Palin’s Iowa endorsement could hurt her in 2012

If Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012, she will regret endorsing Terry Branstad Thursday in the Republican primary for governor.

First thoughts on how this will play out are after the jump.

Before the scenario-spinning begins, here’s a question for SSPers: could an endorsement be any less substantial than what Palin wrote on her Facebook page?

   Iowa, your great state’s motto is “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” That motto will be well served by voting for Terry Branstad for governor next Tuesday!

   Please join me in supporting Governor Branstad’s campaign. Visit his website here, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

That’s not an excerpt, that’s the entire Facebook post. I doubt Palin is prepared to answer specific questions about why Republicans wanting to safeguard their liberties and rights should vote for Branstad instead of Bob Vander Plaats or Rod Roberts. Does she even know the policy differences between the candidates, or the reasons many Iowa conservatives are uncomfortable with Branstad?

Endorsements are rarely “game-changers” under any circumstances, but at least James Dobson explained why he’s backing Vander Plaats, and his reasons reinforce the Vander Plaats campaign narrative. Chuck Norris will draw crowds and free media coverage for Vander Plaats this weekend in Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Council Bluffs, northwest Iowa and West Des Moines. If Palin had planned ahead, she could have done something similar for Branstad, but instead she threw up an empty Facebook post.

It seems likely that Palin expects Branstad to be the next governor and wants to be on his good side when she campaigns here in 2011 and 2012. At least, that’s how many politically engaged Iowans interpreted the move.

Vander Plaats campaign manager Eric Woolson told the Des Moines Register,

“I think that she’s seriously damaged her 2012 presidential prospects,” […] “This says to me she’s either not running for president or she doesn’t understand Iowa very well because she has just alienated herself from her natural base. If you look at her Facebook page, all of the comments are saying ‘Terry Branstad? Really?'”

Woolson has an interest in downplaying the endorsement, of course, but in this case I agree with him. Palin has discredited herself with her natural allies in Iowa. Conservative Shane Vander Hart, whose site Caffeinated Thoughts is part of the “Blogs 4 Palin” network, had this to say last night:

I get the emails from SarahPAC so I usually hear about this in a rather timely fashion. I was traveling today and just read the endorsement in my inbox.

I emailed SarahPAC for an explanation since the endorsement announcement was rather thin. I have to admit I’m surprised and rather disappointed since Branstad doesn’t meet up with her standards of being a “commonsense conservative.” I can understand a general election endorsement, but didn’t think she’d endorse during the primary since she hadn’t yet.

I’m thinking this isn’t an enthusiastic endorsement since it was brief, doesn’t give any explanation, and is rather last minute.

Vander Hart is backing Rod Roberts for governor, by the way.

Let’s look at how various outcomes in the governor’s race would affect Palin.

If Branstad wins the primary easily, Palin will not get credit, because she didn’t do much for him.

If Branstad wins the primary narrowly, many social conservatives will be angry that she helped him even in a small way.

If Vander Plaats surprises us all and wins the primary, everyone will know that Palin’s endorsement carries no weight with social conservatives. Even Branstad supporter Craig Robinson admits, “if Vander Plaats pulls off an upset next Tuesday, a potential caucus campaign would become exponentially more difficult [for Palin].”

No matter what happens in the primary, Republicans who voted for Vander Plaats or Roberts will remember that Palin did the politically expedient thing instead of standing up for the principles she outlined in her own book.

If Branstad wins the primary and loses to Governor Chet Culver, GOP activists will see the outcome as proof that Republicans should have nominated a “real conservative.”

If Branstad defeats Culver, I don’t see Palin getting a lot of credit from Branstad’s inner circle or the business wing of the Iowa GOP. Most of those people supported Mitt Romney in 2008 and would lean toward him again if he makes a play for Iowa in 2012. Romney endorsed Branstad weeks ago and kicked in $10,000 from his PAC.

More important, if Branstad is elected in November he will probably govern with a Democratic-controlled legislature. He is unlikely to deliver on many of his campaign promises and he probably won’t strike as confrontational a tone with Democrats as the GOP base would like. By late 2011 and early 2012, when Republican activists are deciding whom to caucus for, I doubt they will view Branstad as a conservative hero.

Remember also that caucus turnout in 2012 will almost certainly be lower than the turnout for next Tuesday’s primary. In 2002, about 199,000 Iowans voted in the three-way GOP primary for governor. Only about 116,000 Iowans took part in the 2008 Republican caucuses.

It’s possible that even if Branstad wins the gubernatorial primary with 50 to 60 percent of the vote, supporters of Vander Plaats or Roberts could comprise a majority in the universe of 2012 Republican caucus-goers. Vander Plaats has been winning straw polls across Iowa this spring, which reflects his strong support among dedicated party activists. Palin would have been in a better position to appeal to them if she had stayed out of our governor’s race.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman read the Bleeding Heartland version of this post and responded:

I get all the arguments, that Palin’s pick looks bad if Vander Plaats wins and that Branstad’s camp, which is full of Romneyites, won’t give her much credit if TB wins etc. Seems logical.

But I don’t think picking a winner can be bad, especially when her candidate-picking track record lately has been spotty. And even if Vander Plaats wins, I don’t buy the notion that it will hurt her all that much if she runs for prez.

I’ve talked to people who love Palin and want her to run in 2012. They don’t care that she resigned halfway through her term, or that she doesn’t appear to grasp important issues or that her life is a soap opera filmed on a crazy train.

So I don’t think they’ll care if she picked the wrong horse in the primary.

If Palin had crafted an image as someone who picks winners, I would agree with Dorman. But she has spent the last year crafting an image as someone who stands on principle and is not afraid to go “rogue” against the power-brokers and conventional wisdom. She just undermined her own brand.

Maybe Palin isn’t planning to run for president and merely wanted to pick the likely winner in Iowa’s primary. Rand Paul, whom she endorsed, won the Kentucky U.S. Senate primary last month, but Palin’s preferred candidate just lost the primary in Idaho’s first Congressional district, and her pick in the Washington U.S. Senate race is probably going to lose too. Palin’s choice in the South Carolina governor’s race, Nikki Haley, is in a tough fight. If she loses next Tuesday but Branstad prevails here, Palin will at least be associated with one winner.

Speculate away in the comments.

Will Steele keep Iowa first in 2012?

If Iowa’s representatives on the Republican National Committee had had their way, Michael Steele would not be the party’s new chairman.  

Iowa RNC Committeeman Steve Scheffler and Committeewoman Kim Lehman both supported South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who turned out to be Steele’s toughest rival in yesterday’s voting.  Don’t ask me why Republicans who presumably want to start winning elections again would want the party’s leader to be a southerner who was in an all-white country club when the GOP is looking more like a regional party than ever before and the Democratic president (who happens to be black) is wildly popular.  

Seriously, to hear Dawson explain the roots of his political views, it all started when he got mad that the government desegregated his school when he was 15. Just the guy to give the GOP a more tolerant, inclusive image!

