governor” Branstad kept two sets of books and borrowed money to pay bills.

PPP’s numbers on the Branstad-Culver matchup are similar to what Republican pollster Rasmussen found a month earlier (though Culver’s approval rating wasn’t nearly as dismal in the Rasmussen poll). So much for the conspiracy theory about PPP being in cahoots with Iowa Democrats. Unfortunately, the recent Research 2000 poll for KCCI showing Branstad ahead of Culver 48-41, with Culver’s favorability in the mid-40s, looks like an outlier.

I keep waiting for the new Selzer and Co. Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register. The last one was in January, and most years Selzer conducts an Iowa poll in May.  

Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

Final note on polling: the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman fired up the wayback machine and discovered that in the 2002 Republican primary, Vander Plaats significantly outperformed his final poll numbers. He’ll need some GOTV magic to overcome the 46-31 lead PPP found for Branstad in the latest survey. I doubt the one-two punch of James Dobson and Chuck Norris can get the job done for Vander Plaats.

Via Todd Dorman’s blog, I see news that will make thegolddome happy: someone has done a public poll on the Iowa GOP gubernatorial primary. Public Policy Polling found former Governor Terry Branstad leading Bob Vander Plaats 46 percent to 31 percent, with State Representative Rod Roberts well behind at 13 percent. The firm surveyed 474 “likely GOP primary voters” between May 25 and 27, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percent. The polling memo by Tom Jensen notes, “Branstad gets 42-68% of the vote across the ideological spectrum, but does worst against the 74% conservative majority, edging Tea Party favorite Vander Plaats by just 41-35.”

This poll supports what I’ve been thinking for months about Roberts. He is the best surrogate Branstad could have in this primary, diluting the votes of the social conservative base that doesn’t trust the former governor. If one candidate consolidated the “not Branstad” vote, the topline result would be nearly a dead heat.

If PPP’s survey is accurate, Branstad will win next Tuesday’s primary, but with the advantages he took into this race he should be getting 60 to 70 percent of the Republican vote. He’s done the job before, he will have spent more than $2 million before the primary (more than his opponents combined), and he has been advertising statewide on television and radio since the beginning of April. Roberts and Vander Plaats could manage only limited ad buys, and Vander Plaats just went up on television the day before PPP’s poll was in the field.

Incredibly, this is the first public poll of the Republican primary since last July, when The Iowa Republican blog commissioned a survey by Voter/Consumer research. That poll found Vander Plaats way ahead of the rest of the declared Republican candidates, with only Branstad hypothetically able to make the primary competitive.

Branstad created an exploratory committee to run for governor last October. Since then, Selzer has done two Iowa polls for the Des Moines Register, Research 2000 has done three polls for KCCI-TV, The Iowa Republican commissioned another poll in January, not to mention several Iowa polls by Rasmussen. All of those surveys tested Governor Chet Culver against his Republican challengers but not the Republican primary. The lack of polling on Branstad against Vander Plaats and Roberts is a continuing mystery to me. I read Swing State Project regularly and have seen dozens of polls of Democratic or Republican primaries in other states. You would think that at the very least The Iowa Republican blog would want to poll the GOP primary. The fact that they haven’t suggests that last summer’s primary poll may have been intended primarily to help the people recruiting Branstad to run for governor again. Rasmussen is the most prolific pollster in the country, and has polled Republican primaries in many other states. Maybe Rasmussen really is just interested in setting a narrative rather than polling the most newsworthy races.

PPP also polled the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and found Roxanne Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, compared to 13 percent for Bob Krause and 8 percent for Tom Fiegen.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich highlighted something worth noting from PPP’s polling memo:

Among voters that actually know who Vander Plaats is- whether they see him favorably or unfavorably- he leads Branstad 42-37. The question is if there’s enough time left for Vander Plaats to completely make up the huge gap in name recognition he began the campaign with.

Vander Plaats was never going to be able to match Branstad’s spending dollar for dollar with the huge support for Branstad among Iowa’s business Republican elite. But if Vander Plaats had saved more of what he raised in 2009, he might have been able to raise his name recognition much more this spring.

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa Independent highlighted another part of the polling memo:

There are very clear age divisions in the race. It’s tied among voters under 45, who may not even remember Branstad’s time as Governor. But he’s up 55-20 with senior citizens, who are certainly likely to remember his tenure, and that’s fueling most of his overall victory.

I would think almost anyone over 30 remembers Branstad as governor. I suspect that this discrepancy tells us there are a lot more moderate Republicans over age 45 than under age 45. Branstad leads Vander Plaats among moderates by a huge margin in the poll. The Republican Party has grown much more conservative in the last decade or two, so younger moderates might naturally identify more with Democrats or no-party voters.

Bob Vander Plaats’ first television commercial didn’t mention his Republican rivals in the governor’s race, but a new commercial released today draws distinctions on immigration:

Rough transcript:

Voice-over: Only one candidate for governor supports Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law: Bob Vander Plaats (visual shows Des Moines Sunday Register headline, “Immigration divides GOP trio: 2 candidates say it’s a federal issue; Vander Plaats endorses Arizona law”)

Vander Plaats speaking to camera: Chet Culver and Terry Branstad want to wait for the federal government to do something about illegal immigration. We’ve waited long enough. I’m tired of relying on the federal government and getting no results. As governor, I’ll give our state and local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration laws. It’s not just common sense; it’s the right thing to do.

The Republican candidates sparred on the immigration issue during the second gubernatorial debate a few weeks ago. All three candidates engaged in misleading and disgraceful pandering. It’s sad that Vander Plaats embraces the Arizona approach. Not only does the new law encroach on civil liberties, it would be very expensive for local governments to implement. Vander Plaats denies the obvious costs that would accompany this kind of law.

This commercial looks like a “hail Mary” pass to me. I understand why Vander Plaats would want to go negative, but criticizing Branstad’s record as governor, as he did during the third gubernatorial debate, would be more honorable than scoring points on the Arizona law. Maybe their internal polling suggests immigration is a salient issue for the Republican base.

This commercial evokes the usual mixed feelings I have when I think about the Republican primary. Part of me would like to see Vander Plaats win the nomination, because I believe Culver would easily beat him. The other part of me wants Vander Plaats and his ill-informed demagoguery to be irrelevant to Iowa politics after June 8.  

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made three stops in Iowa yesterday. First, he headlined a fundraiser in Cedar Rapids for the Republican House Majority fund, then he was a featured speaker in the American Future Fund’s lecture series in Davenport, and finally he gave the keynote at a Polk County GOP dinner in Des Moines. The Republican crowds loved him.

IowaPolitics.com covered Gingrich in Davenport and in Cedar Rapids. Lynda Waddington focused on Gingrich’s remarks about immigration, which weren’t part of his prepared speech. The Des Moines Register has more on what Gingrich told reporters in Des Moines.

I see Gingrich was railing against President Obama’s handling of the ongoing disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I’m not happy about Obama’s policy on offshore drilling, but Gingrich has zero credibility to be posturing as an environmentalist. What did Gingrich or his fellow House Republicans ever do to limit offshore drilling or its potential consequences for oceanic and coastal ecosystems?

Although Gingrich pleased Republican crowds with harsh criticism of the current administration, he assured journalists yesterday that Republicans are not the “party of no”:

Gingrich said his book, “To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine,” is two-thirds solutions. “If you look at what Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is doing to design a contract this fall, it’s all positive. If you look at Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) work on entitlement reform, it’s probably the most comprehensive reform done in modern times.”

Republicans should pray that American voters never seriously examine Ryan’s work on entitlement reform.

Getting back to Gingrich, I can’t take anyone seriously who calls the corporate-friendly Obama a “socialist.” As for Gingrich’s positive agenda, it’s notable that he “declined to specify federal programs he would cut” to pay for the big tax cuts he advocates. And let’s take a look at his five major tax cut proposals:

* A one-year, 50 percent reduction in Social Security and Medicare taxes both for employee and employer

* A 100 percent write-off of new equipment

* Abolishing the capital gains tax like China

* Matching the Irish tax rate for corporations at 12.5 percent. He said today U.S. corporations pay the highest taxes in the world with state and federal taxes combained, which he compared to a “backpack with 60 pounds of weight in it.”

* Abolishing the death tax permanently

The first point would exacerbate solvency problems facing the Social Security and Medicare funds, which would bolster the case of conservatives who want to dismantle the programs.

Eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans while adding significantly to our long-term deficits.

Gingrich’s claims about corporate taxes are misleading. Thanks to several common deductions, extensions and loopholes, the effective corporate tax burden in the U.S. is lower than in most other developed economies. In fact, corporations have been paying a declining share of total state taxes in Iowa and across the country for decades.

Gingrich didn’t rule out a 2012 presidential bid yesterday, saying he will announce his intentions in February or March 2011. If he does run for president, he will not bypass Iowa. His wife (a Luther College graduate) enjoys spending time here, Gingrich noted. I don’t see Gingrich as a strong potential candidate and will be surprised if he runs. If he has presidential ambitions, though, he must run in 2012. By 2016 he will be 73 years old.

I see Gingrich tried to hint that Governor Chet Culver has ethical problems. Gingrich isn’t on high moral ground when his American Solutions organization routinely uses fake polls to raise money from the conservative grassroots. Polling expert Mark Blumenthal called the sales pitch from Gingrich’s group “a clear cut example of fundraising under the guise of a survey,” also known as FRUGGing. The Marketing Research Association considers FRUGGing unethical.

I will say this for Gingrich: at least the guy on his third marriage didn’t try to lecture Iowans about family values.

I noticed that Gingrich didn’t endorse anyone in the Republican gubernatorial primary. He was also silent about Bob Vander Plaats’ plan for the Iowa governor to halt same-sex marriage by executive order. Last year Vander Plaats claimed Gingrich was among those who backed his plan.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats starts running this television commercial today:

Rough transcript by me:

Voice-over: Scandals, mismanagement, loaded budgets. Chet Culver has been a jobs killer.

Vander Plaats: Iowa needs a new governor. I’ll make Iowa the business startup capital of the world by cutting taxes, shrinking government, reducing our long-term debt, and marketing Iowa as a right-to-work state. I’ll create real jobs by growing our state the right way. It’s not just common sense, it’s the right thing to do.

I am shocked by the poor quality of this commercial. Vander Plaats speaks much more naturally in clips I’ve seen from his stump speeches than he does when he talks straight to the camera. They should have ditched the boilerplate anti-Culver visuals at the beginning and pulled 30 seconds worth of material from some of his campaign rallies, or even from the gubernatorial debates. I know I’m not the target audience for this commercial, but it doesn’t seem like a good way to introduce himself to the voters.

If Vander Plaats had not spent so much of what his campaign raised in 2009, he might have been up on television more than two weeks before the June 8 primary. Then he could have introduced himself in an all-positive commercial about his background, and perhaps run a couple of different ads on his issue agenda (making Iowa the business capital of the world).

One good thing about the ad is its focus on economic issues. There’s no reason for Vander Plaats to talk about abortion or same-sex marriage in a commercial. The Republican primary voters who care most about those issues already know where he stands.

