Search Results for ‘iowa democratic party’
John Deeth has a rather exhaustive rundown of what candidates have filed for state and federal office this year in Iowa but it’s worth noting two interesting trends that have emerged so far and what ramifications this might have for the 2008 election.
The first is that three Democratic candidates have filed in the primary for House District 13. This is an open seat consisting almost entirely of Mason City and is heavily Democratic leaning, although it is currently held by Republican State Representative Bill Schickel who is not seeking re-election. The prospect of a heated Democratic Primary for this seat should pump up turnout which will have a big effect on the competitive Democratic primary for Iowa’s 4th congressional district. In 2006, where there was a competitive statewide primary but no competitive local primaries, turnout in Cerro Gordo made up about 7.5% of Democratic voters in the 4th district. However, with the competitive State House primary this year as well, it should lead to a disproportionate increase in turnout in Cerro Gordo County. This means that Mason City, which is the second largest municipality that is entirely in the 4th Congressional District, becomes even more important in the primary. This probably benefits the candidacy of Kurt Meyer the most as he comes from neighboring Mitchell County and is already seen as one of the more credible candidates in the race.
The second is that Democratic challengers have already filed in two State House seats that weren’t contested in 2006 or 2004 for that matter. James Van Bruggen has filed in ultra-conservative House District 4 which consists of Lyon County and part of Sioux County. The district is currently represented by incumbent Republican Dwayne Alons. While the district represents what is perhaps one of the most Republican state legislative seats in the country, let alone Iowa, (Chet Culver lost the district by a margin of almost 6 to 1) two slim slivers of hope for Van Bruggen are that Alons may be complacent as he has never faced an opponent in a general election in ten years in the legislature and has made some terribly embarrassing statements in recent years as well. In fact, Iowa Progress has commented numerous times on Alons’s frequent inane statements. These include claiming that the ancient Maya were a race of giants due to warmer temperatures and that the invention of air conditioning means that global warming is not a problem.
The other challenger is Ron Rossman, an organic farmer from outside Harlan, Iowa, who is running against Jack Drake in House District 57 which consists of Shelby County, most of Cass County and a thin slice of Pottawatomie County. It is a much less one-sided district than House District 4, Culver only lost the district by a 60-40 in 2006. However, if the race is solely about local issues, Rossman has a chance. While Drake is from the small sliver of Pottawatomie County that is in the district, Rossman hails from Shelby County which makes up over 40% of the district. If Rossman has a strong local base to build from, he has the capacity to run a competitive race.
Although neither of these seats are likely Democratic gains, it shows that Democrats may have a chance at running a candidate in close to every seat this year. In 2006, 19 House Republicans went unopposed, although few were in competitive districts. One of those House Republicans who went unopposed was Mary Lou Freeman. Freeman was a long time incumbent Republican from a safe district in Northwest Iowa. However, Freeman died two months before Election Day. If there had been a Democrat who had filed, the Democrat would have won automatically. Instead, the seat was declared vacant and in the special election that followed, the Republican candidate won handily, easily defeating his Democratic opponent who was a 21 year old college student.
The other benefit of running candidates in every seat is that it builds up party organization in areas that had previous been ceded to Republicans and helps build a stronger base of Democratic activists and to turn out more Democratic voters. In a year that seems to be trending Democratic so far, this could yield a surprise or two on Election Day.
March 3rd, 2008
Polly Granzow, the Republican State Representative from House District 44, comprising Hardin County and most of Marshall County outside of Marshalltown, is not running for re-election in 2008. This combined with Larry McKibben’s decision not to seek re-election in the Senate District that includes all of Marshall and Hardin Counties, puts local Republicans in a bind as Century for the Common Iowan notes. However, it puts the State Republican Party into even bigger bind.
So far, nine Republican incumbents in the State House are not running for re-election according to Iowa Independent. This includes every Republican but one in Polk County as well as Democratic leaning seats in Mason City and Decorah that are currently held by Bill Schickel and Chuck Gipp respectively. Granzow only won by 300 votes in 2006 and her district should be very competitive as an open seat in 2008.
But this underlies the fact that while Iowa Republicans are citing the House as one of their few bright spots in 2008. When the only two Democratic open seats are incumbents running for State Senate, it’s a pretty dubious bright spot. GOP prospects in the State House may seem brighter than those against Tom Harkin or in the State Senate. But that’s merely contrasting a good chance of losing by a landslide to almost certainly getting blown out. Unless something unexpected happens nationally or in state politics (like a political scandal or a Fallon win in the 3rd District primary) it seems pretty clear that calling the Iowa House a bright spot is only a relative term for Iowa Republicans.