But I digress.

Scheffler and Lehman didn’t quietly prefer a different candidate for RNC chair, they went on record criticizing Steele earlier this month:

Though the pro-life and pro-gun Steele built a conservative record in his home state, the former Maryland lieutenant governor’s one-time affiliation with the Republican Leadership Council, which religious conservatives view as hostile to their agenda, remains a deal breaker in some sectors of the committee.

“That is an organization that created itself for the purpose of eliminating a very important part of the Republican Party and its family values,” said Iowa Committeewoman Kim Lehman, who supports South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson’s campaign. “Michael Steele crossed over a serious line.”

“In that field, the only one that would be my number six out of six choice would be Michael Steele,” said Iowa Committeeman Steve Scheffler, citing Steele’s “past deep involvement with the Republican Leadership Council.”

“They partnered with groups like Planned Parenthood,” said Scheffler, who joined Lehman in endorsing Dawson. “In my view, you don’t lend your name to a group if you don’t agree with them.”

Incidentally, Lehman has a history of intolerance toward Republicans who believe abortion should be legal even in limited circumstances such as rape or incest. The State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Iowa censured her in December for failing to support Republican Congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02).

Iowa’s third RNC member, newly elected state GOP chairman Matt Strawn, endorsed the incumbent RNC chair Mike Duncan earlier this week but apparently backed Dawson over Steele in the later ballots yesterday.

Steele’s election immediately sparked concern among some Iowa politicos that we may lose our first-in-the-nation status when the GOP selects its next presidential nominee. However, Strawn, Scheffler and Lehman had only praise for Steele in their official statements. Strawn said,

“I am excited to work with Chairman Steele to advance our principled agenda, rebuild our party from the grassroots up, and elect Republicans all across Iowa.  I am also encouraged by my conversations with Chairman Steele regarding Iowa’s First in the Nation presidential status. I will work closely with him to ensure Iowa retains its leading role for the 2012 caucus and beyond.”

Side note regarding the RNC leadership contest: I was surprised that former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell turned out not to be a serious contender, despite lining up a long list of endorsements from conservative intellectuals.

With Steele and Blackwell back in the news this month, I’ve really missed Steve Gilliard. He used to write hilarious posts about them in 2006, culminating in the classic rant You Have Shamed Us.  

Could Clinton or Edwards have beaten Obama in Iowa?

On January 3, 2008, roughly 240,000 Iowans attended Democratic precinct caucuses, and at least 90,000 of them ended up in Barack Obama’s corner.

However we felt about Obama during the primaries or the general election campaign, whatever we think about his substantive and symbolic actions since the election, we can all agree that he would not be sitting in the Oval Office if Iowa caucus-goers had put him in third place, or even a distant second.

I started writing this diary several times last year. I kept abandoning it because emotions were so raw on Democratic blogs that I felt the piece would only ignite a flamewar. Since more than a year has passed, I decided to try one more time.

I do not mean to start an argument or pretend that I have all the answers. I just enjoy thinking about counterfactual history (such as this or this).

After the jump I will try to figure out whether Hillary Clinton or John Edwards could have beaten Obama in Iowa.

There are three ground rules for this thread.

1. This diary accepts that Obama legitimately won the Iowa caucuses.

I know some people out there still think the “Chicago machine” stole the caucuses by busing thousands of people into Iowa to caucus for Obama. I don’t like the caucus system any more than you do, but given the rules of the game, I am absolutely convinced that the Obama campaign won it fair and square.

In preparing this piece, I talked (off the record) to many former staffers and volunteers for Clinton and Edwards, as well as Iowa political insiders who were not directly involved in any of the presidential campaigns. None of them suggested that Obama won because of cheating. My many friends who volunteered for Clinton or Edwards in Iowa also agree that the Obama campaign simply out-organized its competitors.

No doubt some out-of-state residents sneaked in to caucus for Obama. However, the Des Moines Register reviewed voter records and concluded that very few ineligible voters participated in the Iowa caucuses. I do not believe the Obama campaign could have orchestrated dozens of fraudulent caucus-goers in each of a hundred or more precincts without being found out. Keep in mind that many precinct chairs (the people who run the proceedings) were backing either Clinton or Edwards.

I have heard that in certain precincts, Obama organizers were overly aggressive in bringing supporters of non-viable candidates to the Obama corner during realignment. But even this Edwards supporter, who complained after seeing it happen, accepted that Obama won the caucuses because of a superior message and “monumental” organization to turn out first-time caucus-goers.

I also heard some grumbling about Obama groups dragging out the counting process in the hope that less-committed supporters of other candidates would get fed up and go home before the final count. But the counting took a long time almost everywhere because of the high turnout and how difficult it was in some packed rooms to keep the preference groups separate. Add this annoyance to the list of problems with the caucus system, but don’t blame it on Obama.

The bottom line is that these unfortunate incidents are unlikely to have changed the outcome of the caucuses. The Iowa Democratic Party does not release raw numbers indicating the level of support for each candidate, but Obama had approximately 20,000 more voters stand up for him than either Clinton or Edwards (this includes people who initially backed non-viable candidates but went to Obama, Edwards or Clinton as a second choice).

As for busing college students from other states back to their Iowa campuses on January 3, that was fair, because students enrolled at Iowa colleges are allowed to caucus in Iowa. Qualitatively, there is no difference between the Obama campaign helping students get back to Iowa City from Chicago and my giving an elderly neighbor a ride to our precinct caucus. The caucuses never should have been scheduled so soon after New Year’s anyway.

What about all those students who grew up in Iowa but were enrolled at out-of-state colleges? Many were home visiting parents and consequently were able to caucus for Obama. Again, this is permitted by the Iowa Democratic Party. My brother and I attended an out-of-state university in 1988 but came home to caucus for Senator Paul Simon.

What about the independents and Republicans who changed their party registration on caucus night to support Obama? We can debate whether primaries and caucuses should be “open” or “closed,” but the Iowa Democratic Party’s rules clearly allow party-switchers to participate in precinct caucuses. If Obama’s campaign did a better job of turning out non-Democrats, so be it.

What about all those people no one seemed to know at their precinct caucuses? The turnout was astonishing, but it would be wrong to assume that all those first-timers were for Obama, or that they didn’t really live in the neighborhoods where they caucused. The number of people who ended up in the Clinton and Edwards corners exceeded 140,000, which would have set a record for Iowa Democratic caucus turnout even if everyone else had stayed home.

The Clinton campaign mobilized huge numbers of people who had never attended a caucus before (more on that below). Even without any new voter strategy to speak of, Edwards ended up with a lot of supporters his campaign had never directly contacted. I had been working my precinct for months and still had people in our Edwards group whom I’d never met before January 3. The blogger fladem volunteered in a West Des Moines precinct on caucus night. He told me later that the Edwards campaign gave him a list of 34 supporters it had identified in the precinct (only 15 of whom showed up), but even before realignment 77 people joined the Edwards group.

