Like Cityview’s Civic Skinny, I’ve been hearing some chatter about former Governor Terry Branstad considering another gubernatorial bid. Branstad ruled out running for governor in May but has made ambiguous comments more recently. He may be encouraged by The Iowa Republican poll’s finding that he leads Governor Chet Culver 53 percent to 37 percent in a hypothetical matchup. In a hypothetical Republican primary, Branstad has 35 percent support to 31 percent for Bob Vander Plaats, with 19 percent of respondents unsure and all other candidates in single digits.

I’m skeptical about a Branstad resurgence. First, I doubt he would give up his prominent, lucrative job as president of Des Moines University. Second, the Iowa electorate has become much more Democratic than it was in Branstad’s day.

Third, I don’t think the Republican field would clear for him. I am not convinced the evangelical conservatives who were his base of support in the 1980s and 1990s will remain loyal. Branstad appointed two of the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices who cleared the way for same-sex marriage rights, including Mark Cady, who wrote the Varnum v Brien decision. Moreover, he declined to condemn those justices after the ruling.

Most important, Branstad nearly lost his own party’s primary as a three-term incumbent in 1994. There’s a reason so many elected Republicans, like then State Auditor Richard Johnson, backed Congressman Fred Grandy in that race. The phrases “two sets of books” and “cooking the books” may ring a bell with Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age.

I don’t expect Branstad to run for governor again, but if he does he should expect his management of state finances to come under a lot more scrutiny. Likely candidate Chris Rants told The Iowa Republican blog this month,

I am worried that we are backsliding to those days in the late 80’s when the governor and legislature fudged the numbers to look good for an election. They didn’t abide by generally acceptable accounting principles. That led to bigger problems and late payments to local school districts.

It’s frankly a joke to portray Branstad as more fiscally responsible than Culver. Branstad managed this state during tough times by keeping two sets of books and digging us into a hole. Under Culver, Iowa still has a healthy reserve fund and a AAA bond rating. He has made budget cuts when necessary and is ready to do so again if need be after final revenue figures come in.

Share any thoughts about the governor’s race in this thread.

UPDATE: Fascinating comment thread under Craig Robinson’s post at The Iowa Republican. It didn’t take long for someone to post news clippings from 1994 about Branstad “cooking the books” and Johnson endorsing Grandy. Also, I noticed a few social conservatives predicting that people would not abandon Vander Plaats for Branstad.  

The Iowa Republican blog continues to release results from the poll it commissioned on the 2010 governor’s race. Last week we learned about Governor Chet Culver’s approval, favorability and re-elect numbers. This week we’ve seen some numbers about same-sex marriage and a hypothetical rerun of the 2006 race. I’ll have more to say about the wording of this poll’s questions in a future post. (Todd Dorman identified a glaring problem with the marriage question here.)

In today’s installment, Craig Robinson highlights results from a straightforward question:

Question: If the Republican primary for Governor was held today, who would you vote for between Chris Rants, Bob Vander Plaats, Paul McKinley, Rod Roberts, Jerry Behn, and Christian Fong?

   Republican Primary Voters

   Bob Vander Plaats: 46%

   Don’t Know: 27%

   Chris Rants: 14%

   Neither/Other: 5%

   Paul McKinley: 3%

   Christian Fong: 3%

   Rod Roberts: 1%

   Refused: 1%

   Jerry Behn: 0.2%

   (Republican Primary Voters N=394 – Margin of Error ±5.0%)

Join me after the jump for some early thoughts about Bob Vander Plaats’ front-runner status.

Governor Chet Culver hired John Frew as chief of staff yesterday to replace Charlie Krogmeier, whom Culver appointed head of the Department of Human Services in May. Frew goes way back in Iowa politics, having worked for Senator John Culver (the governor’s father) and managed Tom Harkin’s first Senate campaign in 1984. Frew will begin as chief of staff in late September. Until then, Culver has named his general counsel Jim Larew as acting chief of staff. After the jump I’ve posted a news release from the governor’s office with more background on Frew and Larew.

