Search Results for ‘democratic nomination’
The Politico is reporting that Sam Brownback is expected to end his bid for the Republican nomination for President tomorrow. Brownback never recovered from finishing third, behind fellow social conservative Mike Huckabee, in the Iowa Straw Poll in August. Brownback’s withdrawal from the field helps consolidate Huckabee’s position as the leading social conservative amongst the Republican field.
Brownback’s withdrawal leaves several key Iowa Republican activists up for grabs. Chuck Hurley, one of Iowa’s leading social conservatives, was a Brownback backer and will be courted by Presidential candidates seeking support amongst caucusgoers from the religious right. Another major Brownback supporter was convenience store millionaire Don Lamberti. Lamberti’s son, former Republican State Senator and Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti, is a leading John McCain supporter. Given their family relationship, not to mention the close ties between McCain and Brownback, it’s quite possible that Lamberti will switch his support to McCain.
Brownback joins Tommy Thompson as the second Republican candidate to drop out directly or indirectly because of the straw poll. (Jim Gilmore also had a short-lived and rather pathetic bid for the Presidency but dropped out to focus his energies on trying to lose a U.S. Senate seat to former Democratic candidate Mark Warner). The Straw Poll will have once again have significantly winnowed the Republican field, depriving Republican caucusgoers of choices in order so that the Republican Party of Iowa can make a few extra bucks.
October 18th, 2007
I guess this is what happens in a political world where a few consulting firms call almost all of the shots: Kentucky gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear just got caught lifting part of Chet Culver’s energy policy text. As the Lexington Herald-Leader documents,
For example, Culver’s plan says: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new power sources, fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that encourage innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
The Beshear plan states: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new renewable power sources, alternative fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that spur innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
Obviously, neither candidate had any idea that the text was going to be used in multiple places, but it’s a pretty inexcusable mistake on the consultants’ parts. In a world with the Internet, someone in Kentucky might be able to find out what a candidate in Iowa is saying, and vice versa.
Quoting, again, “Beshear’s campaign manager, Jim Cauley, said the campaign saw Culver’s plan for energy online ‘and we liked it.’” Go Chet!
(Beshear is running for the Democratic nomination for Kentucky Governor against several other candidates. The primary is next month.)
April 22nd, 2007
John Deeth linked to the National Journal’s ranking of all the members of Congress from most liberal to least liberal. What’s interesting is that, despite the big Democratic year in 2006, Iowa’s most liberal congressman got defeated. That title was held by Republican Jim Leach. Leach was one of the last of the liberal Republicans but lost to the much more liberal Dave Loebsack. Although Leach was a liberal Republican, he voted for the Republican leadership and was one of the worst of the Clinton haters in Congress in the mid 1990s (although he probably wasn’t sincere about his Clinton-hating. Instead, he was just unsuccessfully angling for the 1996 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Tom Harkin).
But the fact that Leach was the most liberal Congressman from Iowa means that Democrat Leonard Boswell wasn’t. Boswell was only a mere four places behind Leach (although that made him less liberal than one other Republican, Libertarian Ron Paul.) This put Boswell in a three way tie for the 173rd most liberal member of Congress with Artur Davis of Alabama and liberal sweetheart John Murtha. This emphasizes Boswell’s vulnerable position. He represents a swing district, albeit one where the base Democratic voters are relatively liberal (as opposed to many of Boswell’s fellow Blue Dogs from the South). Boswell has to walk a fine line to protect himself from a primary challenge and to retain his appeal in the district in a general election as much of the rural 3rd District is proving increasingly invulnerable to his charms as a rural Democrat from Decatur County. Boswell has walked this tightrope well in the past but as questions about his health and age continue to build, it will become increasingly likely that he will either slip or be pushed.
Finally, it’s worth noting one bit of trivia. The most conservative congressman from Iowa is not Steve King but rather Tom Latham. While King may be nuts, he at least is an independent thinker. Latham accumulated a more conservative record by being a straight party-line, pro-corporate Republican hack. It allows Latham the benefit of a seat on the Appropriations Committee for the small cost of independent thought and free will. One hopes that Selden Spencer will use this information to his advantage for his second bid for the 4th District.
March 4th, 2007
The Politico has this profile of the head of the far right Iowa Christian Alliance, Steve Scheffler. Scheffler has become a major player in Iowa Republican politics over the past six years as the far right has reasserted its dominance over the Republican Party of Iowa as Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, Iowa congressional delegation and our control of the Governorship attest to. Scheffler brags in the article that three quarters of the Republicans who show up to caucus “will be down the line on life, immigration, marriage and spending.” Aside from that fact that these aren’t all typical social conservative hot-button issues, it gets to the question of what the actual composition of the caucus crowd will be.