Speaking of social issues, I heard a radio news story this morning about Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts being against letting gay couples adopt children. The same brief story paraphrased Terry Branstad as saying gay couples should only be allowed to adopt if no one else is able to take care of the child. I haven’t found a link to the story yet, and I don’t know if it refers to new comments over the weekend. During last Thursday’s Republican debate, which Iowa Public Television broadcast again Sunday, Roberts and Vander Plaats both said same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or become foster parents. Branstad gave a more nuanced answer: “I believe that adoption should be in the best interests of the child, I think generally that means that you’d want to have it with a man and woman because that’s the best environment for a child to grow up in.”

That exchange illustrates why having Roberts in the race is so good for Branstad. Roberts prevents the Republican primary from being a two-man race, which would favor the more conservative candidate. Now Branstad only needs a plurality against two rivals who are giving all of the “correct” answers to voters on the religious right. Vander Plaats has support from plenty of social conservatives, such as Bill Salier and most notably the Iowa Family Policy Center, but Roberts prevents Vander Plaats from consolidating the conservative base.

Vander Plaats has something else to worry about today besides Roberts. Bret Hayworth reports in the Sioux City Journal that the organization Opportunities Unlimited replaced Vander Plaats as CEO because he wasn’t raising enough money to keep the non-profit functioning. The Vander Plaats campaign will try to downplay the report, because the main on-the-record source for the article is former board member Jackie Kibbie-Williams. She is the daughter of Iowa State Senator Jack Kibbie (a Democrat). But The Iowa Republican blog, which favors Branstad in the governor’s race, is already hyping the report. While Chris Rants was still running for governor last year, he raised questions about Vander Plaats’ management of Opportunities Unlimited. At that time, former board member Kim Hoogeveen defended Vander Plaats strongly, but Hoogeveen didn’t dispute the Kibbie-Williams account when contacted by Hayworth for today’s piece.

Share any thoughts about the Republican primary in this thread.

UPDATE: Todd Dorman noticed “Huckabee’s trademark subliminal background cross” in the Vander Plaats commercial and had this to say about Salier’s endorsement: “In addition to helping Tom Harkin become senator for life by hobbling his last credible opponent, Salier also endorsed President Tom Tancredo and President Fred Thompson. So clearly, this is a game-changer.”

Between 1984 and 2007, “The gap between the wealth possessed by white and black families grew more than four times larger,” in part because of tax cuts and policies that favored high-income groups. Researchers from the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University also found in a new report that the average middle-income white family was able to accumulate more wealth (assets minus debts) than the average high-income African-American family: “Consumers of color face a gauntlet of barriers – in credit, housing and taxes – that dramatically reduce the chances of economic mobility.”

The growing wealth gap between the races in the U.S. is the focus of the new report, which you can download here. Other researchers have found equally damning evidence of the widening gap between the very rich and everyone else. This graph shows how “the top 10 per cent of income earners in the US took home an ever more outsized share of the total national income starting at the end of the 1970s.” From the World War II era to the early 1980s, the “top 10 percent took 30-35 per cent of total national income,” but by 2007 that figure had grown to about 50 percent–a level not seen since just before the Great Depression.

Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policies started this trend, but George W. Bush accelerated it with his enormous tax cuts for the highest earners. During Bush’s presidency, “The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent of households increased sharply, from 16.9 percent in 2002 to 23.5 percent in 2007 – a larger share than at any point since 1928.” In addition, approximately “Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households […].”  

This enormous wealth gap is invisible to the Reagan-worshippers who now dominate the Republican Party. For them, any attempt to increase working-class wages is a “job-killer,” and tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the well-off are the solution to every problem. Look at how the Republican candidates for Iowa governor balk at spending $42 million to send more than 12,000 kids to pre-school but brag about plans to cut corporate taxes by $80 million to $160 million. Their priorities would be laughable if the real-world consequences were not so tragic.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Was anyone else disappointed that the “major endorsement” Terry Branstad’s campaign hyped yesterday turned out to be State Auditor David Vaudt? He’s not exactly a celebrity, and his stamp of approval only reinforces that Branstad is the Republican establishment candidate. I guess the big deal is that Vaudt normally does not endorse in competitive Republican primaries, but when I think “major endorsement,” I think game-changer, and Vaudt doesn’t fit the bill.

At yesterday’s press conference, Vaudt cited several of Branstad’s accomplishments as well as his proposals for the future. For example, he praised the 1985 government reorganization. It takes guts for Branstad to keep bragging about “cutting out half the state agencies” when Iowa’s general fund budget increased by 166 percent during his tenure, and the number of state employees increased by about 15 percent (from 53,342 in 1983 to 61,400 in 1999).

Vaudt also credited Branstad with implementing budget reforms to use generally accepted accounting principles, establishing the rainy day fund, spending no more than 99 percent of expected revenues, and leaving Iowa with a $900 million surplus in 1999 (which happened to be near the peak of an economic cycle). As State Representative Chris Rants has noted, Governor Branstad wanted to spend more:

Republicans were unwilling to go along with Branstad’s desire to spend more money – a fact he forgets when he talks about how much money was left in the reserves when he left office as it was only there because the legislature wouldn’t agree to his spending plans.

Vaudt praised Branstad for promising to reduce the cost of state government by 15 percent. We still haven’t seen specifics about how Branstad will achieve that. The 2011 budget was adopted in March; it’s past time for Branstad to tell us which services or programs he would eliminate to put us on track to reduce the size of government by 15 percent. Cutting funds for preschool programs, family-planning services and Area Education Agencies administrators won’t be nearly enough to keep his promises on spending.

Vaudt’s endorsement invites questions about Richard Johnson, who was state auditor during most of Branstad’s time as governor. Johnson famously endorsed Fred Grandy during the 1994 Republican primary and now co-chairs Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial campaign. Asked about Johnson yesterday, Branstad said,

“First of all let me say, I’ve learned a lot.  Dick Johnson made some valid criticisms back in the 80’s when the Democrats were in control of both houses of the legislature.  As a result we put together the Committee to Reform State Spending in 1991 and passed the spending reforms.  I didn’t just accept the legislature saying, ‘That’s all we can do.’  I brought them back twice in 1992 until we got all the spending reforms.”

Branstad went on to say that, after Republicans got control of the Iowa House in the 1992 elections, they passed the 99% spending limitation, and he strictly enforced that limit the rest of the time he was in office.

Whatever reforms Branstad enacted in 1992 weren’t enough to satisfy Johnson two years later. Johnson also called out Branstad for misleading claims about reducing the size of government. Chet Culver’s campaign released several news clips yesterday about Johnson and Branstad, including this one:

The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported that “Where Branstad claims a 16 percent reduction in the number of management employees in state government, for example, Johnson contends the reality is that jobs weren’t eliminated. Titles were changed. ‘The people and the payroll are still there.'” (Cedar Rapids Gazette, 6/4/1994)

I posted the Culver campaign’s release after the jump for those who want to stroll down memory lane about Branstad’s record on fiscal issues.

Speaking of Branstad’s accountability problem, the Des Moines Register reports today that he spoke out publicly for a racetrack in Cedar Rapids in 1984. Branstad recently criticized Governor Chet Culver for advocating approval of four new applications for casino licenses. He claims that unlike Culver, he never directly contacted members of the Racing and Gaming Commission to urge approval of the Cedar Rapids racetrack. I highly doubt that the commissioners were unaware of then-Governor Branstad’s opinion. Most governors make their views known to state commissions via backdoor channels.  

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts began television advertising this week on WHO-TV in Des Moines, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, KWWL-TV in Waterloo, KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, and Mediacom. Here’s the commercial, called “What I Believe”:

Here is the ad script:

“My name is State Representative Rod Roberts, Republican candidate for governor. I would like to tell you what I believe. I believe we need to create new jobs. I have a plan to bring new businesses to Iowa that will create jobs for thousands of Iowans. I believe we need to cut taxes. Iowans work hard, and they deserve to keep more of their paychecks. I believe we need a pro-family governor who will protect the life of the unborn and defend traditional marriage. And I would respectfully ask for your vote in the June 8 Republican primary election for governor. Thank you.”

This is the ultimate play-it-safe commercial for a Republican. There’s nothing unusual about the message, the music or the visuals (Roberts talking with workers, farmers, surrounded by family). Like the radio ads Roberts ran earlier this year, this is a simple way to introduce the candidate to voters. By comparison, the commercials Terry Branstad has been running for the past month are more slick and probably cost a lot more to produce.

Roberts started the year with lower name recognition and less money to spend than his two rivals for the Republican nomination. I would expect a long-shot candidate to take a few more risks with his limited advertising budget, or at least explain why Iowa Republicans should choose him over the better-known candidates in the race. Maybe Roberts plans to unveil a “comparison” ad closer to the June 8 primary, or maybe he is trying to remain the “nice guy” candidate in case things turn nasty between Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats.

If Roberts isn’t seriously competing to win the primary, this commercial makes more sense. Alluding to abortion and same-sex marriage can help him with the social conservative wing of the GOP, voters Vander Plaats desperately needs in order to upset Branstad in the primary. As I’ve said before, if Roberts didn’t exist, the Branstad campaign might want to invent him. I would not be surprised to see Roberts become Branstad’s running mate.

By the way, Democratic campaign strategist Jeff Link says Roberts would be the toughest candidate for Governor Chet Culver to run against, because he’s a “clean slate” with no “baggage.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Cross-posted at my blog: http://blog.thegolddome.com

Note to the media: There is an election in less than a month, but no one has deemed to do a poll about it yet.

The main reason is because most people think like Doug Gross and Jerry Crawford that Terry Branstad will be the nominee. Now Doug Gross has a vested interest, and Jerry Crawford probably hasn't been paying attention as Paddy O'Prado raced to third in the Derby and is looking to race in the Preakness — so let me tell them the Republican Primary for Governor is far from over. The other reason is money it can cost as much as twice as much to poll a primary universe as a general election universe because you run into so many people that aren't voting in the primary.

Either way, while Terry Branstad just might win on June 8, the concept that it is pre-ordained is not reporting or punditry. It is just lazy. But some are starting to get it: O. Kay Henderson mentions the oversight in a post yesterday.

So, for everyone but Kay, including the editors of the DMR, the staff at KCCI, and any other media outlet that might deem to poll this race, here are just six reason the CW that Branstad has this locked up is probably wrong:

Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin and Governor Chet Culver markedly improved their position in the latest statewide poll by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV. The pollster surveyed 600 likely Iowa voters between May 3 and May 5, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

In the Senate race, five-term incumbent Republican Chuck Grassley leads Conlin 49 percent to 40 percent. The last time Research 2000 polled this race for KCCI in mid-February, Grassley led Conlin 56-35. The firm has not polled Grassley against either of the other Democratic Senate candidates, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause.

To my knowledge, Grassley has never been below 50 percent in a public poll before. The favorability numbers suggest that support for Conlin has more room to grow, because 20 percent of respondents didn’t know enough about her to have an opinion. Only 5 percent of respondents said the same about Grassley. Michael O’Brien of The Hill declared Conlin “within striking distance” of Grassley.