My point is that a lot of Iowans came out of the woodwork to participate in the caucuses. Evidence indicates that the overwhelming majority of them were eligible voters. Political activists didn’t recognize a lot of people in the caucus rooms, but that does not mean cheating was widespread.

If you happen to believe that Obama didn’t really win Iowa, I probably haven’t changed your mind, but I ask you not to hijack this thread with your conspiracy theories.

On to my next ground rule:

2. This diary is about what Clinton or Edwards could have done (if anything) to achieve a better outcome last January 3, assuming the Obama campaign executed its strategy as well as it did.

Obviously, Obama could have lost Iowa in any number of ways we could spend all day imagining. What if he hadn’t raised enough money to open all those Iowa field offices? What if he’d flubbed his speeches at the Harkin Steak Fry and Jefferson-Jackson dinner? What if he’d been caught with a hooker at the Hotel Fort Des Moines? This kind of speculation doesn’t interest me.

For the purposes of this diary, I assume that Obama would have run an equally effective campaign, raising a ton of money, hiring highly capable staff, adopting the same strategy of targeting Iowans who had never attended a caucus, giving the same well-received speeches, not making any huge gaffes in the debates. Under those conditions, I am exploring what the Clinton and Edwards campaigns could have done to win Iowa.

3. This diary is about things Clinton or Edwards could have done differently in 2007, not about factors that affected the outcome but were beyond their control by the time the campaign heated up in Iowa.

For example, Hillary’s vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq created the opening for a candidate like Obama, but by 2007 there was no way for her to change that vote. I’m less interested in speculation like, “Hillary would have won if she’d voted against the war in 2002” and more interested in speculation like, “Hillary would have gained more credibility with anti-war Iowa Democrats if she had apologized for her war vote and lobbied for a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.”

Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer recurrence unquestionably created problems for Edwards in Iowa, which is why his first major television ad emphasized his commitment to the campaign despite her illness. But there was nothing Edwards could do about that.

With those parameters in mind, I’ll discuss the key mistakes and miscalculations made by the Clinton and Edwards campaigns and then consider some specific counterfactual questions.

WHERE DID CLINTON AND EDWARDS GO WRONG IN IOWA?

When I asked former staffers and volunteers an open-ended question about what might have changed the outcome in Iowa, nine times out of ten the first thing people brought up was the failure to anticipate how large the voter universe would be. Howard Dean’s new-voter strategy had flopped, and most experienced hands assumed that Obama’s would fail too.

Throughout 2007, the Edwards campaign assumed that about 135,000 people would caucus in Iowa. That would have been about 10 percent higher than the previous record turnout. Many former Edwards supporters believe that this strategic error doomed the campaign. Precinct captains and field organizers called through and canvassed the same voter lists again and again. In the final weeks, we were irritating people by contacting the same group who had heard from us many times and had mostly made up their minds.

Field organizers who expressed concern about apparently growing support for Obama were told not to worry, because most of those people would never come out on a cold night in January. The Edwards’ campaign’s internal numbers showed he was winning. He probably did win among Iowans who had caucused before, and in many areas he exceeded his campaign’s “vote goals,” but it wasn’t enough. In my precinct, the campaign estimated Edwards would need 110 supporters to win four out of the six delegates. We ended up with more than that, but it was only enough for two delegates.

Several former Edwards staffers I spoke with were surprised that he did as well as he did (ending up with more than 70,000 supporters after realignment), given how little his campaign did to reach out to new voters. I heard many comments along the lines of, “Finishing second was a major victory.” I also thought Edwards would be blown out of the water in the unlikely event of turnout over 200,000.

Clinton’s problem was different. Her top supporters and staff realized early on that she was behind in Iowa and needed to change the equation. Consequently, her strategy did not rely so heavily on experienced caucus-goers. On the contrary, the Clinton campaign implemented some ingenious strategies for mobilizing first-timers, which worked fairly well.

A common refrain from shell-shocked Clinton volunteers I spoke to in the weeks after the caucuses was, “We thought we had enough.” If you had told me in advance that Hillary would end up with more than 70,000 people in her corner, I would also have expected her to win. The achievement is even more impressive given that Clinton did far worse than Obama and Edwards in terms of second choices. If the Iowa Democratic Party did not have a 15 percent threshold rule, forcing supporters of minor candidates to realign, Hillary probably would have finished ahead of Edwards and not very far behind Obama.

Why did Clinton’s new-voter strategy fall short? A few volunteers I spoke with felt the campaign had focused too much on the demographic groups that strongly supported Hillary: voters over 50, especially women. One person from a different part of the state told me she had suggested some outreach ideas for young professionals, only to be told by staff that “Our people are older.”

The failure to appreciate Obama’s potential to expand the electorate led to another major error: both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns were too quick to write off Obama’s chances in Iowa.

In June and July 2007, all three campaigns conducted statewide canvassing. The door-knockers for Clinton and Edwards were mostly working from a list of previous caucus-goers, perhaps including some primary voters too. If I heard it once, I heard it twenty times, from Clinton volunteers as well as fellow Edwards supporters: Obama was way behind, especially once you got outside major cities. My field organizer told me in July that Clinton was Edwards’ only competition in Iowa: “We know it, they know it, and the Obama people know it.”

Staff from other campaigns knew that Obama field organizers and volunteers were canvassing lots of people who had never attended a caucus, as well as people who had never been registered Democrats. But again, experienced hands assumed that relying on new voters was never going to be a winning strategy for the Iowa caucuses.

Some Clinton volunteers were frustrated that Hillary did not spend much time in Iowa during the summer of 2007, aside from a swing through the state with her husband in early July. Later, some interpreted this to mean that Hillary was never serious about winning Iowa. I was not privy to high-level discussions within the Clinton campaign, but my hunch is that they simply weren’t worried about Obama and figured losing to Edwards wouldn’t be a big problem, if it came to that. In any event, Clinton moved into the lead in some Iowa polls during the summer.

The Clinton and Edwards campaigns also had poor outreach to key Democratic-leaning interest groups, with the exception of organized labor. I am involved with many environmental non-profits and am acquainted with lots of people from other progressive advocacy organizations. Time and again, Obama’s field organizers would be the only campaign staff represented at events hosted by these groups.

A friend and fellow Edwards precinct captain continually complained that Obama had much better outreach to the peace community. Staffers reassured her, “We have Ed Fallon.” Fallon has great connections among Iowa peaceniks going back to the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, but his endorsement of Edwards wasn’t going to single-handedly bring all those people along.

Representatives of progressive advocacy groups found it easy to meet with Obama’s senior staff in Iowa. The campaign seemed receptive to their input about policy. When the same people tried to meet with the Clinton campaign, they sometimes had their scheduled meetings postponed at the last minute, or they would show up and end up meeting with junior staffers because the senior staff had more important business at hand. Some of the Clinton staff who had not worked in Iowa before came across as condescending. One sustainable farming activist told me that the Clinton staff from the east coast “would look at you like you had sh*t on your shoes.”