Every candidate tries to draw out special niches that they think that they will get a lot of support from. In 2004, as Roger Simon’s classic piece about the caucuses noted “Dick Gephardt targeted family farmers; Howard Dean went after the young and disenchanted; [John] Kerry pursued veterans.” With both parties holding highly competitive caucuses, there will be a lot of competition for both groups. It’s fair to say though that we can tell some of the core demographics that candidates will go after in 2008. McCain will go after veterans (and Giuliani may too), Romney will go after fellow Mormons (there aren’t a lot in Iowa but enough to make a difference), Huckabee and Brownback after fellow evangelicals (perhaps special denominational focuses after Protestants and Catholics respectively). All the candidates will go after people in all of these communities but there are some communities where they have a more significant appeal. So why does this matter? Because every person who goes to the Republican caucuses is someone who cannot go to the Democratic ones. In 2004, the fight for the Republican nomination was not competitive. This meant that only diehard Republicans attended the caucuses. In 2008, both parties will feature highly competitive primary battles. That means there will be big advantages for candidates whose niche voters are also their party’s base voters. Of all the candidates mentioned, this has big ramifications for John McCain, his special appeal is with veterans and he will probably try to emulate John Kerry’s strategy of wooing veterans in 2004. Kerry was able to attract quite a few veterans who were Independents and Republicans to come caucus for him in 2004. The problem for McCain is, many Democratic veterans will be participating in the Democratic caucuses. Another problem is that all the Republican veterans who showed up to support John Kerry will getting harassed by Democratic candidates as well, since they showed up to a previous Democratic caucus. This means that they’ll be getting a ton of phone calls from Democrats, which will drown out any attempt by McCain to reach out to them. This puts McCain at a disadvantage and it makes more likely that a right winger will triumph in Iowa on caucus night.
March 1st, 2007
The Des Moines Register reports that Tom Vilsack is ending his bid to be President today. Vilsack will apparently cite his inability to raise the money necessary to compete successfully for the Democratic nomination. It had long been rumored that Vilsack had serious financial woes due to weak fundraising and the need to pay the large field staff he had already hired. Although Vilsack had attracted quite a bit of grassroots support in Iowa and was still neck and neck with first tier candidates in a recent poll of caucusgoers, his support outside the Hawkeye State was minimal.
Tom Vilsack was the first serious Presidential contender to announce he was running and is the first to drop out. Although it’s not a surprise that Vilsack campaign didn’t pan out. However, that he’s dropping out almost a year before the caucuses and only a week after Vilsack made a relatively successful appearance on the Tonight Show is a shock. What the most disturbing thing is that Vilsack’s campaign is ending this early. In 1960, John F. Kennedy didn’t start his campaign until December 1959, in 2000, George W. Bush didn’t start to run until June 1999, now we have candidates dropping out 21 months before the election. It is a disturbing trend.
February 23rd, 2007
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.
February 1st, 2007
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.
January 3rd, 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
The rumors are going around, and Vilsack is set to appear with Hillary in DC this week at a Democratic Governors Association press conference. Here’s how the Register reports it:
Some pundits as well as Democratic activists have suggested Vilsack would be a good fit on a ticket with Clinton as presidential nominee. Both are active in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and both have insisted they will not demand a specific date for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
A few days back, Hotline proposed some theories about the role Hillary could play in the race for the ‘08 Democratic nomination. Theory 1:
…unless she either doesn’t run or appears very vulnerable early on , one theory of the case holds that they will spend their time cozying up to her and tearing into each other. (Grover Norquist endorses that theory, too.) At least in part, they’ll try to use the primaries to audition for the general election.
To be clear: Bayh, Warner, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack — they all want to be president, not vice president. But they will almost certainly hedge their bets. They will not run a true-blue, rouse-the-base primary campaign.
Theory 2, however, simply says that Hillary is too polarizing a figure and won’t get anywhere. In that case, though, candidates might still stick to centrist rhetoric in an effort to distinguish themselves from Clinton (if the voters aren’t convinced by Hillary’s current centrist bent).
Frank Luntz’s piece today doesn’t talk much about this, but Luntz does attempt to lay out a strategy for Hillary to get elected. I’m really not sure a short, public essay could possibly prove useful to a presidential campaign, but here’s his first recommendation:
First, she must be herself. Her recent tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to inject religious references into her speeches to prove she’s a person of faith is like fingernails on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats really cared about religion, they’d be Republicans.
Will she? And is she really the vicious liberal that Luntz thinks she is in the first place? Perhaps, but it’s not looking like it right now.
I should also note that our coverage of 2008 contenders has been spotty of late. Our schedules haven’t permitted us to attend the candidates’ appearances across the state (which isn’t to say we don’t like getting the invitations, so thanks to the staffers who have kept us on their mailing lists…), so we’ve been reading Chris’s coverage on PoliticalForecast. We hope to get better as our schedules permit, but we still plan to spend more time analyzing the political issues facing Iowa than we’ll spend on national political celebrity watch.
And check out MyDD’s presidential straw poll, now reinstated. Chris Bowers rightly discontinued it four months ago because of how repetitive the results were, but maybe things will be different now.
