United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during a January 28, 2013 book promotion at Southern Methodist University

Thanks to Bill from White Plains for another close look at the U.S. Supreme Court. His first post in this series is here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

At the end of the second Presidential debate, held on October 9, 2016 in St. Louis, Missouri, and at the outset of the third (and final) Presidential debate, held October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada, both candidates – New York Republican Businessman Donald John Trump and former Democratic New York senator – and former United States Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton provided their “litmus tests” for their nominees to the United States Supreme Court.

As the results of the upcoming Presidential election are impending, much ink – digital and print – and more breath have been spent discussing “The Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court’s fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall, famously wrote, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), that the United States Supreme Court “emphatically” has “the province and duty . . . to say what the law is.”

When John Marshall wrote that, the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court was set by the Judiciary Act of 1789 at six by the Congress (the Federal legislature) of the United States – the Chief Justice and five associate justices. That is because there is no set number of justices articulated in the United States Constitution. Article III of the United States Constitution governs the powers of the Federal judiciary. Article I of the United States Constitution governs the responsibilities of the Federal legislature, which is the bi-cameral body (the Senate and the House of Representatives) collectively known as the Congress of the United States.

Pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44 (1869)), an act passed by Congress, and currently found at 28 U.S.C. § 1, the number of United States Supreme Court justices is now set at nine.

Prior to 1869, the number had been as high as 10.

Currently, there are eight United States Supreme Court justices due to a vacancy created by the death of Associate Justice, Antonin Gregory Scalia, which occurred nine months ago on February 13, 2016.

The office of the Presidency of the United States is created by the United States Constitution under Article II, regarding the “Executive” branch of government. See U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 1. Among the constitutional powers of the President is the power – and the duty – to appoint Federal judges. That authority is found at U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 2 (“He [yes, he – not he or she] shall have Power . . . and by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme court and other Officers of the United States. . . .”).

During this presidential election cycle, the question has come up, again and again, whether the Senate has a co-existing duty to provide “Advice and Consent.” Particularly this year, and particularly in Iowa, this question has been a topic of discussion because Iowa’s own senior Senator, Charles Ernest Grassley, a Republican, is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (the committee that, among other things, presides over hearings on Federal judicial nominees), in a Senate whose majority is currently Republican, and who is running for re-election. Senator Grassley has stated publicly that Merrick Brian Garland – the judge outgoing Democratic President Barack Obama has nominated to fill the vacancy created by Associate Justice Scalia’s death – will not be considered by the Judiciary Committee because President Obama nominated him during an election year.

The truth is, the Senate probably does have a Constitutional duty to consider the Article III judicial nominations made by the President. But, it’s not clear. The Constitution itself, in Article I (the article laying out the make-up and responsibilities of the Senate and the House of Representatives), is silent on the matter. But, under Article II, the article laying out the powers and responsibilities of the Executive Branch of the United States generally, and of the President of the United States particularly, the Constitution gives a duty to the president to nominate and, upon the Senate’s approval, appoint, Federal Judges (defined generally, by Article III, but particularly United States Supreme Court justices).

The Constitution, by virtue of creating the duty in the President, makes some assumption that the Senate, upon being created by Article II, will follow through with acting on the nomination. But again, Article I, which creates the Senate, doesn’t specify how the Senate should handle presidential nominations of judges or anybody else.

To the extent there is some dormant obligation on the part of the Senate to be read in the Constitution, the Senate has ignored it for nearly 200 years. A March 16, 2016 “Fact Check” commentary in The Washington Post called, “Does the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to consider a Supreme Court nomination?” cites President John Quincy Adams’ lame duck nomination of a potential justice in December 1828 – two months after he lost his bid for re-election, three months before his successor, Andrew Jackson, would take office. The Senate ignored the nomination. President Jackson, shortly after his inauguration, nominated the successor, who was later approved by the Senate, and appointed. The Post’s commentary, written by Glenn Kessler, concludes that

Nearly 200 years ago, the Senate made it clear that it was not required to act on a Supreme Court nomination. In periods of divided government, especially with elections looming, the Senate has chosen not to act — or to create circumstances under which the president’s nominee either withdrew or was not considered. Indeed, the patterns don’t suggest the Senate used procedures out of constitutional duty, out of deference for what the Constitution says or what previous Senates have done. Instead they used procedures based on the political circumstances of each confirmation.

Then, of course, there is the situation where Congress is not in session. The President has power under the Constitution to appoint Federal judges when that situation arises. It should not go unnoticed that, since this past February, the Senate has jiggered its individual members’ time such that someone is always, at least, present in Washington, so, technically, the Senate is never in recess.

Judges of the United States Supreme Court, being among the “Officers of the United States,” the President has the power to appoint them while the Senate is in recess, pursuant to by U.S. CONST. ART. 2 § 2 cl. 3, but upon the Senate’s return, the Senate must confirm that appointment by the end of its term – typically meaning, the end of that calendar year. Indeed, Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Jr. (1956), Associate Justice Potter Stewart (1958) and, perhaps most significantly, Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953), were all recess appointees of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose appointments were subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate.

Justice Brennan’s appointment was not only a recess appointment, but a 1956 appointment. Nineteen fifty six was an election year and moderate conservative President Eisenhower was running for re-election. William J. Brennan was a Roman Catholic Democrat, a moderate liberal, and from the northeast. He was, in other words, a superfecta nominee for a Republican President seeking to please those four constituencies that year. At the time, William Joseph Brennan Jr. was serving his fifth year as an associate justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court, following a brief tenure (less than two years) as a New Jersey trial judge.

Associate Justice Potter Stewart was perhaps the first of only two “swing justices” in the United States Supreme Court’s history; the predecessor to Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy, who is currently an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
Earl Warren, governor of California, had run against General Dwight David Eisenhower for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1952. Prior to Eisenhower’s subsequent nomination, young, California Senator, Richard M. Nixon, had publicly endorsed Governor Warren for the Republican Party’s nomination. Nixon – feral, self-serving and despicable always – turned on fellow Californian Warren like Peter to Jesus before the cock crowed, when then-General Eisenhower offered Nixon the vice presidency if Eisenhower were elected.

Consequently, in 1953, Nixon actually had a legitimate reason to be paranoid about Warren’s political retribution. Likewise, then-President Eisenhower owed Warren, big time. Initially, Eisenhower offered Warren the role of United States Solicitor General (whose office argues all Federal appeals to the United States Supreme Court) and promised to follow that up with a Supreme Court appointment once a vacancy arose. Before he could announce his appointment of Warren as Solicitor General, however, a Supreme Court vacancy arose.

As happened most recently when District of Columbia Circuit Judge John Glover Roberts Jr., who had never served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court before being nominated for a Chief Justice slot (Chief Justice William J. Rehnquist having passed away), Earl Warren was appointed by President Eisenhower, not only as a new Supreme Court justice, but to the position of Chief Justice, replacing Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who died unexpectedly in 1953.