In the governor’s race, the new poll found former Governor Terry Branstad leading Culver 48 percent to 41 percent. Normally those numbers wouldn’t look good for an incumbent, but in Research 2000’s February poll for KCCI, Branstad’s lead was twice as large (54-38). DavidNYC of Swing State Project quipped that Culver’s numbers no longer resemble those of the 1962 New York Mets but look more like those of the 1963 Mets. Culver led Bob Vander Plaats 44 percent to 40 percent and Rod Roberts by 46 percent to 36 percent.

I frankly expected worse numbers in this poll. The three Republican candidates have been criss-crossing the state bashing Culver full-time for months now. Branstad, Vander Plaats and Roberts have held two debates and countless campaign events and media interviews in towns large and small. Furthermore, Branstad has been running paid television advertising statewide for a full month. Culver’s campaign manager Donn Stanley emphasized that angle in his comment on the poll: “What is particularly surprising is that this poll comes out after weeks of Branstad’s campaign airing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of television ads across Iowa. He is the only candidate in the race that is running television ads. This poll suggests those ads have not be resonating with Iowa voters.”

Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told KCCI, “Polls will go up and down, but what’s unchanged is that Governor Branstad is the Republican who can beat Chet Culver in November.”

One problem with the poll is the partisan makeup of the sample: 33 percent Democrats, 29 percent Republicans and 38 percent Independents. That’s quite different from the proportion of Iowans who cast votes in the 2006 general election (pdf file available here): 37 percent were Democrats, 37 percent were Republicans, and 26 percent independents. I would be very surprised if the voter universe this November had a plurality of no-party voters.

Both Grassley and Branstad led comfortably among no-party voters in the new KCCI poll, so if that poll over-sampled independents, the Republican leads in the Senate and governor’s race might be even smaller than they appear. On the other hand, there’s no guarantee that this November’s voter universe will contain more Democrats than Republicans, as this poll assumes. Iowa Democrats still have a voter registration advantage of about 100,000 over the GOP, but Republicans may benefit from an “enthusiasm gap.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Secretary of State Michael Mauro released the latest Iowa voter registration numbers today: 602,768 Republicans, 711,106 Democrats, and 774,005 no-party voters. The total number of registered voters is 2,089,561. Approximately 1,050,000 Iowans voted in the 2006 general election.

During Saturday’s Republican gubernatorial debate I was struck by how eager all three candidates were to pander on the immigration issue. For example, in response to a question by Iowa Public Radio journalist Jeneane Beck, all the Republicans said they would deny in-state tuition at Iowa universities to the children of illegal immigrants.

That’s easier said than done, since many children of undocumented immigrants were born in the U.S. and are consequently U.S. citizens. For that reason, former Governor Terry Branstad has backpedaled a bit since the debate. Meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board on Tuesday morning, Branstad “said he would have to consider the constitutionality” of denying in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country. Later the same day, Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told the Des Moines Register, “If they are born here, they are legal residents. If they are, they should be afforded every opportunity as every legal resident of the state.”

Branstad’s leading Republican rival, Bob Vander Plaats, talked a good game about the “rule of law” during Saturday’s debate but insists that he would deny children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition, even if they were born here. I expect Vander Plaats supporters to make a big deal out of Branstad’s “flip-flop” on the issue, even though Branstad’s new stance is correct from a legal standpoint. The Register’s Tom Beaumont reported that the third Republican running for governor, Rod Roberts, “stopped short of saying U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should not qualify” for in-state tuition.

Meanwhile, Vander Plaats remains the only candidate in the Republican field to advocate an Arizona-style crackdown on undocumented immigrants for Iowa. I oppose Arizona’s new law on principle, because it is un-American to give the police power to put you in jail if you’re not immediately able to “show your papers.” Branstad and Roberts have declined to advocate copying Arizona for more pragmatic reasons, such as the cost of implementation. Polk County Sheriff Bill McCarthy put in his two cents on that angle yesterday:

“It’s all well and good to demagogue the issue, but there’s a reality to it,” McCarthy said during the elected official discussion segment of this morning’s Board of Supervisors workshop.

If illegal immigrants awaiting deportation were detained at the Polk County Jail at a cost of $95 per day without adequate support from the federal government, it could cost millions of dollars, McCarthy said. […]

The current jail system will not work if Iowa adopts a law similar to the one in Arizona, McCarthy said later in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

“The bottom line is that we’re dealing with human beings,” he said. “And I know they shouldn’t be here and I know they entered the country illegally. But if they’re here, they’re people and I think we have to deal with them in a humane way, particularly when there are children involved.”

The immigration issue provides a convenient crutch to Republican candidates, but the favored right-wing approach would be extremely costly, not to mention impractical. While we’re on the subject, I’d like to hear third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun explain how he would “put [all the illegal immigrants in Iowa] on a bus and send them wherever they came from.”

Any thoughts on immigration policy are welcome in this thread. How long do you think Republican candidates will get away with massively exaggerating the amount of money Iowa could save by cutting services to undocumented immigrants?

Terry Branstad’s campaign launched its third television ad today, about a month after his first commercials started running statewide in Iowa. The new commercial depicts Branstad as “the real conservative change we needed then… and now.”

Here’s the ad script:

The farm crisis … Budget deficits… Skyrocketing unemployment…

That’s what Terry Branstad faced when he was elected governor.

But this Winnebago County farm kid put his rural values right to work, recruiting thousands of jobs, cutting out half the state agencies and taxes $124 million – leaving us record employment, and a $900 million surplus.

Terry Branstad is the real conservative change we needed then… and NOW.

Time for a reality check.

Branstad was first elected governor near the bottom of one economic cycle (at that time the most severe recession since World War II) and was fortunate to retire near the peak of the Clinton boom years. However, job gains during Branstad’s tenure as governor did not fulfill promises he made during his campaigns.

Iowa reorganized state government in 1985, eliminating some agencies and merging others into larger departments. On the other hand, total state government employment increased from 53,342 in 1983 to 61,400 in 1999. Total receipts in the state’s general fund increased from $1.899 billion in 1983 to $4.881 billion in 1999. That 166 percent increase was more than the rate of inflation during the same period, and Iowa’s population was no larger when Branstad retired than it was when he was first elected.

The huge growth in the general fund budget would not have been possible without various tax increases Branstad signed into law. Increased revenue from two sales tax hikes dwarfed the $124 million in tax cuts highlighted in Branstad’s new commercial. Those cuts came primarily from reducing income and estate taxes, delivering most of the benefits to wealthier Iowa families. Unfortunately, Branstad’s sales tax increases disproportionately hit lower-income families, who spend a greater share of their money on essentials.

Branstad was far from reluctant to raise taxes. He asked the state legislature to increase the sales tax in his very first budget address, within days of being inaugurated in 1983.

I expect Branstad to win the Republican primary on June 8 despite his accountability problem. Bob Vander Plaats is a strong speaker but doesn’t have the financial resources to publicize his case against the former governor. Rod Roberts isn’t trying to make a case against Branstad, as far as I can tell. His function in the campaign seems to be to prevent Vander Plaats from consolidating the conservative vote in the primary.

However, during the general election campaign, Branstad will face an opponent with the resources to compare his record with his rhetoric. I wonder how many conservative Republicans will either stay home in November or check the Libertarian box in the governor’s race.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich says the $124 million figure “is the campaign’s calculation of the net result of all the tax changes enacted under Branstad – an overall reduction of $124 million, in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars.” I would like to see a calculation of all the Branstad-era sales and gas tax increases in 2008 dollars. Hint: it would work out to a lot more than $124 million.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad “had an elective heart procedure” today to put a stent in a partially blocked artery. I hope he feels better soon. His campaign released a statement from his doctor saying, “Governor Branstad should be able to resume his normal campaign schedule within the next few days and should quickly return to his normal lifestyle without limitations. He should be fully capable of performing the activities of a candidate and a Governor.”  

Last week I chose not to post Pat Bertroche’s disgusting comments about inserting michochips in illegal immigrants, because they struck me as a bid to gain attention for an irrevelant Congressional campaign. Bertroche himself said “you have to be radical to get news press.” His comment drew coverage not only in Iowa, but on national blogs like Talking Points Memo and on cable news networks, including Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show.  

Unfortunately, pandering to voters on immigration isn’t just for sideshows like Bertroche, who will be lucky to get 5 percent of the vote in the third Congressional district GOP primary. During the Republican gubernatorial debate on May 1, all three candidates made false and misleading claims about illegal immigration.  

A new Rasmussen poll finds Senator Chuck Grassley’s lead shrinking against Roxanne Conlin and Terry Branstad still over 50 percent against Governor Chet Culver. Rasmussen surveyed 500 Iowa likely voters on April 29, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.

In the Senate race (survey questions and toplines here), Rasmussen found Grassley ahead of Conlin 53 percent to 40 percent. Grassley led Conlin 55-36 in Rasmussen’s previous Iowa poll, taken in mid-March. Rasmussen’s summary notes that Grassley “now leads Conlin by only five points among women.”

Grassley leads Democrat Bob Krause by 57 percent to 31 percent, the same as in Rasmussen’s March poll. He leads Tom Fiegen by 57 percent to 30 percent, a slightly smaller margin than his 57-28 lead in March.

This race is still Grassley’s to lose; Rasmussen finds 63 percent of respondents have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of the incumbent, while only 34 percent have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion. The corresponding numbers for Conlin are 44 favorable/30 unfavorable.

However, a few stumbles by Grassley could make this race highly competitive in a hurry. At the very least Conlin is going to make it a lot closer than any other Democrat has against Grassley in the last 25 years.

I expect Conlin to have little trouble winning the Democratic primary on June 8. Not only is she the best-known candidate, she out-raised Grassley in the first quarter and had about $1 million cash on hand as of March 31. According to FEC reports, Krause had $352 and Fiegen had $582 on hand at the end of the first quarter. The Des Moines Register recently profiled Conlin, Fiegen and Krause.

Rasmussen’s numbers on the governor’s race continue to point to a tough road ahead for Culver. He trails Branstad 53 percent to 38 percent, little changed from Branstad’s 52-36 lead in Rasmussen’s March poll. Bob Vander Plaats leads Culver 45-41 in the new poll, up from a 42-40 lead in the March poll. Culver is barely ahead of Rod Roberts in the new poll, 43-41, little changed from the 40-38 lead Culver had against Roberts in the previous poll.

It’s not encouraging for an incumbent to be stuck around 40 percent against all challengers. Culver needs to bring up his own numbers and get out there to tell voters about his administration’s successes. For a preview of the case Culver will make with Iowa voters, watch his appearance on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC program last week.

Assuming Branstad will be the Republican nominee, Culver’s campaign will have to take him on aggressively. The race is bound to tighten up, but as long as Branstad is polling above 50 percent the odds are against Culver. Perhaps the governor can needle Branstad and provoke the same kind of response Vander Plaats got during the second Republican debate.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: At Daily Kos, Steve Singiser comments, “is it possible that one of the most invulnerable Senators in recent American history is really within striking range. Looking at the Rasmussen poll in Iowa, it appears so.”