February 25th, 2008
Century of Common Iowan is reporting that Larry McKibben, the incumbent Republican State Senator in Marshall and Hardin Counties will not be running for re-election. When Iowa Progress ranked the top opportunities for Democrats to pick up seats in the State Senate last year, McKibben was listed as the most vulnerable Republican.
Of the eight Republicans named on that list, McKibben is now the fourth to decline to run for re-election in 2008. It’s clear that Senate Republicans know that they are in trouble in 2008. The most vulnerable seats for Senate Democrats are all in Eastern Iowa which has been growing increasingly Democratic and it’s quite likely no incumbent Democrat will get defeated in November. That combined with an increasing number of Republican open seats means that Senate Republicans are on the ropes. It’s likely that they will face a net loss of two or three seats and could be in a position where they begin the January 2009 legislative session with only 15 Senators.
However, one thing is sure. Whether the Senate Republican Caucus has two Senators or 42 Senators, they are sure to be factionalized and divided no matter what. It’s one thing to be a member of a minority party but when you’re a member of a minority party where the caucus meetings resemble Kenyan street battles more than a gathering of like-minded legislators, it’s clear that you’ll be in the minority for a long time to come.
February 14th, 2008
Ed Fallon was a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000. He described Al Gore as “to the right of Bill Clinton” and said that “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t [vote for Al Gore] either.”
So what was the platform of the far-right wing, DLC Democrat that Ed Fallon refused to support?
In Gore’s acceptance speech, he stated that “campaign finance reform will be the very first bill that I send to the United States Congress,” that “free trade…must be fair trade” and reaffirmed his commitment to a federal law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, in that very same speech, Gore reiterated the basic theme of his campaign-representing the people versus the powerful, which Gore defined as “big tobacco, big oil, the big polluters, the pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs”. It is a theme that Ed Fallon even supported in 2008 when he endorsed John Edwards, whose candidacy was based on the idea that “powerful, well-financed interests [were] taking over this democracy, and taking it away from regular Americans.”
So the question is what was so right-wing about Al Gore crusading for campaign finance reform, fair trade and gay rights in 2000 that Ed Fallon couldn’t support him? Instead, Fallon supported a candidate and party that advocated ending the use of all pesticides and most fertilizers and “an end to government price supports” for agriculture, wanted to allow unemployed Americans collect government benefits without any time limit or restrictions and believed African Americans should be able to form their own separate nation on American soil. It’s a platform that veers from policies that are just bad to those that are outright wacky.
When Ed Fallon would rather support the candidacy of someone who runs on a platform that African Americans have a right to secede from the United States and form their own nation on American soil over a candidate who is committed to passing campaign finance reform, something is wrong. Ed Fallon’s support of Ralph Nader and the Green Party over Al Gore is not just a sign of bad judgment but it’s a sign of someone who has the wrong priorities for Iowa, for America and for Liberalism and Progressivism as well.
January 30th, 2008
The Washington Post is linking former Iowa congressman Jim Leach to Unity 08, a bi-partisan group that’s exploring running a centrist third party bid for the Presidency in 2008. Speculation is that the group will select New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as its nominee, both for his bipartisan appeal (as an Independent who has previously been both a Democrat and a Republican) and for his multi-billion dollar fortune.
If Leach backs a Bloomberg candidacy, this would have big repercussions in 2008 in Iowa. Leach, despite his defeat in 2006, was well-liked even by most Democrats who voted against him. His support would be big for Bloomberg in Iowa and help make Bloomberg a serious player in the state. Leach has a strong geographic base in Iowa and is perhaps the last of the Robert Ray moderate Republicans in the state. Leach’s endorsement, particularly if a conservative Republican is the nominee, would encourage a lot of moderate Republicans to support Bloomberg. Leach would also carry over some Democrats as well. (Some Democrats went so far as to print Harkin-Leach bumper stickers in 2002).
While Bloomberg probably wouldn’t win Iowa, Leach’s support would help significantly. It also would have a major impact on the Presidential race. Leach’s support would draw a lot of moderate Republicans to Bloomberg, helping insure a Democratic victory in Iowa. If this happens, it would have a major downballot effects. If the Republican Presidential nominee gives up in Iowa due to Bloomberg that, combined with Tom Harkin on the Democratic ticket, could devastate Republicans running for the State Legislature and in county races. It could lead to even bigger Democratic majorities in Des Moines and help make Tom Latham vulnerable.