In 1953, Earl Warren was everything that a Republican President in 2016 would want in a Supreme Court Justice. First, he was a Republican up-and-comer with a solid, conservative background. In any election cycle other than 1952, he probably would have been President of the United States. But in 1952, bolstered by his status as a five-star general in World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Republican nominee who ultimately won the presidency by huge numbers (442 electoral votes to his opponent, Adlai Stephenson’s 89 electoral votes).

In 1953, Earl Warren was serving his third term as Governor of California. As governor, he had successfully used New Deal financial initiatives to create jobs in California, chiefly through the creation of vast infrastructure initiatives like highways and bridges, and higher education both in terms of advancing scholarship and constructing brick-and-mortar institutions with the expansion of the University of California system with universities, colleges and community colleges.

Prior to becoming California’s longest-serving Republican governor (his tenure in California has only recently been surpassed by current Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, who was previously California governor in the 1970s), Earl Warren had been the state’s attorney general. As attorney general, Warren was responsible for implementing a number of programs Americans now view as loathsome and reprehensible. Perhaps his most unfortunate and enduring legacy was the internment of Japanese immigrants – among them many, many American citizens of Japanese descent – during World War II. Likewise, Warren enforced laws that promoted eugenics in the form of sterilization of Mexicans, Asians and Native Americans – primarily women – in order to have their communities die out so that the state could confiscate their land.

Prior to becoming attorney general, Warren had been a “tough on crime,” “law and order” county attorney for Alameda County, targeting bootleggers and corrupt politicians.

Warren went on, then, to become the Chief Justice who, with a compliment of like-minded jurists from 1953 through his retirement in 1969, ushered in perhaps the most liberal Constitutional case law in the history of the Supreme Court. Right out of the shoot, the Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in 1954, and held, unanimously, that separate but equal school systems for Black children and White children were inherently unequal. Brown overturned more than half a century of precedent from its 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision to the effect, separate accommodations in every aspect of public life from rail cars to rest rooms, was equal and acceptable.

Likewise, the Warren court, in 1962, decided a case about Congressional redistricting that was so gut wrenching for the justices that one of them, Associate Justice Charles Evans Whittaker, a conservative justice from Missouri who had only been on the Court for six years, recused himself and quit the Court the next year. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution afforded equal protection under state legislatures’ redistricting laws. Generally, states re-draw their Congressional districts in order to make them relatively equal in population. They do this by using the United States census. The affect to redrawing Congressional districts is, the interests of the populace change based on how you determine the population. And, as a result of that, state legislatures “gerrymander” the districts, such that, to draw them out on a map, they look like a crazy quilt, because they are rigged to retain a certain party’s power, while fulfilling the obligation to keep the districts relatively equal in terms of population.

But that is a story for another time.

In Baker, the plaintiff was a Tennessee mayor living in an urban district seeking re-election in the late 1950s who noticed that the Congressional districts hadn’t changed since 1901, following the 1900 Federal census. In that half century, the population had shifted from primarily rural to urban, but the district map had not been updated; the district had not been reapportioned. The defendant, Joe Carr, was the Tennessee secretary of state, based on the fact he was officially in charge of conducting free and fair elections. The only question for the court at the time was whether the matter was purely legislative, and the responsibility of the state’s elected officials to sort out, or whether it was something courts could decide.

The Warren Court, split 6-2, with Justice Whittaker abstaining, ruled in Baker that reapportionment was “justiciable:” whether, under Article III, the case was either a “case” or “controversy.” Article III § 2 cl. 2 of the United States Constitution lays out the jurisdiction (what it calls the “judicial power of the United States”) of the United States Supreme Court and “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This was a very big deal because, as is just as true today, the dividing line between states’ rights and Federal government intrusion was a major issue. In the ruling, the court went out of its way to list a series of cases that, it said, confirmed that reapportionment was always justiciable. That being said, the question arose, “Why now, then?” The answer, history has shown, is that the Warren court “went there;” all previous courts had begged off.

But that is as far as it went. The Supreme Court’s Baker ruling did not decide whether Tennessee’s Congressional districts were Constitutional; it remanded the case back to the trial court to make that determination.

Until 1964, when the court exercised its newly-proclaimed justiciability over Congressional redistricting, in a case called, Reynolds v. Sims. The question in Reynolds was whether a state’s redistricting of its own legislative districts was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. There, the Alabama Constitution called for one state senator for every county. Voters in Jefferson County, Alabama – home of the state’s capital, Birmingham, objected to the consequential disparity between the power of their senator, representing a densely populated urban region, and that of any senator from some rural and sparsely populated county.

As in Baker, the apportionment of Alabama counties in Reynolds was based on the 1900 census and a 1901 statute setting forth the rules of redistricting. As in Baker with respect to Missouri, much had changed in those 50 + years, population-wise, in Alabama. In Reynolds, the population variations were so lopsided that when comparing urban and rural counties, the Court found that in some cases, a senator would receive 41 votes in one county for 1 vote received by a senator in another county.

The court was careful in Reynolds to point out that “No effective political remedy to obtain relief against the alleged malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature appears to have been available.” The court was obviously still concerned about the impression the Federal judiciary (nine unelected judges) was forcing its preferences onto the people (judicial activism). It observed that, in order to change the redistricting in Alabama, there had to be a constitutional amendment and constitutional amendments in Alabama could only occur through a 3/5 majority of legislators agreeing to one, followed by a simple majority vote of the people or, by means of a constitutional convention called after a simple majority of the popular vote, and approved by a majority of senators and house legislators. The senators and house members, having obtained their seats through the lopsided system created in 1901, were not likely to change anything.

Ultimately, the court found that the system was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and that the constitution required a system to permit a proportional, one person-one vote, plan. The court wrote, as follows:
History indicates, however, that many States have deviated, to a greater or lesser degree, from the equal-population principle in the apportionment of seats in at least one house of their legislatures, So long as the divergences from a strict population standard are based on legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, some deviations from the equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible with respect to the apportionment of seats in either or both of the two houses of a bicameral state legislature. But neither history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes. Considerations of area alone provide an insufficient justification for deviations from the equal-population principle. Again, people, not land or trees or pastures, vote. Modern developments and improvements in transportation and communications make rather hollow, in the mid-1960’s, most claims that deviations from population-based representation can validly be based solely on geographical considerations. Arguments for allowing such deviations in order to insure effective representation for sparsely settled areas and to prevent legislative districts from becoming so large that the availability of access of citizens to their representatives is impaired are today, for the most part, unconvincing.

Voting rights was a major civil rights issue in 1964, as they continue to be today, 52 years later. But it took the Warren court to break through a century of states running amok with voting schemes that disenfranchised voters. One of the important issues Hillary Clinton raised during the second Presidential debate was voter disenfranchisement.

Aside from voting rights, the Warren court declared in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution afforded indigent Federal prisoners the right to defense counsel paid for by the Federal government. And, in 1968, the Warren court ruled, in Miranda v. Arizona, that a criminal suspect must have his rights explained to him before being interrogated by law enforcement officials – especially the right to remain silent, because anything said can, and will, be used against that suspect.