Everyone who moderates a debate this year could learn from the journalists who guided the May 1 Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates’ debate: Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Paul Yeager of Iowa Public Television, and Jeneane Beck of Iowa Public Radio. Too many journalists ask long-winded questions that are easy to evade, or ask about hot topics of no lasting importance, or ask about policies outside the scope of the office the candidates are seeking.

In contrast, almost every question the panelists asked during Saturday’s debate was direct and addressed an issue the next governor of Iowa will face. Here are a few examples:

“Can you name one service government provides today that it should stop providing in the interest of saving the budget?”

“If elected, will you continue to support the Iowa Values Fund, the business grant and loan program created during the Vilsack administration, and also the renewable energy grant program established by Governor Culver known as the Iowa Power Fund?”

“Is there a role that government should play in limiting premium increases by Iowa insurance companies?”

“Do you believe that obesity is a problem that should be addressed through government action such as limiting unhealthy ingredients in food?”

Mind you, asking a direct, unambiguous question doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a straight answer from a politician. Look what happened when Dorman asked the Republicans, “Can you identify one tangible way Iowa has been harmed during a full year of legal same-sex marriage?”

I just watched most of the second debate featuring the three Republicans running for governor: Terry Branstad, Rod Roberts and Bob Vander Plaats. I’ll post a link to the debate transcript when it’s available, and more detailed reactions tomorrow or Monday, but here are some initial thoughts. (UPDATE: Here is the transcript.)

The journalists asked better questions in this debate than in the first Republican gubernatorial debate in Sioux City. However, the format didn’t leave room for follow-up questions, which allowed the candidates to get away with some whoppers. Vander Plaats and Roberts are still claiming we could save huge money by denying services to undocumented immigrants, but that’s simply not true.

All the Republicans want to starve state government by cutting corporate taxes, but where are the spending cuts? Branstad has talked about shrinking state government by 15 percent, but when pressed for specific programs he would cut, he had little to say besides not providing funding for Planned Parenthood, reducing administrative overhead for the Area Education Agencies, and ending the universal preschool program for four-year-olds. That won’t come close to keeping Branstad’s promises on spending. Vander Plaats wants to reduce the property tax burden by shifting more responsibility for funding mental health services from local to state government. That may be a worthwhile idea, but how’s he going to pay for that when he’s proposing a bunch of tax cuts? What state programs would Vander Plaats eliminate besides the preschool program, the Values Fund and the Power Fund?

All the Republicans blamed Democrats for not doing enough to fund K-12 education, and Branstad went so far as to blame the preschool program for layoffs in other areas of education. Here’s what they’ll never admit: layoffs in K-12 education and at the Regents universities would have been catastrophic without the 2009 federal stimulus bill. You know, the one passed over the objections of almost every Republican in Congress.

All the Republicans blamed Democrats for allegedly overspending, never acknowledging that the worst recession since World War II strained every state’s budget, and Iowa’s leaders handled the crunch better than officials in most other states.

I agree with the comment released by Governor Chet Culver’s new campaign manager, Donn Stanley:

“This was just another forum where the candidates outlined big tax cuts for their corporate Republican donors without details about where or how they would make cuts and balance the budget.  They pandered to their special interests with more tax cuts and proposed increased spending but with a lack of specifics about how they would pay for it.  All three candidates were for cutting preschool for Iowa’s children in the age when they have the most learning capacity while rewarding out-of-state corporations with more tax breaks.

“None of these candidates have answered the ultimate question of how they would manage to balance the budget today and that is the definition of ‘reckless and irresponsible.’  That leaves the assumption that Terry Branstad would again keep two sets of books and use his accounting tricks to hide the deficit. Branstad was long on hyperbole but short on the facts and new ideas. Branstad must have forgotten, or hopes that we’ve forgotten, he made a few across the board cuts during his tenure as governor. It is sadly par for the course that Terry Branstad attacks others for the same things he has done before.”

Today wasn’t the first time Branstad criticized Culver for things he did while governor, and it won’t be the last.

Post your own reaction to the debate, or anything on your mind this weekend, in this open thread.

UPDATE: Still haven’t seen a transcript of this debate, but you can watch the whole thing at Iowa Public TV’s website.

SECOND UPDATE: I have to agree with Kathie Obradovich; Vander Plaats clearly got under Branstad’s skin during the debate. It didn’t look good for Branstad to interrupt Vander Plaats twice (once near the 59-minute mark in this video and again around the 69-minute mark). According to Obradovich, Branstad kept arguing with Vander Plaats after the cameras had been turned off.

Amazingly, I agreed with all the Republican candidates’ answers to the very last question in the debate: whether Iowa should revoke the smoking ban exemption granted to casino floors. Vander Plaats, Roberts and Branstad all said they would sign legislation to that effect.

Governor Chet Culver announced Friday,

Iowa will accept $35 million in federal funds over the next four years to operate its own temporary health insurance plan for high-risk individuals.  This step will help cover uninsured Iowans as the country transitions toward implementation of federal health insurance reform.

“Every Iowan should have access to affordable health care,” Governor Culver said. “This action is an important first step in reaching this goal.  These funds will allow Iowans who have been among the uninsured for extended time periods to get coverage, in spite of health problems and without waiting periods for existing conditions.”

Iowa will establish a new pool alongside its current high-risk pool structure that will comply with the federal requirements. Under the terms of the federal funding formula, Iowa will be eligible to receive a grant of approximately $35 million in reimbursements to subsidize the cost of the fund until 2014. The state’s next step will be to submit a plan for federal approval.

Here are more details about the program:

Consumers will be eligible for the new pools if they have a pre-existing medical condition and have not had insurance for at least six months.

They will pay premiums that parallel rates being offered by commercial insurers to healthy people on the individual market. Many existing high-risk pools charge such high premiums that many people cannot afford the coverage. Today, high-risk pools in 34 states cover only about 200,000 people.

Individuals who sign up for the new pools also will not have to pay more than $5,950 a year out of their pockets for medical care, according to the legislation.

According to this backgrounder posted at Iowa Independent, the new high-risk pool could serve more than ten times the number of people could affect many people not enrolled in Iowa’s current high-risk pool:

“This is an opportunity for the state to show whether it is ready to put a critical component of health reform – covering people with pre-existing conditions – on a faster track,” said Andrew Cannon, research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project and author of a new policy brief on the topic.

Cannon said more than 34,500 Iowans could be eligible for Iowa’s existing high-risk pool or a new one the state may create if the state chooses to act now. The federal health-reform legislation allocated $5 billion nationally to states to provide temporary coverage as a bridge to full implementation of health reform, which will require all insurance companies to accept applicants without consideration of a person’s medical condition by 2014.

Iowa created its high-risk pool program in 1987, now known as the Health Insurance Plan of Iowa (HIPIowa). It serves 2,732 state residents.

High-risk pools such as HIPIowa are designed to help individuals who do not have health insurance through work, do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford or qualify for individual coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. HIPIowa’s premiums are about half as expensive as the standard rate for plans sold on the private market, Cannon said, but in many cases those premiums still exceed potential enrollees’ ability to pay.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register quoted HIPIOWA Executive Director Cecil Bykerk and State Senator Jack Hatch as saying federal funding will allow about 1,000 people to be covered in the new high-risk pool before 2014. That’s a small fraction of the number of Iowans who might be eligible for the program, according to the Iowa Policy Project’s estimate.

The Des Moines Register quoted Rod Roberts and spokesmen for Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats as saying they oppose participation in this new federal program. I don’t know how quickly the new pool will be up and running, but I’d like to see the Republican nominee for governor explain to Iowans with pre-existing conditions why they should have to go without affordable insurance coverage until 2014. Remember, the federal government is subsidizing the cost of operating the new pools.

As of April 30, officials in 28 states had informed the federal Department of Health and Human Services of plans to create new high-risk pools, while officials in at least 15 states had declined to participate for fear that federal funds may be insufficient to cover the operation of these pools until 2014.

James Q. Lynch of the Cedar Rapids Gazette talked to Terry Branstad yesterday about the qualities he’s looking for in a potential lieutenant governor. If he wins the nomination, Branstad wants a running mate who is younger than he is (63), and also “intelligent, hardworking, conservative, a good communicator and someone who could serve as governor.” He told Lynch that “some Eastern Iowans” are on his list.

Branstad has promised social conservatives that he won’t pick another pro-choice running mate, so that rules out former State Representative Libby Jacobs of West Des Moines. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Branstad choose Rod Roberts, although Lynch’s report says Branstad “downplayed” the possibility that he will pick one of the other gubernatorial candidates.

Any of the 20 state legislators who have endorsed Branstad for governor could be on Branstad’s short list. Or, he may look to someone from the business community, but it’s been months since I heard anyone predict that insurance company executive Doug Reichardt would be Branstad’s choice. Perhaps there’s some truth to the rumors that Reichardt isn’t interested in being lieutenant governor.

If Branstad looks east, one obvious contender is Christian Fong, the well-spoken former candidate for governor from Cedar Rapids. Last month State Representative Renee Schulte endorsed Branstad, and since Schulte’s husband was Fong’s campaign treasurer, I wondered whether some kind of deal was in the works. But Fong hasn’t endorsed any candidate since he dropped out of the race six months ago. Earlier this month he founded the Iowa Dream Project, a “nonpartisan” 501(c)4 organization designed to increase turnout among conservative voters under age 45 and discuss issues in a respectful “Iowa tone.” I doubt Fong would have rolled out this group now if he expected to be running for lieutenant governor full-time during the next six months. It sounds more like a good way for him to stay active, help the Republican cause, and boost his prospects for some appointed position in a Branstad administration.

Another eastern Iowa possibility is former State Representative Sandy Greiner. Choosing her would continue the Iowa tradition of female lieutenant governors during the past two and a half decades. Greiner is an experienced candidate with socially conservative views (even if a few wingnuts gripe about her). She is also well-connected to some major donors in the business community. She is president of the American Future Fund and created the “Draft Branstad PAC” last year. That 527 organization turned into the NextGen PAC after Branstad formed an exploratory committee to run for governor. I don’t think Greiner will be Branstad’s choice, though, because she filed to run for the Iowa Senate in district 45. That race is one of the Republicans’ best pickup opportunities in the upper chamber, and I doubt she would have become a candidate if she expected to be on the ticket with Branstad.

Though no one else has mentioned her name to me, State Representative Linda Miller seems like a promising choice. She has endorsed Branstad and is from Bettendorf, one of the Quad Cities. Republicans used to be dominant in populous Scott County but have lost ground there in recent years.

Some conservative activists have slammed Branstad for elevating Joy Corning to the office of lieutenant governor during the 1990s. Lynch asked Branstad about Corning, and he said she was a good choice “at the time”. He added that he disagrees with some of what Corning has done as a “private citizen.” Several years ago, Corning chaired a major capital campaign for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. Last year she publicly supported civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Corning backs Branstad’s current campaign and is privately urging fellow moderates to vote for him in the primary.

Bleeding Heartland readers, who do you think is on Branstad’s short list, and whom should he pick as a running mate?