Because the Clinton and Edwards campaigns were slow to realize Obama was a threat in Iowa, they gave their volunteers virtually no talking points to use with voters considering Obama. So, the week after the caucuses I talked with a politically active member of the LGBT community in Des Moines who had never heard of the Donnie McClurkin fiasco. Some board members of an environmental non-profit caucused for Obama, not knowing that he was open to expanding nuclear power and had voted for George Bush’s energy bill in 2005. Some people in the peace community were unaware that Obama had voted for Iraq War supplemental funding bills with no strings attached.

Whatever your pet issue was, the Obama campaign probably had a staffer working to show you he would do something you liked. The Clinton and Edwards campaigns had less personal contact with activists and gave their staff and volunteers little specific guidance on how to persuade voters that Clinton or Edwards was better than Obama on this or that issue.

Obama’s large paid campaign staff presumably made it easier to reach out to interest groups. I know I wasn’t the only volunteer who encouraged the Edwards campaign to send staff to certain events being hosted by non-profit groups. Unfortunately, the field organizers had so many other required tasks that taking a few hours to attend one of these events was usually not feasible.

I learned months later that the Edwards field organizers spent untold hours searching for supporters who fit into certain categories: doctors for Edwards, veterans for Edwards, rural firefighters for Edwards, hog farmers for Edwards. Unfortunately, those lists seem to have been compiled solely for the purpose of sending out a press release and generating some favorable media coverage and material for the campaign website.

Outreach on college campuses was not very strong either. Granted, Clinton or Edwards were never going to win among college students, because Obama’s branding as the young voters’ choice was phenomenally successful. Still, the other candidates could have done more to keep Obama’s margins down with this demographic. One Edwards field organizer in a different part of the state told me his office mostly ignored the local community college campus, on the assumption that Edwards wasn’t the youth candidate and none of those kids would show up on caucus night anyway.

The Clinton campaign disastrously suggested that Obama was trying to “manipulate” the process by encouraging out-of-state students to come back to campus on January 3. Clinton ended up not even reaching the 15 percent viability threshold in a number of college-town precincts.

The Clinton and Edwards campaigns also were out-hustled when it came to recruiting opinion leaders.

Nothing illustrates the Obama campaign’s determined pursuit of prominent Iowa Democrats better than this passage in a New Yorker article by Ryan Lizza:

Obama, who had sometimes seemed to eschew the details of campaigning which Clinton appears to revel in, has become more enmeshed in the state’s idiosyncratic politics. Consider the conquest of Gordon Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Every campaign wanted Fischer’s endorsement, but the Obama campaign pursued him relentlessly. At a recent lunch at the Des Moines Embassy Club, a restaurant on the forty-first floor of the tallest building in the state, Fischer explained how Obama’s Iowa operatives used his closest friends to persuade him to back Obama. One, Lola Velázquez-Aguilú, managed to decorate part of Fischer’s house with photographs of Obama that featured thought bubbles asking for Fischer’s endorsement. (“Has anyone told you how great you look today?” an image of Obama taped to a mirror said. “So, are you ready to sign a supporter card?”) When Obama staffers learned that the late Illinois senator Paul Simon was a hero of Fischer’s, they asked Simon’s son-in-law, Perry Knop, to call Fischer and make the case for Obama. At one point, Obama himself invited Fischer onto his campaign bus and told him that he had to stay aboard until he agreed to an endorsement. When Fischer insisted that he had to make the decision with his wife, Monica, Obama demanded Monica’s cell-phone number, and he called her at once. “Monica, this is Barack Obama,” he said when her voice mail came on. “I’m with your husband here, and I’m trying to go ahead and close the deal for him to support my candidacy. . . . Discuss it over with your man. Hopefully we can have you on board.” The Fischers were sufficiently impressed to endorse him, two weeks later. “I think the Iowa campaign has been run better than the national campaign,” Fischer said.

When I showed that paragraph to my husband a year ago, his first reaction was that Fischer had inadvertently made a really strong argument for scrapping the Iowa caucuses. No doubt many of you are nodding your heads.

The Obama campaign just worked harder to win over those who could influence others, and not only well-known people like Fischer, state legislators, city and county officials. Iowa blogger John Deeth posted this remarkable anecdote the day before the caucuses:

After the Clinton rally last night in Iowa City, a Clinton precinct captain sighed in frustration and, insisting on anonymity, shared this story.  The precinct captain’s friend, a school principal, had said he was trying to choose between Clinton and Barack Obama.  He was on his way into the rally when his cell phone rang.  It was Obama.

Not a campaign staffer, a volunteer, or a robo-call.  It was Barack Obama himself.

The personal request proved to be sufficient, as the principal pledged his support directly to the candidate, turned on his heels, and walked out of the Clinton event.

Now, we all know Iowans are spoiled, and I’ve heard some stories of Clinton calling individual Iowans, albeit Iowans of the elected official rank.  But the Clinton precinct captain told this tale as an example of frustration with the top-down organization of the Clinton campaign.  An Obama precinct captain was able to get the word up through the county and state structure that this principal, not a party activist but certainly a neighborhood leader who’d look really persuasive standing in the Obama corner at his precinct, could be persuaded by a few words from the candidate.

The Obama campaign also kept after some opinion leaders who had endorsed other candidates. A well-known surrogate for another candidate told me that people representing the Obama campaign were still calling as late as two weeks before caucus night, trying to get this person to switch sides. I assume similar lobbying was going on all over the state. Late conversions created good publicity, such as when a Lee County supervisor who had been a county chairman for Edwards endorsed Obama in November.

While the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had some common problems, each campaign also made some unique mistakes. Here are some complaints I heard from Hillary’s former volunteers, precinct captains or low-level staff.

As I’ve mentioned above, Clinton was perceived not to be spending enough time in Iowa during the summer and early fall. She didn’t hold many rallies outside the cities and opened most of her small-town field offices two months after Obama had offices up and running in the same communities. (Edwards also opened many of his field offices late in the game, but that was due to scarce resources, not strategy.)

Clinton’s campaign was less of a grassroots operation than Obama’s. Several people independently used the word “top-down” to describe it to me. Staff at smaller field offices had little flexibility when it came to outreach or publicity and often felt out of the loop. One person told me about the day when staff found out at 8 am that Bill Clinton was doing a rally in the town at 1 pm that day. They sent volunteers to hand out fliers at grocery store parking lots in the freezing cold, in a desperate attempt to build a crowd on such short notice.

The setup of the typical Clinton rally put a lot of distance between her and the voters. I assume the Secret Service had a lot to do with this practice, so I wouldn’t blame the Clinton staff. Nevertheless, it made Hillary seem remote to caucus-goers who were used to seeing the various candidates in person.