This level of Constitutional analysis resulting in such a sweeping installment of rights to so many people in such a brief, 16 year period, is viewed by many as unprecedented since Chief Justice Marshall articulated the power of the Federal courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court.

As will be discussed in subsequent installments, there are several questions about the outcome of the 2016 Presidential campaign as it relates to the Supreme Court as a body, and as it relates to the individual justices as legal scholars. As I have just demonstrated, Chief Justice Earl Warren turned out to be the polar opposite of what President Eisenhower would have wanted, much less expected, from the hard-as-nails/law and order California governor and attorney general that Warren had been before presiding over the United States Supreme Court.

Just as clearly, and as demonstrated prior to the recent appointments of Associate Justices Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, a block of justices appointed by Presidents of a certain political ideology can affect the types of cases, and the outcomes of cases, coming before the Supreme Court.

Over the next four, and potentially eight, years, the next president is likely to replace up to four justices on the United States Supreme Court – two of them (Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Gerald Breyer), appointees of Democratic, politically moderate, President William Jefferson Clinton and two of them (Associate Justices Antonin Gregory Scalia and Anthony McLeod Kennedy), appointees of Republican, politically conservative, President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Sometimes, as in the case of the period Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the Court, that can mean a great deal. Other times, like the past 37 years since Chief Justice Warren retired, and that sesquicentennial period between Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion and the commencement of Chief Justice Warren’s term on the Supreme Court began in 1953, it hasn’t seemed to matter much at all.

One of the plaintiffs in Iowa’s historic Varnum v Brien case passed away late last week. As Tom Witosky and Marc Hansen described in their book Equal Before the Law: How Iowa Led Americans to Marriage Equality, Larry Hoch was a middle-school teacher in his late 50s when he met David Twombley online in 2000. A few years later, he moved from New York to Des Moines to be with Twombley.

The couple had already entered into a civil union in Vermont, but our state didn’t recognize the legal status of their relationship. So when Camilla Taylor, an attorney for the LGBT advocacy group Lambda Legal, reached out in the summer of 2005, looking for plaintiffs in a case that would challenge Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act, Hoch agreed immediately without consulting Twombley. The two men jokingly called themselves the “Old Fart Couple,” since they were much older than the five other couples who joined the lawsuit.

Hoch and Twombly unsuccessfully applied for a Polk County marriage license in November 2005. The lawsuit was filed the following month. Polk County District Court Judge Robert Hanson heard oral arguments in May 2007 and found Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in August of that year. His ruling was stayed pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, where seven justices unanimously affirmed the decision in April 2009, allowing the Varnum plaintiffs and others to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register’s Molly Longman, One Iowa executive director Donna Red Wing described Hoch as an “incredible, sweet man” and said he was a regular at LGBT events in central Iowa: “I think for the community to see this older couple — they weren’t exactly spring chickens — engage so passionately in the fight for equality was so important.” Twombley told Longman, “We were both very proud to have been a part of history. We’ve had numerous gay couples that have married that know us or know of us, and they’ve gone out of their way to thank us for what we did for them.”

Although my life was not directly affected by the Varnum case, all Iowans should be grateful for what Hoch and the other plaintiffs did to promote fairness and equality in our state. Without their lawsuit, thousands of LGBT couples in Iowa would have had to wait six more years (until the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell) to obtain the legal and psychological benefits of being married. Witosky and Hansen wrote that Hoch and Twombley “weren’t the first couple the [Lambda Legal] organization had contacted. […] Several Des Moines area couples had been approached but declined for a variety of reasons, mostly because of the attention the case would attract.” After living in the closet for most of his adult life, Hoch risked becoming a target for haters in order to take a stand. May his memory be a blessing.

P.S.- Chief Justice Mark Cady, the author of the Varnum decision, and Supreme Court Justices Brent Appel and Daryl Hecht are up for retention this year statewide. Polk County voters will also see Judge Hanson’s name on the ballot. Please remember to mark yes for them all when you vote.

Last night’s debate stirred up memories from my “past life.” In two of the most spirited exchanges, Hillary Clinton depicted Donald Trump as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s potential “puppet,” and Trump suggested the “corrupt media” and millions of people who don’t belong on the voter rolls could steal the election.

Large scale voter fraud has been more than a losing candidate’s fantasy in Russia. Observers have documented stuffed ballot boxes and other methods of undermining opposition candidates.

Dark political humor shone a light on some of those flaws in Russia’s early post-Soviet elections.

Thanks, Laura, for asking me to contribute a post about former Polk County Attorney Dan Johnston.

I said goodbye by phone to Dan Johnston a couple of days ago. He was in Iowa Methodist Medical Center waiting for a bed in hospice.

It was around this time of year in 1974 when Dan and Norman Jesse came to my fathers’ bedside as he was dying and helped him cast his last vote.

Dan Johnston’s obituary will no doubt include his career highlight when at the age of 30 he successfully represented Roosevelt High School students who were suspended from school for wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam war in a case that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also held elective office as Polk County Attorney and ran for Iowa Attorney General.

I’ve known Dan since I was 16. And that was a long time ago. 1966 to be precise.

By Tom Witosky

Donald Trump’s reported avoidance of paying federal income taxes – possibily for almost two decades – raises a simple, but interesting question for Iowa voters.
Does it matter? And, if it doesn’t matter to voters in 2016, then why did it matter when Gov. Terry Branstad and his supporters made such a big deal of it in his campaigns against Democrat candidate Roxanne Conlin in 1982 and Jack Hatch in 2014?

A must-read review of what recent history tells us about the impact of presidential debates. You can find Dan Guild’s past writing for this site here and here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Debates have arguably remade the race for the Presidency in 1976, 1980, 2000, 2004 and 2012. Even in races where arguably they are less important, they still are significant events. Having said all of this there are patterns that repeat themselves. Guideposts that can help evaluate how they will affect this race. Here they are:

1. Typically debates consolidate support within their Party for each candidate. Where this is unequal, the candidate who is behind tends to benefit.

2. In races where there is significant discontent, debates often help the candidate of the party that is on the outside.

3. Third Parties frequently decline afterwards

U.S. House and Senate members returned to work Tuesday, no better equipped to handle basic tasks of governance than they were before their unusually long summer recess.

You might think funding to combat a public health emergency would be easy to pass even in a hyper-partisan, election-year atmosphere. But you would be wrong, because legislation to pay for a Zika virus response remains tied up over “poison pills.”

Tom Witosky covered sports, politics and business for many years as an investigative reporter at the Des Moines Register. -promoted by desmoinesdem

-30-

Back when newspaper reporters typed their stories onto paper, the notation -30- at the bottom of the final page indicated the end of a story.

When the U.S. Men’s Olympic basketball team on Sunday defeated Serbia, 96-66, the 30-point drubbing fittingly symbolized the end of one of the best Olympic efforts ever by U.S. male and female athletes. Medal totals told the story: U.S. teams earned 121 medals (45 gold, 37 silver and 38 bronze) outpacing China’s second place finish with 70 medals.