Feel free to speculate about Bob Vander Plaats as well. From what I’ve heard, the consensus is that he would choose his campaign co-chair, retiring State Representative Jodi Tymeson. I consider Vander Plaats a long-shot for the nomination, especially with Rod Roberts splitting the conservative vote. But we haven’t seen any public polls confirming Branstad’s front-runner status. Vander Plaats does have a path to the nomination, and he keeps winning straw polls of Republican activists.  

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. From April 27, 2009 through the end of last year, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved. Despite a petition drive led by some Iowa Republicans and the Iowa Family Policy Center, not a single county recorder denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Although all three Republican candidates for governor say they want to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, marriage equality is probably here to stay. Conservative groups are not urging voters to pass a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which would be the quickest path to amend the Iowa constitution. Bob Vander Plaats probably won’t win the Republican nomination for governor, much less the November election, and even if he did, his plan to halt gay marriage by executive order is a non-starter.

That leaves the self-styled defenders of traditional marriage one path: approving an amendment restricting marriage rights in two separately elected Iowa legislatures, then convincing a majority of Iowans to vote for that amendment (in November 2014 at the earliest).

Republicans have an outside shot at winning a majority in the Iowa House in 2010, but they have virtually no chance of taking back the Iowa Senate this year. Democrats currently hold a 32-18 majority in the upper chamber. A net gain of four or five seats is the best-case scenario for the GOP, and I consider a net gain of two or three seats much more likely. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal in a position to block all efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a floor vote during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.

Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts claims he could force Democrats to allow a marriage vote. His plan is to veto all legislation, including the state budget, until the Iowa House and Senate have voted on a marriage amendment. I doubt a Republican could win that game of chicken even if Governor Chet Culver is defeated this November. Polling indicates that most Iowans are not eager to ban gay marriage and think the state legislature has more important things to do. Anyway, the most likely Republican nominee, Terry Branstad, has an incoherent position on gay marriage and probably would make only a token effort to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Share any thoughts about same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread.

Speaking of civil rights, some reports indicate that the House of Representatives will vote this year to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has ended far too many military careers. Click here to read a moving open letter to President Obama from an Air Force major who was discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

I wish I had better news to share on Earth Day, but the Iowa Department of Natural Resources issued its annual State of the Environment report this week, and it’s not encouraging for people who like to breathe air and drink water. From Perry Beeman’s report in the Des Moines Register:

Last year culminated a three-year run in which air pollution exceeded health thresholds 125 times – up 33 percent from the previous three-year reporting period.

[Iowa DNR Director Richard] Leopold said that’s disturbing as production was down at many factories because of the economy.

Most of the problem: fine particles from hog confinements, cars and power plants, whose emissions blend ammonia and sulfuric or nitric acid in the air.

Fine particulate matter, also known as PM 2.5, has been linked to many life-threatening illnesses and causes thousands of premature deaths every year. That’s another reason to be thankful that utility companies abandoned plans to build new coal-fired power plants in Waterloo and Marshalltown last year. (Side note: could someone please inform the three “pro-life” Republican gubernatorial candidates that coal combustion is hazardous to human health? Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts all favor building more coal-fired power plants in Iowa.)

As for the other major contributors to poor air quality in our state, the Iowa legislature has done little about air pollution from confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) beyond passing a time- and money-wasting odor study bill in 2008. Nor have our state’s leaders done enough to fund alternate modes of transportation, which could reduce vehicle miles per capita traveled by car (and the associated fine particulate emissions).

The DNR’s report showed statistically insignificant improvements in Iowa water quality, but not enough to lift us out of the “poor” category. While new “antidegradation rules” on water quality may protect some Iowa waterways from getting worse in the future, we have a long way to go to make our lakes and rivers safe for recreation and other uses.

Public demand for usable waterways is increasing; the DNR’s report showed that more Iowans are using state parks, boating and buying fishing licenses. It’s therefore baffling that the DNR is proposing to reduce protection for 408 Iowa stream segments this year. The Iowa Environmental Council has much more background on this issue here. Public comments to the DNR are needed by April 30, and it only takes a few minutes to send a message to the relevant DNR official (click here for contact information and talking points).

For those who like to fish: please be aware of the DNR recommends eating fish from certain lakes and rivers no more often than once a week because of elevated mercury levels. Coal combustion from power plants is the main source of mercury pollution in our waterways.

Share any relevant thoughts or Earth Day plans in this thread. I see that the Sierra Club of Iowa, Moveon.Org and 1Sky are organizing a rally outside Representative Leonard Boswell’s office (300 Locust in Des Moines) at noon today to urge Boswell to oppose various “dirty air” bills proposed in Congress. They are asking people to “dress in rain gear, such as raincoats, rain hats, umbrellas, galoshes, etc., to make the point of increasing severe weather due to climate change.”

There’s also an Earth Day Trash Bash cleanup event in downtown Des Moines this afternoon, followed by a celebration in the Simon Estes ampitheater. Here’s a description of last year’s cleanup.

Last night I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate on Iowa Public Television. If you missed it, you can read the full transcript here. Some Iowa stations are rebroadcasting the debate this Sunday too.

One of the worst things about televised debates is the lack of follow-up by the journalists who moderate. Wednesday’s exchange provided a classic example of this problem.  

At 1 pm today Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts will face off in the first of three debates before the gubernatorial primary in June. I won’t be able to watch the live stream at KTIV’s site, so I’ll have to catch the repeat on Iowa Public Television, whenever that will be shown. I wanted to put up this thread so Bleeding Heartland readers can chat about the debate. I will update this post later with early write-ups about the event. Rod Roberts seems to have the most to gain from this debate, since he is the least-known candidate in the field.

The Republicans will throw around lots of numbers about taxes and spending, and those will need a lot of fact-checking. The truth is that Iowa doesn’t have a budget deficit, and the independent analysts who have given our state the highest bond rating recognize our relatively strong fiscal position. Like every other state, Iowa experienced a steep drop in revenues because of the recession, but unlike most other states, we have not fully depleted our cash reserves.

Which Republican candidate will come across as the most fiscally responsible person today? Will it be:

Terry Branstad, whose mismanagement was so legendary that a number of elected Republicans favored his primary challenger in 1994?

Bob Vander Plaats, whose management skills don’t seem to have helped his non-profit thrive financially, and who did a 180-degree turn on tax credits between March 2009 and January 2010?

Or Rod Roberts, who is so very serious about the governor’s responsibilities that he thinks adopting a state budget is of secondary importance to stopping same-sex marriage?

The floor is yours.

UPDATE: I still haven’t had a chance to watch the debate, but fortunately, Iowa Public Television will air it tonight at 8 pm. Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock thought Vander Plaats won but “never achieved the game-changing moment his campaign needed.” Todd Dorman didn’t see a lot of substance or new ideas on display and partly blamed the debate format.

Later today the three Republican candidates for governor will hold their first debate. When discussing state fiscal issues, they are likely to advance two contradictory arguments. First, they will criticize alleged “overspending” by Iowa Democrats, ignoring the good marks our state has received for fiscal management and the fact that severe state budget cuts would be a big drag on the economy. I will address those points in a future post.

Second, the Republican candidates for governor will criticize spending reductions Democrats included in next year’s budget, on the grounds that those cuts will force corresponding increases in property taxes statewide. It’s true that many Iowans will pay more in property taxes because of changes related to the “rollback” calculation, which “determines the percentage of a property’s actual value that will be taxable” in a given year. Former GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Rants explained here why the rollback figure is on the rise. It has nothing to do with the tough choices Democrats made on the 2011 budget.

Rants and other Republicans are wrong to suggest that any cut in state spending will automatically lead to further property tax hikes. (They’ve been making that claim since Governor Chet Culver’s across-the-board budget cut last October.) Here’s just one example of why their assumptions are flawed. The Des Moines Register reported Tuesday on how Des Moines area school districts are coping with budget shortages. All of the districts will receive less from the state in the next fiscal year. Thankfully, the cuts are smaller than the worst-case scenarios floated in February, because Iowa House and Senate Democrats sought to protect K-12 education from severe budget cuts.

Anyway, all Iowa school districts are adapting to the reduction in state funding. But contrary to what Iowa Republicans are telling you, many districts, including the state’s largest in Des Moines, have ruled out property tax increases. Of the 10 central Iowa school districts mentioned in this article, only three are raising property taxes, and one more is considering that step. The others are cutting expenses and in some cases using money from cash reserves to cover the shortfalls in the coming fiscal year.

Some local governments in Iowa will raise property tax rates, but as with school districts, many will get by with spending or service cuts instead. I support additional federal fiscal aid to local and state governments, because the collapse in revenues is the most severe in six decades, and spending cuts could hamper the economic recovery. But naturally, the same Republicans who scream about property tax hikes are against using “one-time federal money” to help balance budgets.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

This April is shaping up to be a relatively quiet month in Iowa politics, with the legislature already adjourned for the year. However, after the jump you’ll find details for many events coming up soon. Please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of an event I’ve left out.

I have also posted information about an internship opportunity for women who would like to work on a sustainable farm, as well as a grant opportunity called “Iowa Sun4Schools.” It’s for Iowa schools that may want to install a solar array: “In addition to supplying electricity to the facility, the solar array will serve as an educational and research tool, and as a symbol of the schools commitment to saving energy and reducing their carbon footprint.”

UPDATE: Iowa nonprofit, charitable and government organizations have until April 16 to nominate people for the Governor’s Volunteer Award.

SECOND UPDATE: The Fred Phelps freak show is coming back to Des Moines on April 10 to protest a constitutional law symposium on same-sex marriage at Drake University. Click here for details about counter-protests being planned.

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violated the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. From the day that ruling went into effect through the end of 2009, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved.

Follow me after the jump for a review of news about marriage equality in Iowa, stories featuring happy couples, and thoughts about the future politics of this issue.  

Terry Branstad leads Governor Chet Culver by 50 percent to 34 percent, according to a new survey by the Republican firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies. Culver polled 40 percent against Bob Vander Plaats, who was nearly tied with the governor at 39 percent. Culver led Rod Roberts 38 percent to 32 percent in this poll. Magellan surveyed 1,353 “likely Iowa general election voters” on March 30, and the poll has a margin of error of 2.7 percent. Several pollsters have now found Branstad at or above 50 percent against Culver, but this statistic is even more worrying:

Among the key voter subgroup of Iowa independent voters, which Magellan projects to constitute 25% of voter turnout in November, Chet Culver trails Terry Branstad by 34 points, 55% to 21%, trails Bob Vander Plaats by 7 points 36% to 29%, and is statistically tied with Rod Roberts 28% to 29%.

Recent polls by Selzer and Rasmussen have also found Branstad way ahead of Culver among no-party voters. The governor has work to do with this group. There’s no guarantee that Magellan’s likely voter screen is accurate, but no-party voters did constitute about 26 percent of the electorate in the 2006 general election.

Magellan’s numbers for Culver’s and President Barack Obama’s approval ratings were lower than I’ve seen in any other Iowa poll. Culver was at 30 percent approval/56 percent disapproval, and his favorability ratings were 33 percent favorable/58 percent unfavorable. About 48 percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of Branstad, while 36 percent had an unfavorable opinion. President Obama was at 42 percent approval/50 percent disapproval.

