Search Results for ‘democratic congressmen’
In an interview with a progressive blog today, Ed Fallon claimed, “We’re doing really well, our own internal polling shows us up.” It’s not a surprise for Fallon to make a claim when the Boswell campaign released its own internal from Anzalone Lizst, the firm that polled for new Democratic Congressmen Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers, that had Boswell receiving 65% of the vote.
This jibes with the KCCI poll that had Boswell winning by a two to one margin. However, Fallon’s campaign finance reports, which show him having only $28,000 on hand the day before he had to meet payroll, does not show him spending any money on pollsters. (Nor does it show him spending on money on television, radio, mail, newspaper advertisements or any other form of paid media) So if Ed Fallon hasn’t hired a pollster and can’t afford to pay one, why does he claim he has internal polling, let alone internal polling that seems at odds with all the other information about this race?
Our guess is that Ed Fallon probably took a survey, not a poll. A survey is unscientific and involves asking a bunch of people without dealing with complicated things like sample size or filtering likely voters. This means that Ed Fallon may actually be ahead according to his “polling”, provided, of course, that a third of the electorate are vegetarians from Sherman Hill and everyone who votes outside Polk County is a member of CCI. Then again, this blog may be given Fallon too much credit for assuming that he merely mistook the difference between a survey and a poll. (Which is covered the second week of Statistics 101).
Fallon has a history of lying and of sleazy behavior. He may have just made up his “internal polling” entirely, which would be a good deal for Fallon. After all, the less he spends on internal polling, the more money he can pay himself.
May 22nd, 2008
I know David Yepsen gets dragged through the mud an awful lot in these parts, so I figured it was only fair to give credit where credit is due. In his column today, he provides a fairly accurate analysis of Iowa’s 2008 Senate race–or lackthereof.
Yepsen notes that “No big-name Republican challengers have emerged, just some unknowns” and that even Republican Senator Charles Grassley was unable to name any potential challengers. Yepsen then recounts the standard lore of how Harkin has defeated more sitting Republican Congressmen than any Democrat in the history of the Senate (has anyone ever been to a Harkin Steak Fry and not heard Democrats crow about that?).
I had written previously about Harkin’s potential retirement, though as I made clear in that post, there was really no need to worry. With 2008 shaping up to be a Democratic year, at least in the Senate, it now seems that his race will be easier than ever.
Alas, I couldn’t sign off without one dig at Yepsen. He writes almost-correctly that “Democrats quit being serious about trying to knock off Grassley years ago” (Sorry Art Small). I say “almost” because I’ve been hearing the rumblings of a Vilsack-Grassley match up. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. It would be the best chance we’ve had in a while to take Grassley out and it would be a monster of a Senate race, something the Hawkeye State hasn’t seen in years.
April 9th, 2007
Last week, it was Bill Richardson to make a big hire, this week it was Chris Dodd. Dodd, who was in Iowa earlier this week, hired Marc Beltrame, a former longtime Boswell staffer, to be his state director. Interestingly, according to GWU’s Democracy In Action site, Dodd has also hired two former Loebsack staffers as well. It seems like he’s building a good foundation with these hires by tapping into the networks of incumbent Democratic Congressmen. It’s still an uphill fight for Senator Dodd in Iowa but he’s off to a solid start.
February 22nd, 2007
As John Deeth notes, Sandy Greiner, the eight term Republican incumbent from House District 89 (Washington County along with parts of Johnson and Jefferson Counties) will not seek re-election. Greiner faced a very competitive challenge from Mark Nolte in 2006 who, despite running in a heavily Republican district (2,000 more Republicans than Democrats) and not being a targeted candidate, lost by only 1,100 votes. Nolte was a long shot against Greiner in 2006 but he should be a very competitive candidate in 2008 since he will not be facing an incumbent.
Greiner’s retirement is the first of an expected wave of retirements among Republican lawmakers who have no desire to serve in the minority. It is typical for a minority party that has just lost power after a long reign as the majority to endure a wave of retirements. For example, in 1996, after the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress, 8 Democratic Senators and 30 Democratic Congressmen retired. This avalanche of open seats enabled the Republicans to consolidate their majorities in Congress. It is expected that Republican retirements will enable the Democrats to do the same in Des Moines. The Democrats already have several good opportunities to pick up seats in the State Senate before factoring in any open seats. As more Republicans retire, even more seats will come into play as popular incumbents like Greiner decide to leave politics. The Republicans have been losing seats in both the State House and the State Senate for the past two elections and if more incumbents like Greiner decide to retire, the third time will most definitely not be the charm.