But what’s more interesting is how the dominance of U.S. female athletes, likely the most superior women’s team ever fielded by the United States Olympic Committee, played such a huge role in that success.

In many ways, the U.S. success provides another metaphor for the progress that has been made in this country’s striving for a better union. Like the breaking of the racial barrier in Major League Baseball by Jackie Robinson, and the breaking of the sexual-orientation barrier by a variety of athletes, the success of the U.S. women illustrates vividly that commitment to equality and diversity does pay despite long-term, deep-seated resistance from those who disagree.

Before #BernieOrBust or any other hashtag existed to convey some activists’ feelings about the Democratic Party’s establishment candidate, there was Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Iowa’s best-known politician to endorse Nader rather than Al Gore was State Representative Ed Fallon. The Des Moines Democrat had found himself at odds with the rest of his Iowa House colleagues before. Some of his politically inexpedient decisions have aged well, most famously his heartfelt speech before voting against our state’s Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Supporting Nader caused more intense fallout.

Though Fallon no longer considers himself a Democrat and has devoted most of his energy lately to environmental activism, he still endorses some Democratic candidates, including Bernie Sanders before this year’s Iowa caucuses.

Fallon spoke with Bleeding Heartland recently about his decision to back Nader, how that choice affected his subsequent bids for public office, and his advice for activists drawn to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein instead of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Dan Guild follows up on his deep dive into the history of convention bounces. You can read his past writing for this site here and here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

On July 20th I suggested we would probably know who the next President is after the conventions are over. That post noted that since 1996 the average bounce out of a convention was 6.1 percent. Let’s look at how that compares with the bounces out of the two conventions just completed.

Essentially, the conventions were very close to the historical average. Importantly, though, Clinton appears to have picked about 2 points from where the race stood before the two conventions.

Many thanks to Dan Guild for this historical perspective. You can read his past contributions to this blog here and here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

In any election there are a few predictable and important events. Few are as important as the Conventions. How important? Here are some basic facts:
1. In the 12 elections since 1968, the candidate leading in polling after the second convention has won the popular vote 11 times, and the only exception led by less than a point (McCain in 2008).

2. The candidate leading 3 weeks after the second convention has NEVER lost the popular vote.

3. No candidate has EVER won if they trailed after their convention. EVER.

4. 10 of 11 candidates who led by more than 5 after their convention won (Dukakis in ’88 is the only exception.

A table summarizing the data is set forth below. In addition, my database of presidential polling (which is the most complete online) is here.

Anyone even vaguely familiar with Representative Steve King has probably heard some of his statements about immigrants who are not authorized to be in this country.

But although I’ve followed King’s career closely for more than a decade, I didn’t know until I saw this news segment yesterday that he displays a Confederate flag on his desk.

The two most recent national polls of the presidential race showed unusually high levels of support for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey conducted between June 19 and 23, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was backed by 39 percent of respondents, to 38 percent for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, 10 percent for Johnson and 6 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. An ABC/Washington Post poll in the field between June 20 and 23 found 47 percent of respondents for Clinton, 37 percent for Trump, 7 percent for Johnson, and 3 percent for Stein.

Even taking into account the reality that support for third-party candidates “usually diminishes over the course of the [U.S. presidential] campaign,” and third-party candidates have often received less than half as much support on election day as they did in nationwide surveys from June, Johnson has potential to shatter previous records for Libertarians. A former Republican governor of New Mexico, Johnson received 1,275,821 popular votes as the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2012, just under 1 percent of the nationwide vote. The best showing for a Libertarian ticket in terms of vote share was 1.06 percent (921,128 votes) in 1980 for Ed Clark and his running mate David Koch, better known as one half of the Koch brothers.

I haven’t seen any Iowa polls yet that gave respondents the option of choosing Stein or Johnson as alternatives to Clinton and Trump, but now seems like a good time to examine Libertarian presidential performance in Iowa over the last four decades and Johnson’s chances to improve on his 2012 results.

The U.S. House Rules Committee decided tonight against allowing a vote on Representative Steve King’s proposal to block the U.S. Treasury Department from using federal funds to redesign any currency. In April, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew announced plans to redesign the $20 bill, with a picture of Harriet Tubman on the front and an image of President Andrew Jackson on the back.

The innovation didn’t sit well with King. As Zach Carter first reported for the Huffington Post, King offered his amendment to the appropriations bill covering the Treasury Department. Matthew Nussbaum reported this evening for Politico,

“It’s not about Harriet Tubman, it’s about keeping the picture on the $20,” King said Tuesday evening, pulling a $20 bill from his pocket and pointing at President Andrew Jackson. “Y’know? Why would you want to change that? I am a conservative, I like to keep what we have.”

The conservative gadfly said it is “racist” and “sexist” to say a woman or person of color should be added to currency. “Here’s what’s really happening, this is liberal activism on the part of the president, that’s trying to identify people by categories and he’s divided us on the lines of groups. … This is a divisive proposal on the part of the president and mine’s unifying. It says just don’t change anything.”

Has anyone seen a better example of white male privilege lately? U.S. paper currency has featured white men on all denominations for generations. Yet it’s “racist” and “sexist” to put an African-American woman on one bill and several white women on another–even though both redesigned bills would retain images of white men on one side.

Sensitivity to racial injustice has never been King’s strong suit, so of course he would call it “unifying” to keep the seventh president’s place on the $20. Never mind Jackson’s legacy of brutal Indian removal policies, not to mention direct involvement in the slave trade and attempts to limit postal delivery of abolitionist materials. In case King forgot, the Republican Party grew out of the anti-slavery movement.

With Donald Trump damaging the GOP brand among non-white Americans, House leaders needed unflattering national news coverage and an eventual floor vote on King’s amendment like a hole in the head. So the Rules Committee determined the proposal to be out of order. King can go back to fighting “bloodthirsty vegan brigades” and other imagined threats to American civilization.

UPDATE: Added below fantastic comments by King’s Democratic challenger, Kim Weaver.

Dr. Andy McGuire announced at the end of tonight’s Iowa Democratic Party’s Hall of Fame event that after receiving “hundreds of suggestions,” the State Central Committee voted last month to rename the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner the “Iowa Democratic Party Fall Gala.”

Please, no.

When party leaders started down this road last year, McGuire said, “it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality.”

What about values like remembering our history and standing for something? Any organization can hold an annual fall gala. The Iowa Democratic Party’s marquee event should honor a person or people who have inspired many of us to make political activism an important part of our lives.

Talking with others who attended tonight’s dinner, I heard zero positive comments about the decision. Neither did Pat Rynard.

State Central Committee members have time to reconsider. I favor replacing the J-J dinner with the H-H to honor former Governor and Senator Harold Hughes and former Senator Tom Harkin, but I’m open to other options. Surely among the “hundreds of suggestions” party leaders received, some were better than “fall gala,” which screams, “We were too afraid to honor an imperfect human being, so we fell back on the most boring name possible.”