The Congressional generic ballot numbers also leaned Republican. Magellan asked, “If the election for Congress was being held today, and all you knew about the two candidates was that one was a Democrat and the other was a Republican, for whom would you vote?” Statewide, 40 percent of respondents said Republican, 33 percent said Democrat and 27 percent were undecided. Republicans led the generic ballot in all three Democratic-held House districts, including a difficult-to-believe six-point edge in Dave Loebsack’s district (IA-02), which traditionally has the strongest Democratic voting performance. (Keep in mind that the margin of error for subgroups in a poll is larger than the margin of error for results including the whole sample.) In this thread at The Iowa Republican blog, commenter dblhelix noted,

The [likely voter] model is extremely tight, w/ 86% responding “extremely likely” / 9% “very likely” on voter participation. I can believe R +1/large nr of undecideds in CD3 at this time, but R+6 in CD2? The “less reliable” Dem voters will fill that in, easily. Throw some points back to Dems, but the ballots in CD1-CD3 remain competitive, and again, it’s [voters aged] 35-44 driving this.

As a general rule, the tighter the likely voter screen, the more a poll will favor Republican candidates. From that perspective, it’s surprising that Branstad’s lead over Culver is “only” 16 percent. I doubt that Iowa’s first or second Congressional districts will turn out to be competitive races this fall, but no Democrat should be complacent. Our success in the Congressional races and especially in the battleground statehouse districts will depend on turning out people who wouldn’t tell a pollster in March that they are “extremely likely” to vote.  

Click here to download files containing topline results, crosstabs and a presentation summarizing the results of the Magellan poll. The survey also included issue questions on health care reform and the federal stimulus bill, among other things. Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Former Governor Terry Branstad’s campaign announced today that two television commercials will begin airing statewide on Monday, April 5. That’s two days before the first debate between the three Republican candidates for governor and about nine weeks before the June 8 primary.

The Branstad campaign will run this 60-second ad called “Ready”, which first aired during UNI’s NCAA basketball game last week, and this 30-second ad called “I Know Iowa.” The “Ready” ad intersperses Branstad’s campaign promises with testimonials about his character and talents. I can’t embed the 30-second ad here, but it features footage of Branstad with lots of different Iowans, as well as his campaign bus driving toward the state capitol building. The candidate himself does the voice-over for the shorter ad, and here’s my rough transcript:

Iowans are genuinely fearful and concerned, but also, people are hopeful. They know that we have the ability to come back. They’ve seen it done before. We can create 200,000 jobs. We can increase family incomes by 25 percent. We can reduce the size and cost of government, and we can make our education system the best in America. I love this state, and I love the people of this state, because I know given the opportunity, Iowans will always exceed expectations.

Both commercials convey the central theme of the Branstad campaign: he can lead Iowa out of tough times and back to greatness. I don’t see substance backing up Branstad’s campaign promises, but for the most part Iowa journalists are giving him a free pass. I question whether his Republican opponents will be able to make an effective case against him. Branstad probably will be the only candidate advertising on television for several weeks. It’s not clear that Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts have the resources to run even two weeks of commercials statewide. Vander Plaats has a stronger potential grassroots network given his experience with Mike Huckabee’s campaign and the support of the Iowa Family Policy Center, but Roberts seems to be competing for the same conservative voters Vander Plaats is targeting.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Terry Branstad seems to have been around Iowa politics forever, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing new to learn about him. This week I learned that in 2007, Branstad joined former Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack to advocate for new health insurance mandates in Iowa. More on that and other Branstad news can be found after the jump.

Former Governor Terry Branstad maintains a 16-point lead over Governor Chet Culver, according to a new Rasmussen poll released today. The Republican pollster surveyed 500 “likely voters” in Iowa on March 17. Branstad led a match-up against Culver by 52 percent to 36 percent, similar to the 53-37 lead Branstad had in Rasmussen’s February poll. The latest poll has Bob Vander Plaats leading Culver 42-40, a slight change from the 46-40 lead Vander Plaats had in the February poll. Rasmussen found Culver leading Rod Roberts 40-38 (Roberts was not included in the February poll).

We’ve now seen several polls showing Branstad above the 50 percent mark against Culver. Clearly Culver needs to bring up his own support; Rasmussen’s survey put the governor at 41 percent approve/57 percent disapprove, and it’s never good for an incumbent to barely break 40 percent against all challengers.

Culver also needs Branstad’s numbers to come down. I have been expecting Branstad to get roughed up during the GOP primary, but I question whether Vander Plaats will have the resources to publicize his case against Branstad effectively. Roberts looks mostly like a threat to Vander Plaats from where I’m sitting, so I doubt he will make a strong case against Branstad. Chris Rants seemed determined to put Branstad’s record under scrutiny, but last month he quit the governor’s race after failing to raise enough money for a campaign.

Next week will mark the first anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien. Seven justices unanimously concluded that the section of the Iowa Code enacted through our state’s Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution. Since the day that decision was announced, many Iowa Republicans have called for overturning the court’s ruling. Some have denied that county recorders were obliged to implement the ruling, or insisted that government officials may ignore a court’s opinion about the constitutionality of a law. Others have called on Iowans to vote against retaining justices who supposedly overreached their authority. For example, gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts said last November,

“We need to send a message to the Iowa Supreme Court that they are accountable to the people of Iowa,” said Roberts, who has made restoring the role of the people in state government a centerpiece of his campaign. “The problem with judicial activism is that it thwarts the will of the legislature and of the people of Iowa.”

Now that Congress has approved a health insurance reform bill Republicans don’t like, some GOP politicians have decided judicial activism isn’t so bad after all. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats pledged to “invoke the Constitution’s 10th Amendment to protect Iowans from new federal mandates” on health care. Rod Roberts followed Vander Plaats’ lead:

Roberts said that if the federal government passes a nationalized health care plan that conflicts with the Roberts Amendment, as governor he will file a lawsuit in federal court against President Obama to have the plan struck down as a violation of Iowans’ Tenth Amendment rights. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government (such as the regulation of health insurance) are reserved for the states.

Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad also supported the idea of using the courts to nullify the will of Congress: “Given the massive scope and effect of this [health insurance reform] bill, it is likely that various provisions will be challenged in the courts. Those challenges are both timely and appropriate.”

Any constitutional lawyer can tell you that the U.S. Supreme Court has long affirmed the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Law professor Mark Hall explains in detail here why constitutional arguments against an individual mandate to purchase health insurance are wrong. As for the broader 10th amendment claim that the constitution doesn’t empower the federal government to regulate health insurance, Hall notes, “Congress has ample power and precedent through the Constitution’s ‘Commerce Clause’ to regulate just about any aspect of the national economy.”

Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh likewise does not find the constitutional arguments against health insurance reform convincing:

While I agree that the recent commerce clause cases hold that Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity, as such, they also state that Congress may reach otherwise unregulable conduct as part of an overarching regulatory scheme, where the regulation of such conduct is necessary and proper to the success of such scheme. In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of “commerce” as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate. (Among other things, if health care reform requires insurers to issue insurance to all comers, and prohibits refusals for pre-existing conditions, then a mandate is necessary to prevent opportunistic behavior by individuals who simply wait to purchase insurance until they get sick.)

The U.S. Supreme Court could overrule the will of Congress on health insurance reform only by reversing several decades of precedent about the definition of commerce. That’s textbook “judicial activism,” but it’s ok with some Iowa Republicans if it achieves the political end they are seeking.

By the way, Vander Plaats claims that as governor, he could issue an executive order halting same-sex marriages in Iowa. I wonder if he also thinks President Barack Obama could issue an executive order overturning a possible Supreme Court ruling against health insurance reform.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum considers prospects for a lawsuit challenging the individual mandate to buy health insurance. He makes the same point about Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce and adds,

What’s more, the penalties for not buying insurance are tax penalties, and if anything, Congress has even wider scope in the tax area than in the commerce area. The Supreme Court has frequently ruled that Congress can pass tax laws that essentially force people to do things that Congress doesn’t have the direct power to require.

[…]here’s the thing: if the Supreme Court decided to overturn decades of precedent and strike down the mandate even though Kevin Drum says they shouldn’t (hard to imagine, I know), the insurance industry will go ballistic. If they’re required to cover all comers, even those with expensive pre-existing conditions, then they have to have a mandate in order to get all the healthy people into the insurance pool too. So they would argue very persuasively that unless Congress figures out a fix, they’ll drive private insurers out of business in short order. And that, in turn, will almost certainly be enough incentive for both Democrats and Republicans to find a way to enforce a mandate by other means. If necessary, there are ways to rewrite the rules so that people aren’t literally required to get insurance, but are incentivized so strongly that nearly everyone will do it. As an example, Congress might pass a law making state Medicaid funding dependent on states passing laws requiring residents to buy insurance. Dependent funding is something Congress does routinely, and states don’t have any constitutional issues when it comes to requiring residents to buy insurance. They all do it with auto insurance and Massachusetts does it with health insurance.

Like Drum, I view these proposed legal challenges as Republican posturing rather than a serious threat to nullify the law Obama signed this morning.

UPDATE: The vote on the rules for the reconciliation bill debate passed 224-206 (roll call). The final vote on the Senate bill will be late tonight.

FINAL UPDATE: The House approved the Senate bill 219-212, with no Republicans voting in favor and 34 Democrats voting against (roll call). It’s clear House leaders did not have the votes without the Stupak bloc.

VERY FINAL UPDATE: Two more roll calls: a Republican-backed poison pill that would have inserted the president’s executive order language on the Hyde amendment into the reconciliation fixes failed 232-199. Then the House passed the reconciliation fixes to the Senate bill by a vote of 220-211.

The House of Representatives began debating the health insurance reform legislation on Sunday afternoon. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is using the gavel Representative John Dingell’s father used the day the House approved Medicare in 1965. I will update this post as votes are taken on the reconciliation package and later on the Senate’s bill.

Some kind of new deal appears to have been struck with Bart Stupak and his group of anti-abortion Democrats. Link to follow later when more details become available. I assume this means House leaders didn’t have 216 votes without the Stupak bloc, which is how the whip counts have been looking. (UPDATE: The president agreed to issue this executive order affirming that the health insurance reform bill “maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges.” The executive order allows Stupak and his bloc to vote for the bill without the appearance of caving.)

Republicans are making fools out of themselves warning about the death of liberty and the “government takeover.” Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts has filed amendments to two Iowa House bills seeking to “challenge the constitutionality of President Obama’s plan to nationalize the health care industry.” He also says that as governor he would sue the federal government, claiming that health insurance reform violates the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Roberts is copying a Bob Vander Plaats campaign promise here, which supports my view that Roberts’ main function in the governor’s race is to undermine Vander Plaats in the GOP primary.

Meanwhile, Democrats are making fools of themselves claiming that passing a Republican plan from 1993 is something to cheer about. We should be ashamed that corporate interest groups got everything they wanted in this bill, to the extent that the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry is running ads supporting the bill. We should be outraged by all of President Obama’s broken promises on health care reform and the fact that he lied about supporting a public health insurance option after secretly agreeing to leave that out of the bill.

