Tom Vilsack yesterday annouced the names of 1,159 caucusgoers who will definitely support him in the 2008 caucuses. However, his support is not very broad. Over 13% of those supporters were from Mt. Pleasant, Vilsack’s hometown (whereas the ratio of Mt. Pleasant residents to all Iowans is 0.3%). The list also includes the wives of Vilsack’s Iowa Field Director, Jesse Harris and his Iowa State Director, Dusky Terry.
There are obvious reasons for such a large number of his supporters to be friends and neighbors. Like the money Vilsack raised in the last quarter, these are all of his “gimmes.” If you serve as Governor of your state for eight years, there should be at least 1,100 people in your state who will automatically support you for President. Unfortunately for Vilsack, who has been prone to bad luck throughout his run, he seems to be relying almost as much on the people who automatically support you for President if you serve as Mayor of their town. This means that Vilsack’s support is highly geographically concentrated, which isn’t good. He’ll have an easy time winning Henry County’s 17 delegates at the State Convention but he still needs to win some of the remaining 2983 delegates.
To be fair to Vilsack, the list has quite a few elected officials and key activists but they are mostly longtime allies, some of whom have supported him since his 1998 Gubernatorial primary against Mark McCormick. Releasing this list is a nice way to hide ugly poll numbers but the ugly poll numbers will keep on coming out and the lists of new supporters by the hundreds won’t.
Tom Vilsack raised 1.1 million dollars in the last quarter of 2006 (and spent nearly $750,000 of it). Where did the money come from? Iowa Progress examined his campaign finance report and has the answers.
Vilsack received donations from five members of the state legislature. House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta contributed $500 as did State Senators Mike Connolly,Tom Rielly and Roger Stewart. State Senate President Jack Kibbie donated $1050. Vilsack also received a $2100 contribution from his Lieutenant Governor and former IDP Chair, Sally Pedersen. Retired Iowa politicians also gave to Vilsack. David Osterberg, a former state representative and Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in 1998, donated $250, Patrick Deluhery, a former state senator and 2002 Democratic nominee for state auditor contributed $1050, Paul Johnson, the 2004 Democratic nominee for U.S. House donated $2100 and Bill Gannon, former Democratic Minority Leader in the IA House and unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor in 1970, donated $500. In addition, Dave Neil, former President of UAW’s State CAP, gave $2100 to Vilsack.
Vilsack also received money from national players in Democratic politics. Vernon Jordan contributed $2000. James Johnson, former Chair of Fannie Mae and Walter Mondale’s campaign manager donated $2100 as did Lou Susman, one of John Kerry’s top fundraisers in 2004. Gary Hirschberg, another major Democratic donor who is the CEO of Stoneyfield Farms yogurt company and a possible Democratic candidate for Senate from New Hampshire, gave $2100 as well. The campaign also received $2100 from the second richest man in the world, Warren Buffett. In addition, Vilsack also received a $250 donation from Kyle DeBeer, executive director of the Wyoming Democratic Party, which means Vilsack is sure to have an advantage in Wyoming’s primary.
Finally, Vilsack cleaned up among the Des Moines’s elite. Jerry Crawford, former State Chair for John Kerry, contributed $2100 as did former IDP chair Gordon Fischer. Vilsack also received $2100 contributions from other wealthy Des Moines residents like John Pappajohn and Dwayne McAnnich. However, Vilsack was most successful raising money from the Knapp family. In the last quarter, Tom Vilsack raised $18,900 from people with the last name Knapp.
The question is where will the rest of Vilsack’s money come from? Judging by his fundraising report, he raised all of his easy dollars in the last quarter. Now his dilemma is how he will raise enough money to remain viable for the next year. After all, it doesn’t matter if you’re rock solid if you’re flat broke.
In Iowa, presidential candidates are no doubt already scrambling for high-profile endorsements. Since Tom Harkin took the relatively safe route and endorsed the home team very early, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at our Democratic Congressmen in Iowa to see who they might pick.
Of course, the decision of whether to make an endorsement at all is relevant to the discussion. During the 2004 campaign, Leonard Boswell (IA-03) did not make any endorsement, instead remaining neutral and showing up at any major candidate’s campaign stops that he could get to for a bit of extra face time. This year, he might be planning to do the same. He already showed up at Hillary’s event in Des Moines:
Mrs. Clinton was introduced by Representative Leonard Boswell, who drew a huge ovation when he called her “a great first lady,” and then noted that the day had meaning for women in his family and, surely, many women in the audience.