Compounding this problem, Clinton rarely took questions from the audience at her Iowa events. The cautious strategy made sense on one level; why risk making a gaffe when Clinton was so far ahead in so many other states? On the other hand, not answering questions from the public goes against Iowa’s “political culture.” When Clinton started to draw some negative attention for this habit, her staff planted questions at a Grinnell College event, leading to a devastating national media cycle or two.

Adding to the sense of remoteness at Clinton events, the candidate was almost always introduced by either former Governor Tom Vilsack or former First Lady Christie Vilsack. Some volunteers felt it would have helped to give a more prominent role to local officials or hometown state legislators at these venues, since they were personally acquainted with more of the audience members.

As for the Edwards campaign, I mentioned the most important problems above, but a couple of other glitches repeatedly frustrated volunteers.

The field organizers did an excellent job for the most part, but there was a disconnect between people who signed up online to volunteer and the field offices that could have used their help. This Edwards supporter from tiny Strawberry Point articulated the problem well:

I know just from other comments on DKos that I’m not the only one that experienced frustration due to inept organization and/or coordination between the national and local effort in the Edwards camp.  After filling out a ton of forms on the website I wasn’t contacted once over the phone and only had one email to show for my efforts about a week later.  I never got any details about canvassing nor did I even get directions to the phone banking site.  Contrast this to the Obama campaign touching base every few days through a LOCAL organizer inviting me to meetings, asking if I would caucus, etc.  Then on caucus night the Edwards campaign was the only one without a clear organization while Obama had a group of at least 4 20-somethings that were obviously well-trained by the campaign and had made the 1+ hour trek to a town of 1200 people in northeast Iowa  from Illinois.

Nothing irritated me more than the way Edwards ran excessively late to almost all of his campaign events. Even committed supporters didn’t appreciate it when the first introductory speaker wasn’t on stage nearly an hour after an event’s scheduled start time. A lot of undecided voters got fed up and left before hearing the candidate speak.

I remember other precinct captains bringing this up during conference calls with senior Edwards staff in Iowa. They were hearing complaints from friends and neighbors.

Why was Edwards so late all the time? If you compared the candidates’ public schedules, Edwards almost always had more events packed into each day. It was great for communicating with voters, but if a media availability in the morning ran late, he was behind all day. Edwards also fielded lots of questions from the audience, which generally made a good impression, but it made it hard to catch up once he fell behind.

Someone high up on the chain of command should have put a stop to the overscheduling. The Edwards campaign placed a lot of importance on holding events in all 99 Iowa counties. Retail politics in small towns is great, but as we saw, Obama was able to win Iowa without visiting all 99 counties. (I’m not even sure he hit 70 counties.)

Now, on to the fun part–the questions no one can answer. I look forward to reading your take on these in the comments, no matter which presidential candidate was your first choice.

WHAT IF…

What if Clinton or Edwards had done more to target first-time caucus-goers?

Many former Edwards supporters believe underestimating the potential turnout by 100,000 people fatally flawed his campaign. What if he’d realized early on that the voter universe would be much larger than in 2004? I suspect he would have done better on caucus night, but lack of money would have been a problem. Obama and Clinton in effect had unlimited funds to spend in Iowa, and Edwards would have had trouble matching their outreach to people who had never caucused before. That’s an enormous pool of voters.

Also, the Edwards core message (the system is rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington, and we need to fight to take that power away from them) was in my opinion much more appealing to the Democratic party faithful than to no-party voters or Democrats who hadn’t previously gotten involved in the caucuses.

As I wrote earlier, the Clinton campaign did a lot to identify and mobilize supporters who had never attended a caucus. Perhaps her staff could have reached out to voters under 50 a little better, but I think they were working this angle as hard as they could.

What if Clinton or Edwards had done more to target independents and Republicans?

All the candidates had some supporters who were registered Republicans and independents, but Obama unquestionably did the best among those groups.

I think Clinton’s potential to expand her support among Republicans and independents was limited. Lots of Republicans have practically an allergic reaction to the Clintons. Multiple polls indicated that Iowa’s independents didn’t like Hillary as much as they liked Obama. I can’t imagine that it would have been a wise use of her campaign’s resources to focus more on non-Democrats.

Edwards probably could have improved his showing with independents if his campaign had reached out to them more, but again, lack of resources was a problem. Going after Democrats who hadn’t caucused before would have spread his organization very thin, to say nothing of independents. Also, the Edwards rhetoric about fighting corporate power and supporting organized labor was tailored to the Democratic base. It was never likely to appeal much to independents or Republicans. Obama’s appeals to post-partisanship and empowering rhetoric (“we are the change we’ve been waiting for”) was much better suited to voters who were not partisan Democrats.

What if someone had gone negative on Obama before Iowa?

As Obama picked up momentum in the fall of 2007, no one was making any kind of case against him with Iowans. Conventional wisdom says you don’t go negative in a multiple-candidate environment, because the support candidate A drives away from candidate B is likely to flow toward candidate C. On the other hand, if you’re Hillary, losing Iowa to Edwards would not do nearly as much damage as losing to Obama. Should her campaign have done more to get negative information on Obama out there?

Interestingly, only one political insider told me Clinton’s biggest mistake was not going hard negative on Obama before the caucuses. This person didn’t work on any of the 2008 presidential campaigns but has extensive experience working on other campaigns. Most people I spoke with said going negative on Obama would only have backfired.

Howard Dean hit his high-water mark in Iowa about six weeks before the 2004 caucuses, but in that case the national media amplified and lent credibility to rival candidates’ attacks. In all likelihood the national media would have responded very differently to attacks on Obama. Clinton would have been called “desperate” and hypocritical.

Since Edwards had no path forward but to win Iowa, I can’t see how it would have helped him to go after Obama before the caucuses. The national media already disliked Edwards and would have ripped him to shreds. I remember people accusing the Edwards campaign of racism just for saying that Edwards would be the Democrats’ strongest general-election candidate.

As I wrote earlier, I do think both campaigns needed to get their volunteers more “talking points” about why Clinton or Edwards would be better than Obama on this or that issue. Those would have been useful during direct voter contacts like canvassing and house parties, not as part of either campaign’s message through the media.

What if Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments had been widely publicized before the Iowa caucuses?

When “God damn America” was all over television last March, I talked with a lot of Iowans about how that level of publicity for Wright might have affected the caucuses. I didn’t find any consensus. I believe that if the national media had wanted to bring down Obama the way they wanted to bring down Dean, they could have hurt him badly by making Reverend Wright a big story in November and December 2007. It wouldn’t have put off the Iowans who strongly supported Obama, but there were plenty of people who drifted toward Obama because they thought he was more electable than Clinton or Edwards. The Wright clips would have made those people think twice. Few Democrats actually care what Obama’s pastor said, but lots of Democrats worried about other voters being offended by these comments.

Many of my politically active acquaintances think Iowans wouldn’t have cared much about Reverend Wright, and Obama could have brushed it off as a personal attack or an attempt to distract from the important issues.