February 14th, 2007
Hillary Clinton had a wonderful first day in Iowa today but is she ready for the next stage? Estimates of her crowd at East High School in Des Moines range from 1500 to nearly 3000. She got an introduction from Leonard Boswell and has had an interview with David Yepsen that’s as close to a puff piece as Yepsen writes. So what’s next for Hillary?
Although this is a good first step, she still faces major challenges in Iowa winning the support of many caucusgoers, such as Poweshiek County Democrats Co-Chair Don Smith. Smith gives voice to two of the major concerns about Hillary among caucusgoers. Those are the belief that she can’t win a general election and that she has been what Smith describes as “weak on the war issue” or too hawkish on Iraq. Although she addressed both of those issues today, it’s too soon to tell if she’s made any headway.
Finally, Hillary, along with the rest of the Democratic contenders, faces one more new challenge. Bill Richardson has a new anti-Iraq war, celebrity supporter. It’s not Bruce Springsteen, Ben Affleck, or Alec Baldwin, it’s Toby Keith. Keith is an interesting supporter for a Democratic candidate to have, although he’ll probably be viewed as a little weak on the war issue too.
January 27th, 2007
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.
January 27th, 2007
I’ve been told a lot recently that I’m the future of America; I’m the reason it is important to fund education, fix the health care system, and reign in the escalating deficit; I’m the future of the Democratic Party. Sure this is from some hand-squeezing, baby-kissing politicians seeking to win in November, and I know that it is good campaign rhetoric. But I also think it is true. In fact, not only are we the future of the Democratic Party, we are the present. My colleagues and I register the voters, we knock the doors, and we make the calls; we organize visits from candidates, we interview them, and we blog about them. We are not the only ones, but our contribution is significant. We do this not just on our campus — although that in itself is a substantial task — but in the county as well, and there are many others like us across the state and the country. We work by and large for free. Given these candidates’ propensity to pay lip service to our services, I would’ve thought they would be willing, if not eager, to include us at party-building events. Such events help prepare us for that ‘future’ that we are supposed to figure so prominently into, and also inspire and motivate us to keep doing our work in the present.
I would’ve thought, for instance, that they would want us to be able to attend the Jefferson Jackson Dinner on October 14. This is an important annual event in Iowa politics, one that in the past students have been able to attend. Last year several candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination were there, providing many of us students a first introduction to Chet Culver. We also met recent college grads working on campaigns or for the IDP. Sure, we sat in the nosebleeds, but the point is that for $20 we got to go listen to prominent Iowa politicians and feel like we were actually part of the Democratic Party.
This year I was excited to see that Bill Clinton is going to be the keynote speaker. When I learned that the cheapest seats would cost $100 a person, I was disappointed, to say the least. As much as I would like to go to the JJ Dinner and hear the Big Dog, as a student (and someone who spends hours every week in unpaid get-out-the-vote efforts) I can’t afford to shell out $100 for one meal. I know I’m not the only student in this position.
What accounts for the exorbitant increase in ticket prices? Well, given that in the past year food prices haven’t skyrocketed and the Hy-Vee Hall Events Center hasn’t suddenly become immensely popular, it seems that it might have something to do with the former president’s fee for the engagement. Rumored to be over a quarter million dollars, it looks like maybe the IDP is passing that expense onto us. It is a move that makes financial sense, but it also sends the message that low-income or financially burdened Democrats (like students) aren’t important members of the party.
This message is incongruous with what many politicians I’ve spoken to recently are telling me. Everyone from U.S. Congressmen to gubernatorial candidates keeps repeating that we students are the future of the party. At a Grinnell College Democrats event yesterday, Pat Murphy and Eric Palmer commended us for having such a large and active group, saying that we would have a major impact on the elections. The thing is we know it. While it is nice to hear, the words are empty in the face of such an inconsiderate exclusion from a major party event. Regardless of from where this oversight arose, it would be hypocritical and ungrateful of the party not to make some allowances for those of us that may be unable to make generous financial contributions, but who have given our equally valuable time.
September 21st, 2006