Also on Thursday, the Culver/Judge re-election campaign announced that

A long-time and respected political strategist is returning to Iowa to help Governor Chet Culver’s campaign committee prepare for 2010. Teresa Vilmain will serve as a senior advisor to the Chet Culver Committee.

“Teresa Vilmain is not only synonymous with well-run, well-organized political campaigns around the nation, but she knows and loves Iowa,” said Governor Culver. “As we start to look ahead to 2010, Teresa will play a leading role in helping us prepare our effort to reach out to Iowans about the important issues we are working on in our state.”

I’ve posted the full text of that news release, containing more background on Vilmain, after the jump. Some highlights: she was deputy manager of Harkin’s 1984 campaign and general consultant to both of Tom Vilsack’s winning gubernatorial campaigns. Vilsack had to come from behind to beat Jim Ross Lightfoot in 1998 and faced re-election in 2002, which was a challenging national environment for Democrats.

First Lady Mari Culver was in Mason City on Thursday

to talk about state grant funding for shelters for domestic abuse, emergencies and the homeless and the need to apply for it soon.

Available through the $10 million Public Service Shelter Grant Program, a part of the Iowa Jobs Program (IJobs), the funding is for construction, expansion or upgrades. […]

Funding can be used for deferred maintenance issues, additional security measures and expansion, said Culver […]

I recommend reading the whole article in the Mason City Globe-Gazette for more on the pressing needs of Iowa’s crisis shelters. Click here to listen to the first lady’s comments about this program in an interview with KGLO radio. Applications for this portion of the I-JOBS money are due next Wednesday, July 15. Click the link for the Iowa Finance Authority’s contact information. Republicans can criticize the I-JOBS borrowing all they want, but this is another example of how I-JOBS will improve services that Iowans need.

Finally, I want to call your attention to a new poll that The Iowa Republican blog has been highlighting this week. I will have more to say about the poll in a future post, but for now, here are some important facts:

This statewide poll conducted by Voter/Consumer Research found that 53 percent of Iowans approve of the job Culver is doing as governor, while 41 percent disapprove. Furthermore, 48 percent of respondents had a favorable impression of Culver, while 41 percent had an unfavorable impression.

Of course, The Iowa Republican blog is putting a Republican spin on these results. Criag Robinson headlined one post “53 percent of Iowans want a new governor,” based on a question suggesting that 36 percent said Culver deserves re-election, while 53 percent said it’s time to give someone else the chance. He also touted the findings on some issue-based questions that had ridiculously biased wording.

The bottom line is this: in a Republican-commissioned poll, Culver has a 53 percent approval rating and a 48 percent favorability rating. Also, the statewide survey sample contains “35% Republicans, 37% Democrats, 25% Independent or declined to state, and 2% other/don’t know.” I’m looking into how that compares with the proportion of Democrats and Republicans who have cast ballots in recent Iowa general elections.

I’ll write more about this poll when The Iowa Republican releases more of the findings.

LATE UPDATE: Forgot to mention this story:

Gov. Chet Culver on Thursday directed state revenue officials to delay any enforcement against taxpayers who claimed disaster-related credits on their state tax returns that later were not validated by Iowa lawmakers.[…]

The federal changes approved for 2008 offered income-tax deductions, exemptions and other advantages for such items as disaster-related expenses, business equipment depreciation, education-related expenses, tuition and fees and certain sales tax charges. The state, however, did not retroactively adopt those deductions as part of the state tax code.

On Wednesday, Culver asked the state Department of Revenue to provide him “any and all options” to address the issue, and one day later he sent a letter to agency director Mark Schuling directing him to “hold off specific enforcement” for taxpayers who may have claimed federal disaster relief provisions on their state returns.