What if Clinton had apologized for her Iraq War vote?

I thought it was a mistake for Hillary not to follow Edwards’ example and apologize for voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. However, opposition to Clinton among Iowa Democrats was rooted in a lot more than her stand on Iraq. I don’t think she would have changed the equation by apologizing. Remember, John Kerry and John Edwards beat Howard Dean in the 2004 caucuses without expressing regret for their AUMF votes.

What if Clinton had skipped Iowa?

In May 2007, when early polling showed Hillary behind in Iowa and with high negatives, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager Mike Henry wrote a memo recommending that the campaign

pull completely out of Iowa and spend the money and Senator Clinton’s time on other states […] If she walks away from Iowa she will devalue Iowa – our consistently weakest state.

John McCain in effect pulled out of Iowa and was able to win the Republican nomination. What about Hillary?

I find this question particularly difficult to answer. If Hillary admitted that she could not win among Democrats in a swing state, how could she make the case that she could win across the country? During the summer of 2007, Clinton’s aura of inevitability was an asset to her, and admitting weakness in Iowa would have undercut that.

Some former Edwards staffers believe he might have beaten Obama if Hillary had not seriously contested Iowa. Both Clinton and Edwards did much better among voters over 60 than Obama. However, thousands of the people who caucused for Hillary would never have shown up on January 3 if her campaign had not been active in Iowa.

Among the Clinton supporters who would have caucused anyway, some would have preferred Edwards, but I don’t think he would have dominated this group–not enough to overtake Obama. A lot of older voters were attracted to Clinton’s experience and would have gone to Bill Richardson or Joe Biden as a second choice. Maybe those candidates would have been viable in a lot more precincts without a strong effort from Clinton.

If Edwards had realized early on that Obama, not Clinton, was his main competition in Iowa, his strategy might have changed significantly in unpredictable ways. But I still think his campaign would have underestimated Obama’s ability to turn out new voters.

What if Bill Clinton had campaigned more in Iowa?

Clinton surged in Iowa polls after her first major tour around the state with her husband in July. Should she have traveled with the former president more in Iowa, or should she have had him do more events in Iowa during the weeks that she was tied up in Washington on Senate business?

For what it’s worth, very few Clinton supporters I know believe her campaign should have used Bill Clinton more. A lot of people did support Hillary because they liked the idea of “two presidents for the price of one,” but she needed to demonstrate her own leadership potential. She couldn’t afford to be seen as running for her husband’s third term. Also, her campaign benefited from the strong desire of many to see a woman elected president, and giving Bill Clinton too prominent a role in the campaign would have undercut that message.

What if we’d never heard about Edwards’ $400 haircut?

Ask any former Edwards volunteer or staffer how many voters immediately brought up the $400 haircut the second you mentioned the candidate’s name. It was a nightmare that no amount of self-deprecating humor or clever YouTubes could end.

In November 2007 I attended a big rally in Des Moines. Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne played a few songs to get the crowd going, then Edwards gave a great stump speech. When he opened it up to Q and A, the second question from the audience was basically, “Why should I believe you’re authentic when I hear about things like the $400 haircut?”

What if Edwards had never gotten that haircut, or at least had not listed it on his FEC disclosure form?

I take a contrarian view on this question. Marc Ambinder famously admitted that when the haircut story broke at the end of the first quarter of 2007, it took off because “the press was trying to bury Edwards.” In the same piece, Ambinder observed, “fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn’t like John Edwards.”

If not the haircut, some other conspicuous consumption by Edwards would have been flogged to death by journalists seeking to “bury” the candidate. In fact, they already had all the ammunition they needed in Edwards’ huge North Carolina home.

I don’t know when the Edwards home was completed, but it first started making national news about two months before anyone heard of the haircut. A lot of politically-active Iowans were turned off. This is an excerpt from an e-mail I received in February 2007 from an acquaintance who has volunteered for various political and environmental causes in Iowa:

It would be very hard, if not impossible, for me to vote for him now.  I was hedging before (the alternative of Hillary was helping him more than anything), but that house is exactly the over-consumptive lifestyle that constitutes my #1 pet peeve.  He could  have built a 5000 sf home that was 100% energy and carbon neutral with that money and set a desperately needed example 🙁

Energy efficient or not, 6,000 sf per current resident is ridiculous.  It’s just plain symbolic of the worst habits of American wealth  🙁  For me, it’s not necessarily the fact that he built it now, but that he would consider building it EVER that I find most disappointing.

If you never liked Edwards, the big house confirmed your belief that he was just a rich phony talking a good game about helping the poor. But from my perspective, the house did more harm with the Iowans who liked Edwards. I have no data to back this up, but my impression was that early in 2007, the people who had caucused for Edwards in 2004 tended to lean toward supporting him again, while being open to hear what other candidates had to say. After the house story broke, and was reinforced by the $400 haircut, a significant number of those people started leaning toward finding a different candidate.

What if Edwards had raised more money?

Edwards raised a respectable amount of money in the first quarter of 2007, but he was well behind Obama and Clinton. The haircut story severely damaged his second-quarter fundraising, which compounded his problem getting journalists to take him seriously as a contender. Redeploying some staff from Nevada to Iowa was not enough to solve the campaign’s money problem. In September, Edwards reversed course and opted into the public financing system. Taking public financing was not a salient issue with many Iowa voters, as far as I could tell, but it was a huge deal to the journalists and bloggers who followed the campaign closely. I know that Obama volunteers were telling undecided voters that Edwards would never have enough money to beat Hillary or a Republican because of the spending limits that came with public financing.

What if Edwards had raised enough money to compete with the others without taking public matching funds? I asked quite a few former Edwards staffers whether they though lack of resources was a major problem. Of course everyone would have liked to have as many field offices as Obama, and there was enough work to keep a much larger paid campaign staff busy. However, the consensus seems to be that even if the Edwards campaign had had significantly more money to spend, the money would have gone toward targeting the same narrow voter universe, or running more advertising on airwaves that were already oversaturated. I tend to agree.

What if Edwards’ extramarital affair had been exposed during 2007?

Clinton’s former communications director, Howard Wolfson, made a big splash in August by suggesting that Edwards’ cover-up of his affair with Rielle Hunter cost Hillary the Iowa caucuses and therefore the Democratic nomination. I don’t think so.

If the affair had become public knowledge, the Edwards campaign would certainly have imploded. But having talked to hundreds of people who caucused for Edwards, I am convinced that more of them would have switched to Obama than Clinton. Probably Obama would have won Iowa by a larger margin.

A significant number of Edwards supporters didn’t like either of the front-runners, so maybe Biden, Richardson or Dodd would have been able to reach the 15 percent threshold in a lot more precincts. Clinton would still have been in second place.

(Note: for those who are wondering, yes, I was angry and disappointed upon learning about this affair.)