Although Bloomberg’s candidacy would be big for Democrats in Iowa, unfortunately, it would hurt in other states that are typically Democratic bastions like New York and New Jersey. But that’s a matter for New Jersey blogs to worry about.
December 30th, 2007
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
Iowans for Tax Relief recently announced that it was backing a primary candidate against incumbent Republican Clarence Hoffman in the Republican primary in State House District 55 (Ida County and parts of Crawford, Monona and Woodbury County). Hoffman is a fifth term Representative who crossed party lines to support the bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This is the second time Iowans for Tax Relief has backed a primary candidate against an incumbent Republican so far for the 2008 cycle. The first State Representative that they tried to primary, Walt Tomenga in House District 69 (Johnston and Grimes) has since announced his retirement. This has set up a vicious primary between ITR’s preferred candidate, Erik Helland, and former Iowa basketball player Al Lorenzen who is backed by moderate Republicans like former Governor Robert Ray.
However, while Iowans for Tax Relief is trying to find candidates who represent the true conservative nature of these districts, they’re neglecting that these are actually relatively moderate districts. Neither of these districts are Republican strongholds. In fact, Chet Culver received over 45% of the vote in both districts in 2006. Under normal circumstances, these seats would probably not be top Democratic priorities to pick up seats in the State House. But Iowans for Tax Relief drastically changes that.
With Iowans for Tax Relief’s continued effort to purge the Republican Party of anyone who slightly deviates from its extremist agenda, it’s safe to say that regardless of what happens on the day of the Primary Election, a lot of Republicans will be unhappy. This is especially true if Iowans for Tax Relief’s anointed candidate wins. An win by either or both Helland and Schultz would continue the trend of moderate Republicans like Robert Ray and Maggie Tinsman being isolated in their party and allow a great opportunity for a moderate Democratic candidate to appeal to these disenchanted Republicans and have a good chance at winning what would normally be a safe Republican seat.
Iowans for Tax Relief is certainly doing a good job of making the Republican Party more conservative. But at a terrible cost to any attempt by Republicans to build a majority. For a group that so admires Ronald Reagan, one would think that they would expand their reading in scriptures to include Reagan’s 11th commandment. Instead, they seem more concerned with obscure passages in Leviticus. Passages that Iowa Republicans will have many more years to study while they are in the minority.
October 15th, 2007
Cross-posted at Iowa Independent
As the Iowa legislative session came to a close early Sunday, House Democrats marveled that they had passed all but one of the items on their legislative agenda. The next day, they learned that they were short one more thing: a caucus member. The two issues were not unrelated.
On Monday, Rep. Dawn Pettengill, a Democrat from Mount Auburn, announced that she was becoming a Republican. Over the session, Pettengill had become increasingly estranged from the Democratic Party. When Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat from Des Moines learned of the news—after the press—he was “disappointed, not surprised,” he said in a phone interview yesterday. “It was more of a shift on paper. We tended not count on her to be a team player, even on procedural matters.” Pettengill did not return calls for comment.
While Pettengill clashed with her former party on a variety of issues, perhaps the most significant one was the proposed Fair Share bill, which would have allowed public employee unions to charge fees for services given to nonunion workers. “In the end, it was a pretty scaled down, reasonable proposal,” McCarthy said. It would ensure that workers “kick in their fair share of those services.”
Fair Share, despite being passed in the Iowa Senate, never came to a vote in the House because, McCarthy said, “We just didn’t have the votes to get it done.” McCarthy said that the proposal had the support of 50 Democrats in the caucus but lacked that crucial 51st. “We don’t have that large a majority.” One Democratic representative, Ray Zirkelbach of Monticello is currently serving in Iraq, and in addition to Pettengill, two other members of the Democratic caucus refused to support the bill. McCarthy declined to name those representatives.
McCarthy said that on the way to regaining the majority in the 2006 elections, some conservative Democrats ran, or were recruited, to defeat Republican incumbents. Keeping them on board for certain issues, he said was “challenging.” In the interview, McCarthy did not seem angry that the bill failed to pass; he simply stated matter-of-factly that “the answer is to continue to try to educate [reluctant members] and to pick up a few more seats” in order to make up for deserters.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Democratic leadership spent four hours trying to convince its caucus members to support the bill, and that Pettengill emerged with “tears on her face when she left the room where Democrats were meeting in private.”
McCarthy bristled at the suggestion that he had tried to strong-arm people for support. “I definitely didn’t,” he said. “We used tough arguments trying to convince people… We did that through civil and respectful conversation.” McCarthy said, “The argument that we were strong-arming people was coming from right wing Republican propaganda.” The charge, he said, was “a falsehood, a lie.”