P.S.-Tonight’s event ran smoothly, and Ryan McDaniel did an excellent job pinch-hitting for the keynote speaker who backed out at the last minute. But only two of the seven Hall of Fame inductees, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa Federation of Labor President Ken Sagar, had a chance to speak while accepting their awards. In the future, the Iowa Democratic Party should give all the honorees at least a couple of minutes to address the crowd.

And now for something completely different.

Twenty years ago today, Russian Federation citizens went to the polls in the country’s first presidential election of the post-Soviet era. Eleven candidates qualified for the ballot, though most were no-hopers. President Boris Yeltsin’s principal opponent was Communist Party leader Gennadii Zyuganov.

I spent about six weeks in Moscow covering the campaign for the Open Media Research Institute. Since YouTube did not exist, and most of our readers did not have access to Russian television networks, part of my job involved taping, transcribing and analyzing the candidates’ commercials.

Follow me after the jump if you’re curious about attempts to use television in a country where multi-candidate elections were a relatively new phenomenon.

Austin Frerick, an Iowa native and economist who has worked at the Institute for Research on Poverty and the Congressional Research Service, makes a distinctive case for raising the minimum wage, last increased in Iowa in January 2007. -promoted by desmoinesdem

All of the states that border Iowa, except one, have raised their minimum wage above the federal level. In fact, a majority of states in the union have a higher one. A recent study estimated that 413,000 Iowa workers would benefit from a wage increase to at least $12 and most of the benefits would accrue to full-time adult women. The public also already decidedly supports this action as a recent Des Moines Register poll found that nearly two-thirds of Iowans favored raising it. This debate is especially relevant for Iowans employed in the numerous slaughterhouses that dot the state.

Company towns, once a relic of America’s industrial past, have reemerged in American society, notably in rural Iowa slaughterhouse communities. This occurred because of a market climate that made their monopsony position in these communities attractive to firms. This predicament causes a market failure. Therefore, raising Iowa’s minimum wage will correct this market distortion for these especially vulnerable Iowans.

Once known as Decoration Day, the concept of honoring Americans who died in military service on the last Monday in May “originated in the years following the Civil War and became an official federal holiday in 1971.” Many Americans visit the graves of fallen relatives on Memorial Day. Morgan Halgren described visiting the grave of her uncle, who was killed in action during World War II, during a trip to the Netherlands.

In a guest editorial for today’s Des Moines Register, Joy Neal Kidney described her family’s annual ritual of visiting Violet Hill Cemetery in Perry (Dallas County), to honor the memories of relatives including three uncles killed during World War II.

Lynda Waddington’s latest column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette called for offering “more than words” to the war dead and their surviving families.

Since Memorial Day weekend is also the unofficial beginning of summer, it’s a good time to share Mario Vittone’s must-read piece for recreational swimmers: “Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning.” Once a lifeguard at Valley View Aquatic Center in West Des Moines jumped in to help a child in trouble in the shallow pool where I was standing near my children. Although I could not have been more than fifteen feet away, I hadn’t noticed a thing.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

UPDATE: Added below a map prepared by the Legislative Services Agency, which shows the home towns of Iowans killed in military conflicts since in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, or other locations.

Thanks to fladem for another well-informed view of Republican delegate scenarios. His earlier posts in this series are available here. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Just before Super Tuesday here, I suggested that the possibility of a GOP brokered convention was rising. Just over a month later, as I will show, those odds have risen considerably. Before I walk through the math, let me start with some observations:

• 1: We are in uncharted territory.

A 2008 amendment to the Iowa Constitution became a matter of debate in Griffin v Pate, the major voting rights case before the Iowa Supreme Court. The amendment changed Article II, Section 5, which as adopted in 1857 read, “No idiot, or insane person, or person convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.” The same section now reads, “A person adjudged mentally incompetent to vote or a person convicted of any infamous crime shall not be entitled to the privilege of an elector.”

Two of the seven Supreme Court justices have previously held that when approving the 2008 constitutional amendment, the legislature “ratified its own existing interpretation of that provision under which infamous crime meant a felony.” In its brief for the Iowa Supreme Court on behalf of defendants in Griffin, the Iowa Attorney General’s Office carried forward that claim: “By failing to alter the Infamous Crime Clause when other portions of Article II, section 5 were amended, the Legislature and the public ratified the definition of infamous crime as all felonies under state and federal law.” During the March 30 Supreme Court hearing on Griffin v. Pate, Solicitor General Jeffrey Thompson likewise argued “the simple answer here” is the 2008 constitutional amendment was “passed twice by the General Assembly, adopted by the people of Iowa, in the context of a legal system and historical cases and practices that said felonies are the line.”

My curiosity piqued, I decided to look into the legislative intent behind the 2008 constitutional amendment. What I found does not support the view that Iowa lawmakers envisioned “infamous crime” as synonymous with “felony” or intended to ratify such an interpretation when voting to remove offensive language from the state constitution.

Steve Roberts is a walking encyclopedia of Iowa GOP politics since the 1970s. The Des Moines-based attorney is a past state chair of the Republican Party of Iowa as well as a longtime Republican National Committeeman. In 2008, state lawmaker Sandy Greiner suggested Roberts should be declared “king of Des Moines” after he helped beat back an effort within the RNC to take away Iowa’s first in the nation spot for the 2012 election cycle. Someone needs to persuade Roberts to write his memoirs or let a video archivist capture his entertaining stories.

I called Roberts on March 3 to ask about events at the 1980 state Republican convention, which I plan to cover in a future Throwback Thursday post. Roberts was the top Iowa GOP official at that time. While answering one of my questions, he mentioned in passing,

[George H.W.] Bush won the Iowa caucuses, but I’ll tell you now, in looking back on it, our computers broke down. We didn’t get to count a number of rural counties, and very possibly [Ronald] Reagan won.

Wait, what?

As the Iowa Democratic Party considers reforms to the caucus system, here’s a case for Democrats to “reset our priorities” and get back to basics to make the event about “our caucus attendees first, the nation second.” -promoted by desmoinesdem

Let’s take off the sunglasses; close the makeup trailer; and put the script away. What would the Iowa Democratic Caucuses look like if there were no camera lights, reporters, or news media satellite dishes affiliated with the quadrennial event? The Iowa Democratic Caucuses might be boring, but they would be functional, effective, and ours.

Like many star struck Hollywood wannabe who suddenly reaches fame, Iowa’s Democratic Caucuses forgot who brought it to the dance. Over the past few decades, Iowans have given the Coastal Media some discretion as to how the caucuses function in return for cheap national publicity. Is it worth it?

Wrapping up this year’s Iowa caucus series. Part 1 covered basic elements of the caucus system, part 2 explained why so many Iowans can’t or won’t attend their precinct caucus, part 3 discussed how Democratic caucus math can affect delegate counts, part 4 described how precinct captains help campaigns, and part 5 explained why the caucuses have been called a “pollster’s nightmare.”