“I am aware that changes must be made by the Iowa Legislature in order for these same disaster relief provisions to be available for Iowa tax purposes,” Culver said in the letter. “This will require legislation in 2010 to couple with the federal law changes that will benefit those individuals and businesses directly impacted by the 2008 disasters.”

Somebody is paying to do some polling in advance of the 2012 caucus season.  Neither my husband nor I have ever been registered as Republicans in Iowa, but I just got an automated phone survey that was definitely trolling for Republican opinions.  Unfortunately, the name of the survey company and the phone number they gave was at the beginning of the call before I had time to grab a pencil and paper, so I wasn't able to get it jotted down before my feeble mind forgot it.

I'm curious as to whether anyone else has received this call, so I'll post as much as I can remember from the questions after the jump. 

Survey USA released a new batch of approval ratings for governors based on polls taken June 16. Our own Chet Culver was at 42 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval. The previous SUSA poll in Iowa, taken in late April, found similar numbers for Culver: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. (CORRECTION: I did not realize that SUSA also conducted a poll in late May, which showed somewhat better numbers for Culver: 48 approve, 47 disapprove. Click here to see all of SUSA’s approval numbers for Culver since he became governor.)

Having noticed that Culver’s SUSA numbers bounced up last May and June after being in net negative territory from February through April 2008, I wondered whether a “legislative session effect” might have dragged him down from February through April of this year. Either that was not the case, or the weaker economy this year has prevented the governor from getting a post-session bounce.

Approval ratings in the low 40s are outside the comfort zone for an incumbent, but I wouldn’t hit the panic button yet. SUSA has tended to measure Culver’s support at lower levels than some other pollsters, and most governors have seen their approval ratings slip during the past year, presumably because of the economy and the fiscal problems affecting almost every state.

I couldn’t find any breakdown of Culver’s support among Democrats, Republicans and independents either at this site or on Survey USA’s site. If anyone has those numbers, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I still think a large number of Democrats and independents who may not “approve” of Culver would choose him in a heartbeat over Chris Rants or Bob Vander Plaats, who are most committed to running for governor.

We’ll have a better idea of the governor’s re-election prospects when we see polling of head-to-head matchups with potential Republican challengers. Some of the Republicans considering this race would be stronger than others in terms of personal appeal or fundraising (though Culver will probably be able to outspend even the best GOP fundraisers).

Finally, keep in mind that despite ups and downs in the economy, Iowa hasn’t voted an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

Share any thoughts about Culver’s chances or the GOP gubernatorial primary in this thread. Who has the potential to overcome Vander Plaats’ head start on campaigning? Can Rants reinvent himself as a likable politician? Who would benefit from a more crowded Republican field? Will the GOP primary be negative enough to do lasting damage to the eventual nominee?

UPDATE: Culver is bringing his campaign train to several stops in western Iowa tomorrow.

Following up on yesterday’s post, I see that a brand-new New York Times/CBS nationwide poll shows widespread support for a real public health insurance option. The wording of the question was clear: “Would you favor or oppose the government’s offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance plans?”

Results: 72 percent of respondents favored the public option, including 87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents, and 50 percent of Republicans.

Senator Chuck Grassley works overtime to snuff out a public option, urging President Obama to support a bipartisan bill in the Senate. But in the real world, a strong public option has bipartisan support. Even half of Republicans favor making a “government administered health insurance plan like Medicare” available to all Americans.

A public option would increase competition and give Americans more choices while driving down costs. A recent report found that one or two companies dominate the health insurance market in most parts of the country.

Obama will speak to ABC News about health care on Wednesday. I’ll be listening carefully to see whether he endorses a strong public option, which the House Democrats’ draft bill contains, or whether he remains open to a fake public option such as regional cooperatives or a “trigger”.

UPDATE: To be clear, the CBS/NYT poll is not an outlier. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week found, “Three in four people said a public [health insurance] plan is extremely or quite important.” A poll “bankrolled partly by previous opponents of health care reform” showed that “a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% ‘somewhat’ support it.”