I don’t know whether better health care reform was achievable. Certainly Big Tent Democrat is right that progressives botched the negotiating process (see also here), but once the president decided not to do anything that angered corporate groups, we were probably stuck with what we’re getting. Some people will benefit from subsidized insurance and new primary health care clinics, but other people will be forced to downgrade their coverage, and there will be no new competition for the insurance companies that have near-monopolies in most of the country. I doubt this reform will reduce insurance company abuses, and I doubt it will save tens of thousands of lives a year, and I doubt future Congresses with (at best) smaller Democratic majorities will improve it in any meaningful way, but let’s hope I am wrong.

Failing to pass the bill might have hurt Democrats more in the short term, but I think over-promising the benefits will hurt us badly later. When Americans continue to face medical bankruptcies, and some insured people continue to find medical care unaffordable, and “wellness incentives” become the new method of discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, Democrats will be blamed.

Listing the alleged “progressive victories” in this bill is just an exercise in self-delusion. This bill was written for the benefit of corporate groups. Many provisions that would have been in the public interest have been left out. It’s a disgrace that large Democratic majorities produced this reform, and it’s one reason the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will get no money from me for the forseeable future.

You can claim the bill is a slight improvement on the status quo, but calling it “progressive” or a sign of interest groups in decline is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Not as stupid as calling it a “government takeover,” but almost as deceptive.

Share your own thoughts in this thread, whether or not you feel like celebrating today’s “historic victory.”

UPDATE: Republican strategist David Frum argues that the GOP made a huge mistake by refusing to make a deal with Obama on health care reform:

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. […]

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

The filing deadline for statewide and state legislative offices closed at the end of business today. John Deeth has been covering the highlights at his blog. Click here to download a pdf file from the Secretary of State’s office for the full candidate list.

As I mentioned earlier, Governor Chet Culver has no primary challenger. All three remaining Republican gubernatorial candidates qualified for the ballot (Terry Branstad, Rod Roberts, Bob Vander Plaats).

There will be a three-way Democratic primary for U.S. Senate between Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause.

Republicans have a full slate of candidates for statewide offices. Sadly, Democrats failed to find anyone to take on Auditor David Vaudt.

Four Republicans filed against Bruce Braley in Iowa’s first Congressional district, and four Republicans filed against Dave Loebsack in the second district. All seven declared GOP candidates qualified for the ballot in Iowa’s third district. I would not be surprised if a district convention ends up selecting Leonard Boswell’s opponent.

Bill Maske is the only Democrat running against Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. As expected, we will have a competitive primary in the fifth between Mike Denklau and Matt Campbell.

Most surprising statehouse district left uncontested: House district 16 in northeast Iowa. I had heard rumors that Republicans had no candidate against freshman State Representative John Beard, but I’m still shocked they left him unchallenged. That was a battleground race in 2008. Does anyone know whether a GOP district convention will be able to name a candidate for this race later?

Democrats didn’t leave any obviously competitive statehouse districts open. I’m a little disappointed we don’t have a candidate in House district 73, from which Republican Jodi Tymeson is retiring. It is a fairly strong GOP district, but I thought a candidate pounding the pavement there might help State Senator Staci Appel in her re-election campaign against Kent Sorenson (Senate district 37).

We found a candidate in House district 51 (Carroll County), which Rod Roberts is vacating to run for governor. Democrat Larry Lesle of Manning will face the winner of a three-way GOP primary.

Yesterday two-term incumbent Elesha Gayman surprised many people by announcing her retirement from House district 84 in Davenport. Gayman indicated that no one had been lined up to replace her, but today Shari Carnahan filed for that seat as a Democrat. She will face Gayman’s 2008 opponent, Ross Paustian.

Ruth Ann Gaines ended up being the only Democrat to file in Wayne Ford’s district 65 (Des Moines).

Six Democratic Iowa House incumbents have primary challengers. The people running against Dave Jacoby (district 30, Iowa City/Coralville) and Geri Huser (district 42, east side of Des Moines) appear to be backed by organized labor. A socially conservative pastor, Clair Rudison, is running against Ako Abdul-Samad in district 66 (Des Moines). Anesa Kajtazovic stepped up to the plate in House district 21 (Waterloo). Freshman Kerry Burt really should have retired from that seat. I don’t know what the deal is with Kenneth Oglesby, who is challenging Chuck Isenhart in district 27 (Dubuque). Likewise, I have no idea why Mike Petersen is running against Mary Gaskill in district 93 (Ottumwa). Please post a comment or e-mail me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know the backstory.

Most surprising retirement: Republican Doug Struyk in district 99. The GOP candidate for secretary of state in 2006, Mary Ann Hanusa, is running for the Council Bluffs-based seat instead. She will face Democrat Kurt Hubler, who nearly defeated Struyk in 2008. Struyk was first elected as a Democrat but switched parties several years ago. His departure will leave only one turncoat in the Iowa House. We failed to field a candidate against Dawn Pettengill (district 39), who switched to the GOP in 2007.

More posts are coming soon on some of the battleground statehouse races. Meanwhile, post any relevant comments in this thread.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that we will see seven or eight rematches in Iowa House races. Republicans are running Josh Thurston and Stephen Burgmeier and 2009 special election winners Kirsten Running-Marquardt (district 33) and Curt Hanson (district 90). Also, in district 23 first-term Democrat Gene Ficken will face the Republican he beat in 2008, Dan Rasmussen. Republican Jane Jech is taking another shot at incumbent Mark Smith in district 43. The district 89 race may be a rematch as well if Jarad Klein wins the GOP primary to face first-term Democrat Larry Marek. In House district 60, first-term Republican Peter Cownie faces 2008 Democratic candidate Alan Koslow. Not only will Koslow be at a severe financial disadvantage, his endorsement of Jonathan Narcisse for governor won’t win him friends among the Democratic base. Democrat Pat VanZante is taking another shot at Jim Van Engelenhoven in district 71 (assuming Van Engelenhoven doesn’ lose to his GOP primary challenger). Republican Dave Heaton will face his 2008 opponent, Ron Fedler, in district 91.

SECOND UPDATE: Republicans are crowing that they are fielding candidates in 88 of the 100 Iowa House districts, while Democrats are fielding candidates in only 75 districts. I would like to challenge Republicans everywhere, but it’s only natural that Iowa Democrats are going to focus more on defense this year. We already have the majority, and it could be a tough cycle for incumbents at all levels.

Republican operative Ralph Reed, who once headed the Christian Coalition, is building an Iowa branch for his latest venture, the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Reed spoke at an Iowa Christian Alliance event on Tuesday and promised the crowd that the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition will get “people who share our values” elected “from governor all the way down to the statehouse and school boards all across the state of Iowa.” He said he needed to raise half a million dollars to execute the GOTV plans, reminding the audience that they could donate an unlimited amount, because “we’re not a PAC and we’re not a candidate.”

Reed announced yesterday that he is passing on a chance to run for Congress in order to focus on his new organization:

I believe I can best advance conservative principles by continuing to serve as CEO of Century Strategies, LLC, and founding chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Century’s voter contact subsidiary and grassroots team will be involved in a number of races in 2010. FFC is growing rapidly, with over 150,000 members and supporters already, currently adding one new state chapter a week and 1,000 new members a day.

In 2010 and 2012, FFC will register an estimated one million new faith-based voters and make tens of millions of voter contacts in what may be the largest conservative get-out-the-vote effort in modern political history. These nationwide efforts offer a much better prospect for changing the direction of the country than winning a Congressional race myself.

Speaking of GOTV, Reed made a bizarre analogy during his speech to the Iowa Christian Alliance audience. According to Kathie Obradovich, Reed said that Barack Obama’s 2008 win in Iowa was like a Harlem Globetrotters game in which the GOP were the team that showed up to get beaten. Makes you wonder why the Republican Party of Iowa hired Jim Anderson as its executive director late last year. Anderson’s main political experience in this state was with John McCain’s “Victory” GOTV operation.

Iowa Christian Alliance head Steve Scheffler said his group won’t be “directly involved” in Iowa elections this year, but will “encourage activists to get involved with a candidate, especially in competitive legislative districts.” Scheffler is also one of Iowa’s representatives on the Republican National Committee.

Former Senator Rick Santorum headlined the Iowa Christian Alliance event. You can read about his speech at Iowa Independent and the Des Moines Register’s blog. I find it amazing that anyone can be considered presidential material after losing re-election in a purple state by 18 points.

All three Republican candidates for governor also spoke Tuesday evening. William Petroski covered highlights at the Des Moines Register’s blog, and Kathie Obradovich covered the event on Twitter. Bob Vander Plaats talked about economic issues and education as well as repeating his promises to halt same-sex marriages and choose a running mate who shares his values. Vander Plaats also mentioned polls showing him leading Governor Chet Culver. Terry Branstad criticized “arrogant” Democratic leaders who are blocking a vote on the definition of marriage. He also took credit for helping make home-schooling legal and passing a ban on late-term abortions while governor. My favorite Branstad line was, I know we made our share of mistakes but I think it’s important to ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness.. Rod Roberts said he can beat Chet Culver and “emphasized his background as development director for Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in Iowa.”

Final note: the Federal Election Commission appears not to have ruled yet on a complaint filed against the Iowa Christian Alliance last year. The complaint alleged that the group had run donations through a Burlington church, a 501(c)3 organization, so that donors could benefit from a tax deduction they wouldn’t receive from giving directly to the Iowa Christian Alliance, a 501(c)4.

State Representative Rod Roberts continues to line up endorsements in his long-shot gubernatorial campaign. Bill Schickel just resigned as secretary of the Iowa GOP in order to endorse Roberts. Party officers are supposed to remain neutral in Republican primaries, but  

“I can no longer remain neutral,” said Schickel, a former state representative and Mason City mayor. “Our party is currently divided. Neither of the frontrunners has shown that they can bring the two sides together. If the current division continues we will certainly lose in November. Rod Roberts has the best chance of beating Chet Culver.”  

“He is the only candidate who has demonstrated he can bring together the fiscal and social conservative wings of our party. He has also proven that he can attract the Independents and Democrats that are critical to victory,” Schickel said. “He has done it during the campaign. He did it as a state representative. And he did it in five previous elections.”  

“Rod is an underdog right now, but he is also the candidate with momentum,” Schickel said. “While the numbers for the frontrunners have remained essentially flat, Rod in the past three months has gone from almost no voter recognition to capturing 19 percent of the Republican vote in the Dallas County straw poll and winning the Guthrie County straw poll this past weekend.”  “Whenever Republicans meet him, they are won over,” Schickel said. “He is a solid fiscal and social conservative who is also a fresh face. That is exactly what our party needs, and more importantly, what Iowa needs.”

Schickel also maintains the the conservative news aggregator The Bean Walker, a task he took over when Tim Albrecht signed on with Terry Branstad’s campaign for governor.  

Over the weekend, the Roberts campaign announced two more supporters in the Iowa House: State Representatives Cecil Dolecheck (district 96 in southwest Iowa) and Mike May (district 6 in northwest Iowa). They join four current and one former Republican legislator who previously announced their support for Roberts.  