In the end, McCarthy, said that he was not sure whether Pettengill’s defection could have been prevented. “She’s gone through a fairly significant emotional journey this session,” he said. “She was formerly a close person friend with me. That friendship had withered away, and she became more distant with members of her caucus.”
He also questioned the logic of Pettengill’s decision. Not only had she joined a party that, according to McCarthy, sent 27 negative mailings against her in the last election—“some of the most vicious, vile, mean spirited negative campaigning I’ve ever seen”—but that the party she joined was out of power. “We can’t find anybody within the last 30 years that leaves the majority party and the power to deliver to her constituents,” he said. “If I were a constituent, I would be shocked and outraged that she gave up the ability to deliver in exchange for feeling good.”
McCarthy agreed with the idea that Pettengill was reading her district wrong, that it is not as conservative as she believes. “I think,” he said with resignation, “she’s confused.”
May 3rd, 2007
I had intended to liveblog this event but got stuck in an overflow room with no option of standing in the back. I’m not sure how many updates I’ll be posting as this event starts in a few minutes…
…that situation has been remedied. Read on for liveblogging. Sorry for typos, etc., but this is all being typed on a Blackberry pseudo-keyboard.
State rep Mark Smith is on now talking about the successes Dems have had in Iowa and about history. He compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Then he makes sure to note that he hasn’t endorsed anyone yet and that it’s too early for him to make an endorsement.
Obama is on now. He thanks Mark Smith and volunteers who helped with the event. He says Iowa and Illinois are a lot alike, except Illinois has Chicago.
…He’s going over his bio and tieing that in to the purpose of politics…
Now he’s on to the issues. Goes down list of problems we face; gets applause at the end when he says he was against the war from the beginning. Casts himself as Washington outsider and gets more applause. It sounds like he hasn’t quite memorized his stump speech yet, because it has been a little choppy.
Says we can use ethanol just like Brazil. Says using incentives can make capitalism earth-friendly.
Mentions his senate bill on Iraq withdrawal and gets applause again. Says diplomacy is the answer and alludes to Marshall plan.
He is finishing his speech by talking about the importance of us getting involved and finally mentions briefly that he had a lot of small donors during the last quarter
Now questions…
First questionis on universal health care. Obama talks about preventative health care as part of the solution. He talks about obesity as an example of the problem, but he sounded a little critical of fat people - oops.
This answer is taking too long considering everyone already knows his position as it has been defined. .
Next question is from a peace activist on Israel and Palestine. Obama starts tip toeing…
Religious conflict between shia and sunni predates Israel, he says, dodging the original question.
Obama does believe that Israel-Palestine is serving to perpetuate problems in the reason.
He calls for two-state solution. Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop terrorism. US must be a part of negotiations. My pro-Israel friend just said Obamas answer won his vote.
Sandy shaver from UAW/Maytag asks about outsourcing. It turns out Barack Obama is against it.
Solution one is stop giving tax benefits for outsourcing.
Solution two is improving infrastructure like broadband.
Solution three is spending a lot of money on green technology (on the scale of the Manhattan project, he says).
Finally Obama says he supports both free trade and fair trade. My Econ major friends roll their eyes a but but it sounds good to me
That was all his answer to the outsourcing question.
Next question from a teacher is whether he will consult teachers on his education plans. He says his sister is a teacher (and yes, he will).
Everyone has to work to improve education: parents, students, community, etc.
Obama says he does support some of NCLB’s goals, including higher standards for students. But he thinks it needs to be more sensitive to individual students, and he thinks the funding situation needs reform.
Also he wants to increase teacher pay tied to some accountability measures.
Cute kid asks about year-round school. Obama says he might like the idea of changing the school calendar to avoid one long summer break.
Next question comes from an Iowan with a mental disability on employment possibilities. Obama praises tom harkin forhis work on the issue and promises to get one of his staff to help Him get in touch withthe right people.
Next question is ,what has happened to our democratic party? Dems are too friendly to big business and too soft on immigration.
Obama says you can’t be pro-worker without also being pro-employer. Question-asker isn’t satisfied and asks more specifically about immigration.
Obama supports more secure border and better I’d verification. But he also thinks that those people who are here can’t - and shouldn’t - be sent home.
Last question comes from a student about how expensive college is. He says student loan systemshould be reformed so banks are no longer making money on kids.
Obama is also in favor of expanding national service programs and offering to pay for education for kids who go into certain important professions (like teaching).
He closes by waving a supporter cardsnd asking is to get involved. More thoughts later
April 6th, 2007
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