July 17th, 2006
In the second part of our three-part series, Jesse Harris, Field Director for Chet Culver’s campaign, took the time to answer our questions. Here’s what he had to say:
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Jesse Harris: In the fall of 1999, I entered Simpson College just as Bill Bradley and Al Gore began to actively campaign in Iowa for the precinct caucuses. That campaign brought me into the political process and my interest in campaigns and public service hasn’t diminished. While in college I volunteered for the Bradley for President Campaign and then completed a summer internship in Congressman Leonard Boswell’s office in Washington, D.C. Although I had planned to attend graduate school, the prospect of working on a presidential campaign in 2003 and 2004 was too great to pass up. I was offered a position with the Edwards for President Campaign in Des Moines. For seven months I worked as a field organizer in Warren, Lucas, Clarke, Wayne and Decatur Counties. Following the caucus I continued to work for the campaign in Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota. That experience led me to continue working for Democratic candidates in Iowa.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
JH: In Iowa the campaign season really never ends. Just as one campaign passes there are new ones forming. Over the past three years I have worked for three different campaigns; the Edwards Campaign, the Iowa Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign and now the Culver for Governor Campaign. Since I graduated from Simpson, I have only spent five months outside of campaign work. In that time I served as a legislative assistant to State Senator Tom Rielly (D-Oskaloosa).
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
JH: Without question, the internet has had deep and even profound effects on political campaigns. In some circles, the internet has even become the primary method that voters acquire information about elections and the issues at play in campaigns. While races used to be confined largely to local markets, today people throughout the country are able to acquire information on races from city hall to the White House. It has become a useful tool to update voters on the campaign, distribute information about policy positions and to raise money from a broader network of individuals.
Blogs have, in many respects, democratized journalism. Today, campaigns distribute information through a much wider universe of writers representing a number of different mediums. Blogs also reach more targeted communities of potential voters, particularly young people.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
JH: Iowa and its residents have a significant voice in the American political process, more significant than virtually anywhere else in the country. This is true of students in Iowa as well. Nowhere else in the United States, excluding New Hampshire, will presidential candidates regularly visit college campuses and meet with students directly. With three universities, a large network of private liberal arts colleges and the state’s many community colleges, students in Iowa are positioned well to shape the public debate and push issues of concern to the forefront.
Of course, this applies to the governor’s race as well. Chet Culver will fight for Iowa’s young people. As governor, Chet will work to create good jobs with good benefits in every corner of the state so that college graduates will have every opportunity to live, work and raise their families in Iowa. As a former teacher Chet has worked tirelessly to increase participation among young people in Iowa and as a result participation among 18-24 year olds has increased dramatically.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
JH: I believe that there is more that unites Iowans than divides them. In fact, Iowa’s mixture of urban and rural residents is one of the primary strengths of our state. In the end, all Iowans, whether they are rural or urban voters, Republican or Democrats, want high quality schools, affordable and accessible health care, and a strong, vibrant economy. Chet has proposed the most comprehensive campaign plan of any candidate running for governor. Chet’s “Leading Iowa Forward” will show voters specifically what he intends to do as governor. Specifically, he has released a comprehensive health care plan and an alternative energy plan both of which will benefit all Iowans in every corner of the state.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Patty Judge as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons?
JH: In the end, the most important criteria for selecting a running mate is 1) Is this person qualified to become governor of the state of Iowa and 2) In maintaining a strong, vibrant Democratic Party, will this person stand up for Democrats and our Democratic values. In Patty Judge, Chet selected someone who not only meets this standard but far exceeds it. Secretary Judge has an extensive and distinguished record of public service. As a registered nurse she understands the challenges facing our health care system particularly women’s health care. As a two-term state senator, Patty developed policy on a wide range of issues and in doing so was elected to the Senate Democratic leadership. As Secretary of Agriculture for the past eight years, Patty has served at the highest levels of the executive branch and oversees one of the largest state agencies. She would be ready from the first minute to assume the duties of the governor’s office. Throughout her life, Patty has consistently supported and worked for Democratic candidates throughout Iowa. There is never any question about her commitment to the Democratic Party here in Iowa. Knowing that Patty Judge is ready to become governor and that she will fight for our Democratic principles, the choice was easy.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
JH: Chet Culver is the candidate best positioned to beat Jim Nussle this fall. Between Chet and Patty, this ticket has won four statewide elections and a total of 70 of the state’s 99 counties. Chet won his reelection by over 100,000 votes. Chet Culver and Patty Judge have proven that they can compete with Republicans in every corner of Iowa.
Moreover, Chet Culver is the only Democratic candidate currently beating Jim Nussle in the polls. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Chet beats Nussle 40% to 38%. In a KCCI poll, Chet outdistances Nussle 44% to 43%. Nussle beats all of the other Democratic candidates and by significant margins.
Finally, he is the only Democrat running for governor who has demonstrated the capacity to keep pace with Jim Nussle on fundraising. In 2005, Chet raised more money than all the other Democrats seeking the nomination combined. The 2006 governor’s race will be the most expensive in Iowa history and we need a candidate that can match the Republicans.
April 29th, 2006
Previous Posts