When I have criticized some aspects of the Iowa caucus system or called for reforms to allow more Iowans to participate, I have often heard from activists defending the status quo.

This posts lists some leading arguments in favor of the current caucus system, along with my rebuttals.

Thanks to fladem for this historical perspective on late shifts in Iowa caucus-goers’ preferences. If you missed his earlier posts, check out A deep dive into Iowa caucus History and Iowa polling 45 days out: Let the buyer REALLY beware. -promoted by desmoinesdem

This is a continuation of an article I wrote about Iowa polling in November. At the time I noted how unpredictable the Iowa caucuses are. This article will to look at the last 48 hours. There are two lessons you can draw:

1. Front-runners beware

1. Expect someone to come from nowhere

Donald Trump’s first television commercial grabbed attention for its unsubtle race-baiting on the topic of immigration. His latest commercial hits Ted Cruz as “pro-amnesty,” citing the Texas senator’s past support for legislation that would have provided legal status for some undocumented immigrants.

In between those spots, the Trump campaign released an ad that has been in heavy rotation on Iowa tv stations since January 15. “Our Country” hammers home Trump’s promise to “make America great again,” which inspired me to look back at how Ronald Reagan used the same words in one of his 1980 campaign commercials.

Trump has communication skills, but he’s not on Reagan’s level.

The best commercial of the 2016 presidential campaign started running on Friday. Set to the classic Simon and Garfunkel song “America,” the 60-second spot for Bernie Sanders evokes optimism and a sense of purpose. A dejected Hillary Clinton supporter told me a few days ago that this ad will win the Iowa caucuses for Sanders.

I don’t know about that, but “America” is so superb that I was inspired to compare its style and substance to one of the most famous presidential campaign ads of the 20th century. This 60-second spot for Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign was originally called “Prouder, Stronger, Better” but is better-known as “Morning in America” because of its memorable opening metaphor: “It’s morning again in America.”

After two straight years of taking bicyclists across northern parts of the state, the Des Moines Register announced this evening that the Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI) will cross southern Iowa from July 24 to 30. The route starting in Glenwood and ending in Muscatine will take riders “419.9 miles (third-shortest in the event’s 44-year history), with a total climb of 18,488 feet (making it the 24th flattest).”

Full details on the 2016 route are on the official RAGBRAI website. After the jump I’ve listed the overnight stops, along with daily mileage totals and feet of climb and some political trivia about places riders will visit this summer.

Bleeding Heartland welcomes guest posts, including those advocating for Democratic candidates. -promoted by desmoinesdem

This was the moment I decided who I was caucusing for.

I didn’t caucus for Hillary in 2008. In fact, I was a precinct captain for another candidate. I hadn’t been on board with the Ready for Hillary stuff that’s been around for the last year or more. I went to hear Bernie speak at Drake before he decided to run. I met with an O’Malley staffer and went to a house party. I was enjoying the process as an undecided voter. And then we took our kids to Washington, DC.

And somehow, looking at the display in the Smithsonian of first lady gowns with my daughter did it for me. I NEED my daughter to grow up with a female president. I don’t want her dream to be growing up to be First Lady. Yes, there are some courageous and amazing women commemorated elsewhere in the Smithsonian. But this… the women in the White House are remembered primarily for their gowns.

On December 31, 1999, Boris Yeltsin resigned the Russian presidency six months before the end of his term, making Prime Minister Vladimir Putin acting president and forcing an early presidential election. I was in graduate school, working on a dissertation about corporate and state power over the Russian media during the post-Soviet period. I had recently spent eight weeks in Moscow reporting on the parliamentary election campaign for my former full-time employer, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I didn’t realize those would be the last Russian elections in which the outcome was not a foregone conclusion.

As soon as I heard Yeltsin had stepped down, I knew I would be returning to Moscow sooner than planned to help cover the presidential campaign for RFE/RL. I didn’t realize that someday I would look back on the sequence of events from Putin becoming prime minister in August 1999 to his first presidential election as the beginning of the end for what was supposed to be my life’s work.

I continued to freelance for RFE/RL for five more years, occasionally writing up daily news and producing in-depth reports on Russia’s 2003 parliamentary elections and 2004 presidential race. But over time, most of my favorite beats became irrelevant or much less interesting. The way Putin’s rise to power affected me can’t compare to the consequences for 100 million plus Russian citizens and many people in countries neighboring the Russian Federation. The fact remains: had Yeltsin chosen a different kind of successor, I probably would not have immersed myself in Iowa politics later.

Drew Miller didn’t know any of this when he invited me to start writing for Bleeding Heartland’s front page in early 2007. We’d never met in person or talked offline. Soon after creating this website with Chris Woods, Drew landed a new job that was incompatible with blogging. He knew “desmoinesdem” only as one of the earliest registered users at Bleeding Heartland and a regular commenter at other Iowa sites. I hadn’t put much thought into my alter ego’s name; desmoinesdem was just a handle for posting at American political blogs, beginning in 2003 when I was still publishing regularly about Russia under my own byline.

I have become attached to Bleeding Heartland as a vehicle for digging into the same topics I loved covering in Russia during the 1990s: campaigns and elections, legislative work, corporate influence over public policy, and media bias.

Thank you to everyone who has in any way supported my ongoing effort to reinvent myself as a writer.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, writing is a labor of love for me. Some posts are much more labor-intensive than others.

All of the pieces linked below took at least a couple of days to put together. Some were in progress for weeks before I was ready to hit the publish button. (No editor, deadlines, or word limits can be a dangerous combination.) A few of the particularly time-consuming posts required additional research or interviews. More often, the challenge was figuring out the best way to present the material.

Several pieces that would have qualified for this list are not included, because they are still unfinished. Assuming I can get those posts where they need to be, I plan to publish them during the first quarter of 2016.

While working on another piece about Iowa politics highlights from the year, I decided to start a new Bleeding Heartland tradition. Writing is a labor of love for me, as for many bloggers, but let’s face it: not all posts are equally lovable.

The most important political events can be frustrating or maddening to write up, especially when there is so much ground to cover.

Any blogger will confirm that posts attracting the most readers are not necessarily the author’s favorites. The highest-traffic Bleeding Heartland post of 2015–in fact, the highest-traffic post in this blog’s history–was just another detailed account of a message-testing opinion poll, like many that came before. Word to the wise: if you want a link from the Drudge Report, it helps to type up a bunch of negative statements about Hillary Clinton.

Sometimes, committing to a topic leads to a long, hard slog. I spent more time on this critique of political coverage at the Des Moines Register than on any other piece of writing I’ve done in the last decade. But honestly, the task was more depressing than enjoyable.

Other pieces were pure pleasure. Follow me after the jump for my top fifteen from 2015.

Merry Christmas to all in the Bleeding Heartland community who are celebrating today. After unseasonably warm weather for most of December, snow arrived in time to produce a white Christmas for many Iowans. We didn’t get enough accumulation for sledding in central Iowa, but the trees look lovely. This is an open thread: all topics welcome.