Thanks to everyone who made it to the end of this very long diary. I hope we can keep it civil in the comments.  

Iowa caucus memories open thread

A year ago tonight, nearly 240,000 Iowans spent a couple of hours in overcrowded rooms during the Democratic precinct caucuses.

Thousands of others came to freezing cold Iowa to knock on doors or make phone calls for their presidential candidate in late December and early January.

Share any memories you have about caucusing or volunteering in this thread.

After the jump I re-posted my account of what happened at my own caucus. I was a precinct captain for Edwards.

As if I weren’t already feeling enough pressure, Jerome Armstrong, his friend Trei the videographer, Ben Smith of Politico, and a college buddy of John Edwards were all observers at my precinct caucus. Jerome gave the short version of the evening’s events here, and posted the multi-media recap here. (You can’t see me in any of the photos, but Mr. desmoinesdem is in one–I won’t say which!)

I got to my precinct a little after 6 pm. Quite a few voters had already signed in. I walked in the room and immediately saw a woman who had never caucused before sitting in the Hillary corner. I had failed to turn her out to the 2004 caucus despite multiple contacts. At that moment I thought it might be a big night for Hillary.

I saw the Richardson precinct captain setting up chairs and asked him about the reported deal to send support to Obama. (We have known each other since we both volunteered for Kerry four years ago.) At first he smiled and said he couldn’t reveal internal communications from the campaign, but then he confirmed that he had been instructed to steer voters to Obama if Richardson was not viable.

I saw the Biden precinct captain and asked him if he had been told to send support to Obama. He denied getting any instructions like that from the campaign.

I started checking Edwards supporters off my list as they came in the room. I had a list of about 50 firm supporters, plus a few dozen people we thought might be leaning our way. I was supposed to start making calls to supporters who were not there yet, but it was hard to find time, because so many Edwards supporters, including many I’d never met or spoken with, were coming to our area of the room.

I decided on the spur of the moment to focus on talking with the Biden, Dodd and Richardson supporters I recognized. I figured it was a safe bet that most of them had not heard any reports about a deal with Obama. Many of them had told me before the caucuses that Edwards was their second choice, and I wanted to get them to confirm that to me before they heard any instructions from their precinct captains.

One elderly woman apologized to me, because she’d signed a supporter card for Edwards earlier in the fall, and I’d given her a ride to an Edwards town hall meeting in November. In the last two weeks she decided to caucus for Biden, and she told me she almost didn’t show up because she was worried I’d be angry with her. I told her that of course I wasn’t angry, everyone has the right to change her mind, and Biden was a strong candidate. I asked her to keep us in mind if she needed to make a second choice, and she promised that she would be there for us.

So I shuttled back and forth between different groups, greeting new arrivals to the Edwards area and trying to touch base with people who were undecided last time I heard from them. I also handed out the bottled water I brought along, because it was getting stuffy in the room.

In theory, the caucus was to be called to order at 6:30, but so many people were still arriving that our temporary precinct chair waited until almost 7:00 to call us to order. The first items on the agenda were the election of a precinct secretary and permament precinct chair (this is basically a formality–the temporary chair is almost never challenged for this position). The precinct chair was backing Clinton, but the secretary was a rock-solid Edwards supporter.

A few minutes after 7:00, the last voters had been signed in, and they announced the total turnout for our precinct. Four years ago, we had a pretty good turnout of 175. I scoffed at the Des Moines Register poll’s prediction that 60 percent of caucus-goers would be first-timers. In that comment, I calculated that we’d need more than 300 people attending our caucus in order to have 60 percent of them be first-timers. Well, the joke was on me, because the turnout at our caucus this year was 293.

We had people in the Edwards and Clinton groups who had never caucused before, but there’s no question that the Obama corner had the largest number of first-timers. It was stunning. The chart I got from my field organizer, showing how many supporters we’d need for 1, 2, 3 or more delegates depending on how many people attended the caucus, didn’t even go past the 260s.

After the first division into preference groups, the totals were: Obama 86, Edwards 83, Clinton 63, Richardson 28, Biden 24, Dodd 9, uncommitted 2, and Kucinich 1. To be viable, candidates needed 44 supporters.

I asked people in the Edwards group to help me by approaching their own friends in other groups. At first the Richardson and Biden groups were not budging. They were trying to get people to come over from Clinton, using the logic that Clinton was way below the level needed for two delegates but could spare some supporters while remaining viable. However, the Clinton volunteers kept everyone in their corner.

Realizing they had no chance to get to the 44 people needed for viability, Richardson’s precinct captain told his group about the campaign’s strategy to go to Obama, adding that they could make up their own minds. I didn’t get an exact count, but I’m pretty sure Edwards got at least as many of the Richardson supporters, if not more. We also got a large number of the Biden supporters (including his precinct captain), part of the Dodd group, and the Kucinich supporter, who was planning to come over to us all along.

After the second division into preference groups, Edwards had 115, Obama had 104, and Clinton had 72. At first we thought we would get 3 delegates, with 2 for Obama and 1 for Clinton. However, the delegates are apportioned according to the following formula: number of supporters in group times number of delegates assigned by precinct (6), divided by total number of caucus-goers (293). That worked out to 2.35 for Edwards, 2.13 for Obama, and 1.47 for Clinton. We all got rounded down: 2 Edwards, 2 Obama, 1 Clinton.

But our precinct has to assign 6 county delegates. The precinct chair consulted the Democratic Party’s rule book while I looked over her shoulder. The precinct secretary re-did the math on her calculator as I watched. The book said that in our situation, the last delegate goes to the candidate with the decimal point closest to 0.5. Clinton was that little bit closer to 2 delegates than we were to 3 delegates.

It’s similar to what happened in my precinct in 1988. The delegates split 2-2-2 despite a fairly large difference in size between the largest and the smallest preference groups. That’s the caucus system for you.

In retrospect, the Edwards and Obama groups would have been better off helping Richardson to be viable. Then the delegates would have been split 2 Edwards, 2 Obama, 1 Clinton and 1 Richardson. But there was no way to know that, and during the realignment of course the Edwards and Obama groups were focused on attracting enough supporters to win that third delegate.

I sat down with a calculator the next day. To change the math in our favor, we needed 4 people from the Clinton group, 7 people from the Obama group or 10 people who didn’t show up to turn out and stand in the Edwards corner. I am still frustrated that I could not get Edwards that third delegate we were seeking. We exceeded the campaign’s “vote goal” for the precinct, but because of the overwhelming turnout, it wasn’t enough to win the precinct.

Every day I walk the dog by the homes of people who failed to show up last Thursday, despite telling me at some point that they supported Edwards. Several of those people either signed supporter cards or put up yard signs. Would it have helped to knock on those doors one more time, or call them again at the last minute? I was concentrating on people I considered to be less reliable voters.