Branstad is the heavy favorite to win the primary, but many GOP activists don’t want to go back to the future. As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that any gains for Roberts will come largely at the expense of Bob Vander Plaats, who needs as much support as possible from western Iowa conservatives. Vander Plaats has been winning straw polls, but he hasn’t picked up many endorsements from within the Republican establishment since Branstad entered the race.

I suspect Roberts wouldn’t be landing these endorsements unless the donors behind Branstad had signaled that they won’t hold grudges against Roberts supporters. Or, to put it another way, my hunch is that Schickel would not go out on a limb to endorse Roberts if he feared doing so would threaten future funding for the Iowa GOP or The Bean Walker. (Albrecht launched The Bean Walker while working for the American Future Fund, and many business figures associated with the American Future Fund have made large contributions to the Branstad campaign.)

Perhaps Roberts has the inside track to become Branstad’s running mate, or the candidates have an informal non-aggression pact. Or maybe Roberts doesn’t criticize Branstad as harshly as Vander Plaats does because that’s not his personal style. Whatever the reason, Roberts is shaping up as the politically correct alternative for Republicans who aren’t wild about a fifth term for Branstad.

In related news, I was surprised to see that Branstad accepted three invitations to debate Roberts and Vander Plaats: in Sioux City on April 7, in Cedar Rapids on May 1, and in Des Moines on a date to be scheduled later.

Bleeding Heartland readers may remember that Terry Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign paid for a round of robocalls to Iowa Democrats in December. Iowa Independent reported yesterday that Branstad’s campaign is calling Democrats again.

In three different instances, the calls focused on same-sex marriage, eventually concluding with Branstad saying that he supports marriage only between a man and a woman. One person indicated they received their call from the Branstad campaign in late January, with the others within the past two weeks.

A series of robocalls received in eastern Iowa early in December touted Branstad’s “proven record” of income tax cuts and then indicated that he would “fight for traditional marriage.” Those calls came from a Washington, D.C., number that has also been linked to possible push-poll political calls on taxpayer-funded abortion and death panels in “Obamacare.”

If you receive this call, please post a comment or a diary here with details, or e-mail me confidentially about (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). Remember, it’s helpful not to hang up on political robocalls or surveys. Stay on the line and take notes, if possible, about the content of the call, who paid for the message, and so on.

I want to see a public poll of the Republican primary for governor. Since Branstad had nearly five times as much cash on hand as the combined total for Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts as of the end of December, he should have no trouble winning. On the other hand, a lot of party activists are not sold on Branstad. Just last night Vander Plaats won the Dallas County GOP straw poll. If Branstad is trying to identify conservative Democratic supporters, he must be hoping to get them to cross over and vote in the Republican primary.

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend. Hope everyone is enjoying the balmy temperatures of the last few days (highs in the 40s). The Des Moines Register reported today on some of the records we set this winter, according to Iowa climatologist Harry Hillaker:

GET AN INCH, TAKE 5 FEET: Des Moines logged 61.2 inches of snow December through February, besting the record of 54.6 inches set in the winter of 1885-1886. Statewide, Iowa saw an average of 45.1 inches of snow, edging the 1961-1962 record of 44.7 inches.

WHITE ZONE IS FOR UNLOADING SNOW ONLY: At least 5 inches of snow has been on the ground at the Des Moines airport for 87 days in a row through Friday, shattering the old record of 54 days set in the winter of 1961-1962.

FEB-BRR-UARY: The highest temperature recorded in Iowa was 35 degrees, the lowest high temperature since 39 degrees in 1978. Iowa usually sees an average of 10 days above 40 degrees in February.

WARM BEGINS AT 50: Through Friday, no place in Iowa recorded a temperature of 50 degrees for 78 consecutive days, the fourth-longest streak in history.

UPDATE: I saw that a House resolution expressing support for the National School Lunch Program passed on Thursday by 403 to 13. In light of the lopsided vote, I had to click on the roll call to see if Representative Steve King was one of the 13. I’m happy to report that even the occasionally mean-spirited, uncompassionate, clueless, dare I say cartoon-villain-like King recognizes that “our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school.”

Three more Republicans in the Iowa House endorsed State Representative Rod Roberts for governor yesterday. Rich Anderson represents House district 97 in southwest Iowa.  Gary Worthan represents House district 52 in northwest Iowa. Clel Baudler represents House district 58 in southwest Iowa and also serves on the National Rifle Association’s board of directors.

Baudler and Anderson particularly praised Roberts’ leadership skills, while Worthan cited Roberts’ “proven track record of fighting for conservative values.” State Representative Jason Schultz and former representative Dan Boddicker also highlighted Roberts’ conservative credentials in their endorsement of him last week.

I wouldn’t exaggerate the importance of legislative endorsements; Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson had far more supporters in the Iowa legislature than Mike Huckabee did before the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Nevertheless, I believe that any support Roberts picks up from conservative Republicans probably helps Terry Branstad. In order to defeat the better-known, better-financed former governor in the primary, Bob Vander Plaats would need to unite primary voters who fear Branstad isn’t conservative enough. Roberts muddies the waters, especially in western Iowa, where Vander Plaats needs to dominate in order to win in June.

Last week Vander Plaats challenged Branstad and Roberts to a series of debates:

“I appreciate the opportunities Rod Roberts and I have had to meet in various settings and exchange ideas. Terry Branstad has been in this race quite a while now and it’s time for him to step up, join me on the same stage at the same time, and talk about the issues.”

Vander Plaats continued, “A number of people in the media are reporting this race as if Terry Branstad has won and is our party’s nominee. But he hasn’t won, he isn’t our nominee and that vocal minority in the media doesn’t get to make the decision; Republican voters do. As candidates, we have a responsibility to let GOP voters size us up side-by-side to see for themselves who has the energy, the new ideas and the focus on the future to lead us forward. I’m prepared to talk about how to open Iowa for business, fix our broken tax system, cut state spending and create a culture of innovation and results in our public schools.”

In a letter to Branstad, Vander Plaats proposed debates in Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City and another city agreed upon by the candidates.

[…]”As you and your staff know, many county GOP organizations and other groups all across Iowa have organized – or have an interest in organizing – forums for the three of us to discuss our positions and principles. I encourage you to join in as many of these events as possible through June 8.”

Roberts has nothing to lose by debating; such events can only raise his profile. Branstad would be taking a big risk to debate Vander Plaats. Judging from recent video clips I’ve seen of both candidates, Vander Plaats is a much more polished speaker. Also, Branstad has no idea how he’ll fulfill his central campaign promise to cut state government by 15 percent. If he stumbles in a debate, it will be a statewide news story. For those reasons, I doubt Branstad will agree to any debates unless his refusal to do so generates a lot of bad press.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Bret Hayworth reports that Roberts wants to debate his primary rivals in Carroll (his home town, which he has represented for the last decade in the legislature), and in some eastern Iowa town with a population under 15,000.

I expected Terry Branstad to drive all of the lesser-known Republicans out of the governor’s race. To my surprise, State Representative Rod Roberts has not followed the lead of Paul McKinley, Christian Fong, Jerry Behn and Chris Rants. Roberts told WHO’s Dave Price last weekend that he is staying in the governor’s race all the way to the June primary.

Roberts acknowledges the other two men have raised a LOT more money and are better known. After all, Branstad has been governor 4 terms before. [Bob] Vander Plaats has run for governor 3 times. Roberts plans on not just going after typical Republican primary voters to make up for his lack of recognition (he also added that he will just have to outwork the other 2). He plans on getting Democrats and Independents who are unhappy with the money Governor Chet Culver has spent since he took over and who are also unhappy with the overall direction of the state. Roberts told me this will be the year for the outsider. And he said he will be the outsider.

Join me after the jump for closer look at Roberts and his campaign strategy. I doubt he has any chance of winning the primary, but his presence in the race will probably help Branstad.

Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen released a new poll of the Iowa governor and U.S. Senate races today. Rasmussen surveyed 500 “likely Iowa voters” on February 18.

Given Rasmussen’s usual “house effect” favoring Republican candidates, I expected the numbers to be worse for Democrats than other recent Iowa polling. Instead, they were comparable to last week’s Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV and the Selzer and Co. poll for the Des Moines Register, which was conducted three weeks ago.

Like the other pollsters, Rasmussen found Governor Chet Culver well behind Republican front-runner Terry Branstad. Like Research 2000, Rasmussen found Senator Chuck Grassley above 50 percent against Democratic challengers, but well below Grassley’s usual re-election numbers and even below the numbers Rasmussen found for Grassley in late January.

More details are after the jump.

Research 2000 conducted an Iowa poll of 600 “likely voters who vote regularly in state elections” for KCCI-TV, the CBS affiliate in Des Moines. The poll was in the field from February 15 to 17, and KCCI published the results on its website yesterday.

It’s not a good poll for Governor Chet Culver, but it’s less bad than the Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa poll. Chuck Grassley has a comfortable lead in the Senate race, but not the kind of margin he has enjoyed against previous Democratic opponents.

Click here for all the numbers, and join me after the jump for some analysis.

Rod Boshart has the story:

Sioux City lawmaker Christopher Rants announced today that he is ending his quest to become governor of Iowa.

“Today I am ending my campaign for the office of governor,” Rants said in an e-mail he entitled as his “last Rants & Raves” column. “I’ve enjoyed meeting and learning from so many Iowans I’ve encountered on my 54,346-mile journey around our state.

“It has been a rewarding experience for me, and I hope that I’ve given my fellow Republicans some ideas to consider as they shape an agenda for the 2010 election,” he added. […]

“I continued out of a belief that campaigns should be about issues and ideas, and it was worth the effort to shape the public debate around issues that concern my supporters and me,” he added. “It is now clear that those opportunities for such a debate are not materializing, and I cannot in good conscience accept or solicit support for an effort I know will be ultimately unsuccessful.”

In the e-mail, Rants also confirmed that he won’t run for re-election to the Iowa House. You can read the whole thing at the Rants 2010 website.

Rants has campaigned hard since announcing his gubernatorial bid last June, but his fundraising dried up after former Governor Terry Branstad entered the race. Rants used his campaign website to expose Branstad’s record of fiscal mismanagement, and he called attention flip-flops on funding the Iowa State Patrol from the Road Use Tax Fund, but that seemed to have little effect.

Rants talked more about substantive policy issues than any other Republican candidate, and appeared at dozens of GOP events around the state, but just couldn’t get any traction in the race. A series of “debates” against Jonathan Narcisse in December and January didn’t attract much media attention. Rants then tried to distinguish himself on the marriage issue by vowing to veto every piece of legislation that hits his desk, including the state budget, until the legislature votes on a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Still, the Iowa Family Policy Center endorsed Bob Vander Plaats.

Rants once seemed likely to be a heavyweight contender for governor someday, but that was not to be.

Rants’ departure leaves three Republican candidates for governor: Branstad, Vander Plaats, and State Representative Rod Roberts of Carroll. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts go before the primary, but he insisted in December that he would not drop out. Roberts started running radio advertising last month.

I was surprised not to see Republican primary numbers from the Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa poll. Maybe they plan to release those this weekend.