Last month I was on the receiving end of a push-poll/fundraising call from Newt Gingrich’s organization, American Solutions. Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com read my post and said it “sounds like a clear cut example of fundraising under the guise of a survey (‘FRUGGing’)”. The Marketing Research Association considers FRUGGing unethical, because

The use of a poll to conduct fund raising has raised the distrust of the public to a point where they refuse to cooperate with researchers trying to obtain the opinions of any number of issues, including political campaign, and government: federal, state and local research. In a country inundated with telemarketing and direct mail fund raising it is more and more difficult for marketing and opinion researchers to get accurate data.

Although I declined to give Newt’s group any money, I must look like a sucker for conservative groups peddling fake surveys. On Wednesday, May 20, the phone rang around 8:25 pm and the caller asked for me by name. She worked for Infocision (the same company that made the calls for Gingrich’s group), and she asked whether I would participate in a brief survey for David Bossie’s group Citizens United.

As I always do when I receive any political call, I grabbed a pen and paper to take notes. More details are after the jump. You be the judge of whether Bossie’s group is also FRUGGing.

Survey USA recently released new polling numbers for Iowa, and it wasn’t good news for Governor Chet Culver. Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval was at a multi-year low in the same poll.

Links, numbers and some analysis are after the jump.

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

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

Grassley (R) 48

Vilsack (D) 44

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His problem attracting women voters, that is.

The memo is after the jump. Its author, Dana Singiser, did several women’s outreach events for the Obama campaign in Iowa last week. I attended one of those and will write it up when I have the chance. She was very impressive.

Singiser thoroughly documents the gender gap revealed by recent opinion polls on the presidential race. Her memo also gives several reasons why John McCain’s stand on the issues would not appeal to women voters.

The just-released University of Iowa Hawkeye poll showed Barack Obama leading McCain by five or six points overall (depending on which voter screen you use) but by 12 points among Iowa women voters.

I encourage you to read this article by “mystery pollster” Mark Blumenthal about the level of support for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr. Blumenthal shows that historically, polls (especially summer polls) have overstated the level of support for third-party presidential candidates.

I still think that Barr could be a factor in a handful of states. The two I am watching most are Georgia (where Barr has high name recognition from the years he served in the U.S. House from a George district) and Nevada.

Ron Paul tied with John McCain in the GOP caucuses in Nevada, and the state has a history of relatively strong support for Libertarians (compared to the national Libertarian vote). In fact, Harry Reid would have lost his Senate seat from Nevada in 1998 if not for a Libertarian candidate who picked up a couple of percentage points.

Democrats have increased their voter registration edge in Nevada, and Barr’s candidacy could be one more thing that pushes this state toward Barack Obama.  

cross-posted around the blogosphere

Two days before the June 3 Democratic primary in Iowa, I received an automated push-poll, followed the next day by a second robocall containing “important information” for me. Both calls were hit jobs on Jerry Sullivan, the leading Democratic candidate in Iowa House district 59.

Many of us will receive similar calls between now and November. We need to be prepared to help the Democrats who will be targeted in this way.

My number one piece of advice is do not hang up the phone.

Do not hang up the moment you hear an automated voice on the other end.

Do not hang up the moment you are asked to participate in a brief survey.

Do not hang up the moment you realize that this is not a legitimate opinion poll.

Stay on the line and grab a pen and paper for taking notes.

Follow me after the jump for further instructions.

Now that the primary race has settled down a bit, polls are starting to show that Obama's current early lead is primarily due to women. A recent Gallup polls show that Obama trails McCain by 5 points among men, but leads him by 10 points among women. Other polls show similar trends. Rasmussen says that the two are “essentially tied among men,” but Obama leads by 12 points among women. USA today shows that Obama's lead with women is 14 points, but he is behind 3 points with men. Even Newsweek, which found that Obama leads with both genders shows that his lead is three times as great among women (21 points).