The Des Moines Register ran this version of the Christmas story from the New King James Bible on the front page of today’s Iowa Life section. The date that Jesus was born remains unknown; Andrew McGowan offers one historical perspective on how December 25 came to be celebrated as Christmas. Also unknown are the number of wise men (not identified as kings in scripture) who reportedly came to look for the baby just born. The nature of the star of Bethlehem has been a hot topic of debate among religious historians. Apparently it was not Venus, Halley’s comet, a supernova, a meteor, or Uranus. Kenneth Bailey’s discussion of the manger and the inn is worth a read. In his view, the birthplace of Jesus was likely a private home, which may have been in a cave.

After the jump I’ve enclosed the video of Mike Huckabee’s famous “floating cross” Christmas-themed television commercial, which aired soon after he became the Republican front-runner for the 2008 Iowa caucuses. When Huckabee launched his second presidential campaign, I didn’t see him winning the Iowa caucuses again, but I expected him to retain a solid chunk of social conservative supporters, having retained high name recognition as a Fox News network show for years. I never thought we’d see Huckabee languishing below 3 percent in the Iowa polling average, below 2 percent in the South Carolina polling average, off the stage for prime-time debates, and reducing staff salaries for lack of money.

My family doesn’t celebrate Christian holidays, but we did enjoy noodle kugel last night while listening to the Klezmonauts’ “Oy to the World,” the only Christmas music we own and to my knowledge, the only collection of Christmas songs done in the klezmer style. If you love “Jewish jazz” and holiday music, I also recommend the Klezmatics album “Woody Guthrie’s Happy Joyous Hanukkah.” It’s true, the legendary American folk singer wrote lots of Chanukah-themed lyrics. Members of the Klezmatics set Guthrie’s words to new music.

Final note: The peace wreath image at the top of this post originally appeared at the Paint Me Plaid website. The peace symbol first became popular in this country during protests against the Vietnam War, but like so many of our political traditions, it has roots in the United Kingdom–in this case, from the 1950s British anti-nuclear movement.

Thanks to fladem for another in-depth look at Iowa caucus polling. In case you missed it, read his first post in this series: A Deep Dive into Iowa Caucus History. -promoted by desmoinesdem

December 14 marked 7,642 days that Terry Branstad has been governor of Iowa, making him the longest-serving governor in U.S. history, according to Eric Ostermeier of the Smart Politics website. Because most states have term limits for governors, “The odds of anyone passing [Branstad] in the 21st Century are next to none,” Ostermeier told Catherine Lucey of the Associated Press.

Speaking about his legacy, Branstad has emphasized the diversification of Iowa’s economy, even though a governor has far less influence over such trends than Branstad seems to believe. Some have cited “fiscal conservatism” as a hallmark of Branstad’s leadership. I strongly disagree. The man who has been governor for nearly half of my lifetime is stingy about spending money on education and some other critical public services. He opposes bonding initiatives commonly used in other states to fund infrastructure projects (“you don’t borrow your way to prosperity”). But he is happy to provide tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations that don’t need the help, without any regard for the future impact of those tax expenditures on the state budget. Many of Iowa’s “giveaways” in the name of economic development will never pay for themselves.

Branstad’s governing style has changed Iowa in important ways. He has altered Iowans’ expectations for their governor. He has expanded executive power at the expense of both the legislative branch and local governments. And particularly during the last five years, he has given corporate interests and business leaders more control over state policy. More thoughts on those points are after the jump, along with excerpts from some of the many profiles and interviews published as today’s landmark approached.

P.S.- Speaking of Branstad doing what business elites want him to do, Iowa Public Television’s “Governor Branstad: Behind the Scenes” program, which aired on December 11, included a telling snippet that I’ve transcribed below. During a brief chat at the Iowa State Fair, Iowa Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter asked Branstad to call Bruce Harreld, at that time one of the candidates to be president of the University of Iowa. That Rastetter asked Branstad to reassure Harreld was first reported right after the Board of Regents hired the new president, but I didn’t know they had the conversation in public near a television camera.

P.P.S.-Now that Branstad has made the history books, I remain convinced that he will not serve out his sixth term. Sometime between November 2016 and July 2017, he will resign in order to allow Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds to run for governor in 2018 as the incumbent. Although Branstad clearly loves his job, he is highly motivated to make Reynolds the next governor. She lacks a strong base of support in the Republican Party, because she was relatively inexperienced and largely unknown when tapped to be Branstad’s running mate in 2010. Even assuming she is the incumbent, Reynolds strikes me as more likely to lose than to win a statewide gubernatorial primary. Remaining in Branstad’s shadow would give Reynolds little chance of topping a field that will probably include Cedar Rapids Mayor Ron Corbett and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey.

P.P.S.S.-I will always believe Branstad could have been beaten in 1990, if Democrats had nominated a stronger candidate than Don Avenson. Attorney General Tom Miller lost that three-way primary for one reason only: he was against abortion rights. Miller later changed that stance but never again ran for higher office.

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

Thanksgiving has been a national holiday on the last Thursday in November since 1869. I didn’t know that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt caused an uproar when he tried to move the date a week early in 1939, hoping to stimulate the economy.

For many people, Thanksgiving is inextricably linked to certain food traditions. One of them is leftovers the day after the feast. Please share your own favorite recipes for leftovers in the comments. Des Moines restauranteur George Formaro offered three of his favorite uses for extra turkey here. Most years I make soup on the day after Thanksgiving. Here are four ideas, two of which would work for vegetarians as well as for omnivores. We had a smaller gathering than usual yesterday, so I baked chicken rather than a turkey. I made curried butternut squash soup early in the day; this recipe also works well with canned pumpkin. I didn’t make cranberry sauce this year, but when I do, I like to mix the leftover sauce with apples for a pie a day or two later.

Matt Viser published a fantastic piece in the Boston Globe this week: “Michael Dukakis would very much like your turkey carcass.” Turns out the former Massachusetts governor and Democratic nominee for president in 1988 “collects Thanksgiving turkey carcasses to make soup for his extended family for the year to come.” I enclosed excerpts from Viser’s piece below, but do click through to read the whole thing. The Dukakis family recipe for turkey soup is simple and easy to adapt to personal tastes.

Ideally, everyone could have a restful and enjoyable Thanksgiving, but the holiday season brings extra stress to many. Some tips for battling anxiety or depression this time of year are here and here. The first holiday season after a major bereavement can be particularly difficult for mourners; Compassion Books has hundreds of resources for people coping with “serious illness, death and dying, grief, bereavement, and losses of all kinds, including suicide, trauma, sudden loss, and violence.” A separate section inclues age-appropriate books for children who have lost a parent, sibling, grandparent, or even a treasured family pet. Carol Staudacher’s book of short meditations, A Time to Grieve, has been a source of comfort to me at difficult times. Whether or not you are religious, Harold Kushner’s verse by verse analysis of the 23rd Psalm is fascinating and provides some helpful perspectives on grieving.