I don’t blame Boswell for remaining neutral, because it may well be in his political interest. But with questions about whether he even plans to run for reelection, it remains to be seen whether he will pick a horse.
In 2004, Bruce Braley (IA-01) was an Edwards activist, as his biography on the DCCC’s site points out. Perhaps he will endorse the fellow trial lawyer again, but so far he seems not to have announced one way or the other. Getting elected to Congress can sometimes change your allegiances, after all.
Dave Loebsack (IA-02), somewhat predictably, was a Deaniac in 04. The bottom of his online CV at Cornell College notes that he was “one of the Linn County coordinators for Howard Dean for President,” and other sources tell us he was a precinct captain. (It’s also worth noting that Loebsack was a Bill Bradley activist in 2000, for whatever that’s worth.) Since Dean isn’t running again, of course, it isn’t clear how this will impact his decision this time around. Either way, if he endorses a candidate, it is likely that it will be someone on the left.
And while I could opine about how Steve King might endorse Tom Tancredo’s TEAM AMERICA, I’m certainly not an expert on such things, so I’ll leave it at the Democrats.
Although Tom Vilsack may have been the Mayor of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa (population 8,751), he doesn’t have the support of the entire town. Not because he did something wrong as Mayor, as State Senator or even as Governor but because Barack Obama’s political director is also from Mt. Pleasant. When Obama hired former Senate Caucus Director Emily Parcell as political director, he hired another Mount Pleasantonian. This means that one small Iowa town will be very much in the thick of things during the caucus. Although Henry County may only be the 40th most important county in terms of delegates, it certainly seems to be more important when it comes to who makes the decisions on Presidential campaigns.
On the same day that Hillary Clinton is having her rally in Des Moines, Tom Vilsack is having one of his community gatherings in Fort Dodge. The difference in attendance between a major rally organized by a team of advance people and a community gathering in Fort Dodge will be staggering, to say the least. Although the events are not comparable at all, the fact that they are held on the same day will be enough for plenty of people to make comparisions. But none of those comparisions will be flattering to Vilsack. In fact, I’d bet that David Yepsen is already drooling over the possibilities to mock Vilsack that this provides. It’s not fair to Vilsack but that doesn’t matter. It’s just going to be too tempting a cheap shot for many people to avoid.
In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,
“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”
This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.
Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.
Via Political Wire, American Research Group put out a crazy new poll of likely 2008 Iowa caucus goers.
In the Democratic caucus, Clinton led the poll with 31%, followed by Edwards with 20%, Vilsack with 18%, and Obama with 10%. Interestingly, Vilsack did the best with “no party” respondents who said they were likely to participate in the Democratic caucus, at 38%. Clinton garnered 32% of this group’s support, but no other candidate scored more than 2% of “no party” support. This could be a product of name recognition, but since when are Iowans who consider themselves likely caucus goers unfamiliar with Kerry or Edwards? I never would have though that Clinton could bring a lot of “no party” support to the caucuses.
In the Republican caucus, Guiliani led with 28%, followed by McCain with 26% and Gingrich with 14%. Naturally McCain did well in the “no party” category, although for some reason American Research calls them “independents” in this section…
Big news for Tom Vilsack: he now has the chance to learn more about the circumstances of his birth (he was given up for adoption) and may be able to find out who his real mother was. The article has an interesting line: “But Vilsack acknowledged this week that the unexpected letter — and the realities of a modern-day presidential campaign — may cause him to reconsider [forgoing knowledge about his past].” Does finding his real mother help him or hurt him? If she turns out to be a rotten lady with shady dealings (no offense Governor), it could cast a bad light on him. On the other hand, there is a huge potential for positive publicity as Vilsack explores his past and the woman who gave him life; the whole thing just oozes the kind of cheesiness America loves. All this aside, I’m not trying to denigrate what I’m sure is a very tough and personal experience for Vilsack. But as the Register notes, when you’re running for president, the game of politics is never put on pause.
P.S. — Wondering if America has ever elected someone who was adopted, I did a quick Google search. The closest I found was this site which said three presidents — George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan — had adopted children of their own, but there is no mention of any president having been adopted himself. Therefore, 2008 could be a bigger year than previously thought: the potential for the first female, black, or adopted American to be elected president of the United States.
A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama tied among likely Democratic caucus voters with 22% each. Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack trails with 12%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at just 10%.
No other candidate broke 10%. Top three Republicans are John McCain (27%), Rudy Giuliani (26%), and Mitt Romney (9%). I think this just reinforces my post from yesterday, “Why the Iowa Caucuses are Still Wide Open.”
There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.
Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)
Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:
The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.
Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.