All of the polls can be found here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

It is no wonder both candidates are courting women voters, but how can we get Obama's numbers up with men? Are there just more male republicans than male democrats? If so why?

A Geographic Analysis of PA, OH and VA General Election Polling

(Cross-posted on MyDD and Daily Kos)

A number of state polls have come out in recent days for Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia.  The numbers overall look good for Barack Obama, with him leading John McCain in Pennsylvania in all four polls released in May; Obama leading outside the margin of error in one poll in Ohio while being within the margin in two others; and a very competitive race in Virginia as well, with one poll there showing Obama up by seven points (links to polls used are provided at bottom of this diary).  What I wanted to do in this diary is to look at the regional breakdown in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia to examine Obama’s geographic areas of strength and weakness. 

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

Someone has urged me not to pay much attention to the electoral vote trackers

on the front page of MyDD, because in some respects they differ from state polling averages you will find at pollster.com or at Real Clear Politics.

Jerome Armstrong, the founder of MyDD, addressed concerns about the electoral vote tracker in this post:

As it says, when you click on either of the map counters of EV’s:

“This Electoral Vote Map is updated constantly to forecast the 2008 Presidential election based on the latest available state polling.”

The very latest poll in each state, without weighting or averaging.

There isn’t a bias as to the pollster, if you see the poll listed as credible on Pollster.com, or RealClearPolitics.com, it’ll be included. But, if the latest poll is tied, then the result remains the same as the previous latest poll.

This is a forecast made by the very latest poll. If you see a mistake, perhaps a poll was missed that is the latest, then point it out, and one of the admins will make the change.

The forecast isn’t a prediction of the election, but a simple up-to-the-minute poll temperature of the state polling.

(update) And yes, you can edit the map yourself, as one user explains:

1) When you first log onto mydd, it populates the two maps with the most recent single poll for each state.

2) If you then click on the map and change it (for example, you don’t believe that Hillary would lose WA to McCain), the numbers update to your settings – now it becomes like an EV calculator

3) The next time you log on, or refresh the page even, the counters go back to their poll-generated state.

Polling averages (for instance, of the five most recent polls in a state) are great when you have several polls taken within a short period of time, as we’re likely to have this fall.

But I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to average the last five polls in a state if that takes you back a couple of months.

Some people have objected that the MyDD tracker recently showed Iowa in Clinton’s column against McCain. That was based on a Research 2000 poll taken on April 22 and 23, which showed her slightly ahead of him, 43-42. Currently, the most recent poll is from Rasmussen on May 13, which showed McCain beating Clinton in Iowa 45-42. As you can see if you click over to MyDD, Iowa is now red for McCain against Clinton.

You may prefer polling averages to whatever the latest poll says, and I will too, once we start getting more frequent releases of state polls. For now, I think that MyDD’s methodology is sound.

Armstrong is probably the blogosphere’s most prominent Obama critic, and Clinton supporters usually dominate the recommended diary list at MyDD, but I encourage you not to write off everything you see at that site, even if you don’t like Clinton. Anyway, front-pager Jonathan Singer is a big Obama advocate.

Des Moines Register reporter Thomas Beaumont wrote an article for Thursday’s edition about the Boswell’s campaign’s Ralph Nader direct-mail pieces, which I diaried here and here.

I had been wondering why Boswell was playing the Nader card with six weeks to go in the campaign, and Beaumont advances a strong hypothesis:

The two mailings circulated this week in Iowa’s 3rd District mark a stepped-up effort by Boswell, a six-term Des Moines Democrat, to cast doubt on Fallon’s loyalty to the party. The mailings coincide with the distribution of absentee ballots for the June 3 primary.

Meanwhile, Al Gore sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal on behalf of Boswell, which I’ve put after the jump.