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

Arguments over the appropriate U.S. response to refugees from Syria were a hot topic this week in personal conversations as well as in the news media. I saw some longtime friendships strained over heated Facebook threads about the question. Governor Terry Branstad’s order “to halt any work on Syrian refugee resettlements immediately in order to ensure the security and safety of Iowans” provoked commentaries in several major newspapers and an unusually strong statement from Iowa’s four Catholic bishops.

The U.S. House vote to in effect stop the flow of refugees from Syria and Iraq generated passionate comments from supporters and opponents of the measure. Dozens of Iowans expressed their disappointment on the thread under Representative Dave Loebsack’s official statement explaining his vote. In an apparent response to negative feedback from progressives, Loebsack’s Congressional campaign sent an e-mail to supporters the following day, trying to distinguish his position on refugees from the Middle East from that of many Republicans, and assuring that “we will not turn our backs on those in need.” (Scroll to the end of this post to read that message.)

Calls by some politicians to admit only certifiably Christian refugees from the Middle East triggered strong emotions in many American Jews this week. I saw it on my social media feeds, where many people reminded their non-Jewish friends and acquaintances that the U.S. turned away a ship carrying hundreds of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum issued a rare statement on a political matter (enclosed below), urging “public figures and citizens to avoid condemning today’s refugees [from Syria] as a group.”

I’ve seen many people object to that analogy, saying reluctance to admit Syrian refugees is grounded in legitimate fears for public safety, unlike the prejudice that influenced U.S. immigration policy during the 1930s. But as historian Peter Shulman explained in this commentary for Fortune magazine,

Opposition to Jewish refugees was not simply timeless bigotry. With today’s talk of “Judeo-Christian” values, it is easy to forget the genuine alienness and threat to national security these refugees represented. […]

Behind these [1939 poll] numbers [showing widespread hostility toward Jews] lay a toxic fear of Jewish subversion. For decades, Jews had been linked to various strains of un-American threats: socialism, communism, and anarchism, of course, but also (paradoxically) a kind of hyper-capitalism. Many believed that the real threat to the United States lay not from abroad, but within.

One author of a recent letter to the Des Moines Register called for vetting Syrian refugees at the U.S. facility for holding suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay: “My Irish ancestors went through a similar process at Ellis Island. The vetting procedure was very different for them. They were checked to be sure they weren’t carrying diseases into America. We need to be sure that the refugees coming into our country don’t come with a mind disease goal of killing us, instead of seeking a new life for themselves, like my Irish ancestors did.” Here’s some news for letter-writer Janet Boggs: when the first large waves of Irish ancestors entered this country during the 1840s and 1850s, many native-born Americans considered them and other Catholic immigrants an existential threat to this country, not harmless migrants seeking a better life. Read up on the Know-Nothing Party.

Today’s Sunday Des Moines Register includes a letter to the editor from Republican State Representative Steve Holt, who thanked Branstad for making “the safety of Iowans” his priority. Holt warned, “If we expect Western civilization to survive, we must abandon political correctness and educate ourselves on the realities of Islam, and the instrument of its implementation, Sharia law.” Holt represents half of GOP State Senator Jason Schultz’s constituents in western Iowa; Schultz has been beating the “Sharia law” drum for months while agitating against allowing any more refugees from the Middle East to settle in Iowa. UPDATE: I should have noted that today’s Register also ran a letter to the editor from Democratic State Representative Marti Anderson, who made the case for welcoming refugees. I’ve added it after the jump.

Speaking of security risks, yesterday Ryan Foley reported for the Associated Press on questions surrounding the threat assessment teams many universities formed after the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. I didn’t know that the University of Iowa sent “a detective with the campus threat assessment team” to a fake news conference communications Professor Kembrew McLeod organized in August to poke fun at efficiency measures outside consultants recommended for Iowa’s public universities. I had forgotten about the lawsuit stemming from false accusations that a whistleblower employee in the Iowa State College of Engineering’s marketing department might be a “potential terrorist or mass murderer.” Officials spreading such rumors about the employee included the former boss whose shady conduct he had exposed. Excerpts from Foley’s article are below, but click through to read the whole piece.

Yesterday Governor Terry Branstad joined the club of 24 governors (23 Republicans and a Democrat) who have said their states will not accept refugees from Syria. They don’t have the power to block resettlement of refugees within their state borders, any more than pandering presidential candidates would be able to adopt unconstitutional religion-based criteria for deciding which people to allow into this country.

Still, Branstad’s knee-jerk reaction to Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris is a disappointing retreat from the more reasonable stance he took earlier this fall on refugees from Syria coming to Iowa.

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

After the jump I’ve enclosed clips describing some brazen behavior. Many Iowans think of corruption in public procurement as a problem for other people, like our neighbors in Illinois. But a former Iowa Department of Public Safety employee’s involvement in state contracts awarded to Smith & Wesson raises red flags. I was surprised to learn on Friday that no ethics case will be pursued regarding the possible conflict of interest.

Todd Dorman’s latest column for the Cedar Rapids Gazette highlights comments by “America’s Longest Serving Ironist” (Governor Terry Branstad) about Syrian refugees possibly being resettled in Iowa. Dorman noted that “The master of blindside edicts” now wants “transparency” from the federal government.

His piece reminded me of Branstad’s hypocritical (or non-self-aware, if we’re being charitable) remarks to Clare McCarthy for her feature about refugees for IowaWatch.org. Speaking to McCarthy on July 7, the governor described how refugees from Burma need mentors from within their community to help them adjust to life in Iowa–perhaps forgetting that only days before, he had vetoed funding for a pilot program to train “leaders from the refugee community to help other refugees work through challenges.”

When it comes to political leaders shamelessly doing whatever they want, then failing to take responsibility, Branstad’s got nothing on Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr. desmoinesdem directed my attention to a classic anecdote about Putin pocketing a Superbowl ring belonging to New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. Karen Dawisha related the story in her 2014 book Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? Scroll to the end of this post to read the tale.

UPDATE: A reader commented that former State Representative Renee Schulte also committed a brazen act by shifting gears in a matter of days from being a contractor for the Iowa Department of Human Services to a consultant for a company bidding on contracts to manage Medicaid.

SECOND UPDATE: Not Iowa-specific, but certainly brazen in an “evil genius” way: a “a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager” bought the rights to a life-saving drug last month and “immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Andrew Pollack reported for the New York Times.  

This is part of a series on primary polling history. Over the next three weeks we will do a detailed look at the history of the Iowa Caucuses from 1980 to now. This piece will start with an initial look at the data.

I should note that I firmly believe that most writing about politics is rather ignorant. Few political writers about primary politics know very much about the history of the events they are covering. As I hope to show, if you look at the history, you can find lessons that you can apply to our understanding of the 2016 Caucuses.

This table compares the winner in Iowa with their average in polling in the two weeks before and after September 1st.