In other news, KCCI television released the first public poll of the Democratic primary in the third district. It shows Boswell leading Fallon 52-28, with 20 percent undecided. Boswell’s campaign manager, Mark Daley, said the poll shows

what we’ve seen all along. We’ve got a congressman who’s been there. Who’s been very effective” […]

Fallon told KCCI:

“If I were Boswell, I’d be really concerned that only 52 percent of Democrats was supporting me. An incumbent is usually a lot better after serving for 12 years,” […]

“People are very unhappy with Boswell’s continued support for the war. His lack of leadership on environmental issues,” Fallon said.

My big question about this poll is what turnout model did KCCI use? I don’t think anyone in either campaign has any idea how many Democrats will vote in this primary. About 38,000 people in the third district voted in the June 2006 gubernatorial primary.

Fallon presumably has a better chance if turnout is low, because his supporters are highly motivated to vote for him, and his campaign is focused on a field operation to identify those supporters.

Boswell has better name recognition and more money to spend on paid media, so he would probably benefit from high turnout in the primary.

In a little more than 30 minutes, Des Moines-based KCCI TV will release their last Iowa caucus poll that will show that Iowa Democrats are equally divided in their support for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.

Lee Newspapers was also involved in the polling effort (whether through helping pay for it, sponsoring it, etc.) and they published their story online with the numbers earlier today.

“The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided.”

The margin of error was +/- 4.5%, clearing showing that Democrats were equally divided.  Among Democrats, 19% still said they are likely or very likely to change their minds.  Keep an eye on Iowa Democrats’ second choices.

In other news, keep your ears open for message testing calls or “push polls.”  Desmoinesdem highlighted her husband’s call here and I just received the same call.  Make sure to check out the Off The Bus site about polling experience if you’ve received any calls.

Hillary's Electability and Inevitability is way down.  This is a telephone survey by Zogby.  Clinton barely beats Romney for example but Obama cleans his clock by 18 points.  According to this poll Obama is far more electable than Hillary, who this poll shows would lose badly to McCain, by 7 points, while Obama beats McCain by 4 points.

Released: December 20, 2007
Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Top Republicans

Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York – Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Obama Obama leads Romney 53%-35%
Obama leads Huckabee 47%-42%
Obama leads Giuliani 48%-39%
Obama leads McCain 47%-43%
Obama leads Thompson 52%-36%

The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12-14, 2007.

Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.

Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina would beat Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, but would lose to Giuliani and McCain, the Zogby survey shows.

…

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.

Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.

http://www.zogby.com/news/Read…

We’re officially two weeks out from the Iowa Caucuses now and it is anyone’s guess as to what is going to happen.  We’ve got a variety of polls that say John Edwards might be leading, might not be if you look at the other numbers from the same poll, ABC News/Washington Post says Obama leads, and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. says that it is basically a three-way tie.

In the end it is important to remember, as Jerome says, polling in Iowa is bizarre.  Iowans are fickle, we stay undecided for a long time, and our second choices matter.  But keep in mind the Insider Advantage polling is worth concern simply because of some mathematical and statistical issues.

And finally, as we get closer to the Caucuses, you’re going to be seeing a bunch more ads.  Below the fold are the two new ads from Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

A new Research 2000 poll for the Quad-City Times shows Barack Obama with a 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Here are the overall results (500 likely caucus-goers with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%):

Barack Obama 33%

Hillary Clinton 24%

John Edwards 24%

Bill Richardson 9%

Joe Biden 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

It is still clearly a three-person race, with the slight advantage to Obama.  To me, this is the key result from the poll:

“The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.”

The race is still quite fluid and second choices are definitely going to matter come caucus night when some candidate preference groups won’t be able to get viability.

You can get the full PDF of the results from Research 2000 here.  They’re usually a pretty reliable polling firm when it comes to general election or primary polling, but I don’t know where they’re at in terms of accuracy for polling the caucuses.

Does this mean Edwards can still win the Iowa caucuses?  I think so.  And Mike Lux at Open Left says we should keep our eyes on him.

It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.

Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):

Barack Obama 35% (29%)

Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)

John Edwards 18% (21%)

Bill Richardson 9% (11%)

Joe Biden 4% (2%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Chris Dodd * (*)

Other candidate 0% (0%)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%.  If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%.  Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out.  I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.

A couple of things to take from the results.  First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus.  Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental.  Same goes for Joe Biden.  However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain.  To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says.  These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.

The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment.  These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:

Barack Obama 55% (50%)

Hillary Clinton 50% (51)

John Edwards 45% (44%)

Bill Richardson 16% (17%)

Joe Biden 11% (8%)

Chris Dodd 2% (1%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Other candidate * (*)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.  The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats.  Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.

You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek.  Their story on the poll is here.

From The Courier:

From coast to coast, independent voters tilt tellingly toward Democrats in their opposition to the Iraq war, their displeasure with Bush and their feeling that the country is moving in the wrong direction, according to data from recent Associated Press-Ipsos polls.

National exit polls show that after leaning toward Republicans by 48 percent to 45 percent as recently as the 2002 elections, independents began shifting toward Democrats. The trickle became a wave by the 2006 congressional elections. Dissatisfaction with Bush and the Iraq war ran high, and independents favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by 57 percent to 39 percent. That was instrumental in the Democrats' capture of congressional control after a dozen years of GOP dominance – and a possible preview of what might emerge next year.

Independents are not a lock for Democrats. The two major parties are each viewed favorably by only about one-fifth of independents, according to a recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll. The survey also found that 42 percent of them have an unfavorable view of the leading Democratic presidential contender, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. – the highest among each parties' major hopefuls.

Can you say you're surprised?

The Los Angeles Times released a new Iowa poll on Tuesday:

Clinton 28

Edwards 23

Obama 19

Richardson 10 

The results have been discussed at MyDD and Open Left:

http://www.mydd.com/…

http://www.openleft….

Jonathan Singer made the key observation at MyDD:

I do just want to add that the “likely” voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants — which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming “likely” voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

The problem with almost every Iowa poll I've seen lately is that the universe of likely voters sampled suggests a ridiculous number of caucus-goers.

If turnout exceeds 150,000 at the Iowa caucuses on the Democratic side, I'll be surprised. If it exceeds 200,000, I'll be shocked.

My sense is that a lot of Hillary supporters and leaners have never caucused before and won't caucus this year either–especially if we have to go the week after New Year's. 

I only have time for a quick-hit–head over to Open Left for Chris Bowers' analysis of the state of the race, including new polls from ARG and Time magazine:

http://www.openleft….

Chris has an easy-to-read chart. ARG, which has shown Clinton ahead in Iowa all year, has Clinton 28, Obama 23, Edwards 20, Richardson 13.

Time has Edwards 29, Clinton 24, Obama 22, Richardson 11. 

ARG seems to be polling a broader sample of Iowans, and I think they are polling too many people who have no chance in hell of showing up on caucus night.

That said, anyone would have to agree that it is very tight in Iowa now. If the polls stay like this up until January, no one will have any idea who is going to win. Too much depends on how candidates' support is spread around the state and who leads among second choices.

Take the poll, and elaborate on your opinion in the comments section if you like.

Take the poll, and elaborate on your opinion in the comments section if you like.

Now that the legislative session is over, it’s time to put up another set of these leadership polls.

Take the poll, and elaborate on your opinion in the comments section if you like.

Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, has released their first polling on the Iowa Caucuses.  Here are the results:

John Edwards 25%

Barack Obama 17%

Tom Vilsack 16%

Hillary Clinton 15%

Joe Biden 4%

John Kerry 3%

Wesley Clark 2%

Bill Richardson 1%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

Undecided 15%

It is remarkably similar to the Zogby poll just released a few days ago, which you can find here.

What is your perspective on the race in Iowa from the ground?  And don’t forget to take the caucus poll on the right.