Although the results in my precinct and in Iowa as a whole disappointed me, I did enjoy the caucus experience. The energy in a room packed with committed Democrats is amazing, and the competition was friendly and fair in my precinct (which, sadly, was not the case in some precincts). I don’t expect Iowa to start the presidential nominating process in the future, but I will continue to appreciate the friends and neighbors I met during my work as a precinct captain.

[NOTE from desmoinesdem, January 3, 2009: Now that Obama won the presidential election, Iowa has a much better chance of staying first in the nominating process.]

Year in review: Iowa politics in 2008

I do most of my writing at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland.

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

January 2008

The Iowa caucuses dominated the beginning of the year. In the ninth and final diary in my series on how the Iowa caucuses work, I responded to arguments in defense of what I consider flaws in caucus system.

I supported John Edwards and was impressed by some of Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics, but on the whole January 3 was obviously Barack Obama’s night.

Chris Woods posted some early analysis of the Iowa caucus results. Barack Obama won 41 counties, John Edwards won 29 counties, Hillary Clinton won 25 counties and four counties were ties.

I was frustrated by my failure to secure a third delegate for Edwards in my precinct.

Chris Woods lamented the Iowa mainstream media’s lack of interest in political blogs.

Iowa Republicans were already downbeat about their election prospects, having failed to recruit a credible candidate against U.S. Senator Tom Harkin. Republicans in the state legislature fell behind Iowa Democrats in fundraising.

I was hoping the legislature would put some balance in our state’s transportation planning, but the powers that be wanted to spend virtually all the new money on road-building.

Secretary of State Mike Mauro did us all a favor by proposing a bill to require paper ballots in every Iowa precinct.

I took a stab at explaining why Iowa has never elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress.

Yet another study confirmed that runoff from conventional farms in Iowa is a major contributor to the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Former Governor Tom Vilsack called for more action to combat global warming.

Noneed4thneed called for more leadership from Chet Culver on conserving energy and making Iowa the renewable energy capital.

A report by the American Wind Energy Association showed Iowa falling to fourth in wind power.

Environmental advocates arranged for world-class expert testimony before the Iowa Utilities Board against a proposal to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

Ed Fallon announced his candidacy for Congress, and I explained why I planned to support him against six-term incumbent Leonard Boswell in the third district primary.

I was a respondent in a long poll commissioned by Boswell’s campaign, which tested some of Fallon’s messages against the incumbent.

I called for fixing the problems with the Iowa caucuses and learned that the Nevada Democratic Party adopted slightly better caucus rules than ours. (Unfortunately, precinct chairs in Nevada were poorly-trained, and the caucuses were a fiasco in many precincts.)

I was disappointed when Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, even though I knew he had no chance of winning the nomination.

February 2008

What started out as a routine illness put me in the hospital for a week. Things might have taken a very bad turn if I had waited longer before seeing a doctor. I told the story here: My health insurance may have saved my life.

Noneed4thneed discussed the connection between anti-tax zealots and local roads that are in terrible condition.

Renewable Rich sounded the alarm about attempts by state legislators to define nuclear power as a form of renewable energy. Fortunately, that bill was not approved.

The Iowa Commission on the Status of Women supported a bill that would make it easier for working mothers to breastfeed. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it out of committee in the Iowa House.

Senator Tom Harkin stayed neutral in the Clinton-Obama contest and said the Democratic Party should eliminate superdelegates from the presidential nominating process.

I was already getting tired of safe incumbent Harkin’s repeated fundraising appeals, and there were dozens more to come before the year was over.

Democracy for America endorsed Ed Fallon in the third district Congressional primary.

Boswell was among 21 House Democrats who worked with Republicans to do George Bush’s bidding on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But he stepped up his constituent outreach by helping my suburb, Windsor Heights, secure a unique zip code.

Fourth district Congressional candidate Kurt Meyer started posting diaries occasionally at Bleeding Heartland.

Secretary of State Mauro ran into opposition from Chet Culver over his efforts to require that all voting machines use paper ballots. However, the governor soon got behind a plan to eliminate touchscreen voting machines.

I argued that a new law requiring all Iowa children to be tested for lead is worth the cost, not only because lead harms children. It seems that exposure to lead may diminish the functioning of the aging brain decades later.

Iowa joined California’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency “for its legal action which denied states’ rights to adopt vehicle emissions standards to regulate global warming emissions.”

Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy paid a fine to settle an ethics investigation.

Noneed4thneed alerted us to a corporate-funded advertising campaign targeting five first-term Iowa House Democrats. (Four of the five won re-election in November, but Art Staed lost by a heartbreaking 13 votes.)

I reflected on a year without Steve Gilliard, whose News Blog I used to read daily.

March 2008

Governor Culver rejected federal funds that had strings attached to require “abstinence only” sex education.

The Republican 501(c)4 group Iowa Future Fund ran untruthful ads against Culver without disclosing its donors, but Iowa law does not require political ads to be true.

In a party-line vote, the Iowa House rejected a Republican effort to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage up for debate.

Tom Harkin introduced the Complete Streets Act of 2008 in the Senate.

Congressman Steve King of the fifth district made his infamous comment about how terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if Obama were elected president.

The National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of top House targets did not include any of Iowa’s Democratic-held seats.

Ed Fallon came out against new coal-fired power plants proposed for Marshalltown and Waterloo, while Boswell declined to take a position on the issue.

Boswell used his franking privilege to send glossy campaign-style flyers to voters in the third district, and the Des Moines Register called him on it.

Boswell defended his vote for the bankruptcy bill, which was unpopular with many liberal Democrats.

Boswell also changed his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and touted his record on supporting the middle class.

A national LGBT rights group endorsed Fallon.

Boswell’s campaign sent out a mass e-mail saying Fallon is “no Democrat.”

I explained why I thought Fallon would be a more effective representative than Boswell.

Fourth district Congressional candidate William Meyers started posting diaries here and continued to do so throughout the primary campaign.

Noneed4thneed encouraged Bleeding Heartland readers to support first-term Democrats in the Iowa legislature who were targets of a corporate-funded advertising campaign.

A report from Families USA estimated how many Iowans die prematurely because they lack health insurance.

I wrote about the disparities in c-section rates in Iowa, depending on where a woman lives and in which hospital she births.

Speaking of babies, I gave some reasons to use cloth diapers.

April 2008

A Polk County judge ordered Secretary of State Mauro to stop providing voter information in languages other than English, proving that the English-only bill Governor Tom Vilsack signed in 2002 was more than symbolic.

Chet Culver signed the law banning touchscreen voting machines in Iowa.

Our state’s Republican representatives in the U.S. House, Steve King and Tom Latham, voted against a federal bill on verified voting.

After reviewing voter records, the Des Moines Register concluded that very few ineligible voters participated in the Iowa caucuses.

The U.S. House approved a “plain language” bill sponsored by Congressman Bruce Braley of the first district.

I discussed how much money in earmarks each member of Iowa’s Congressional delegation secured in 2007.

The Iowa legislature approved a major new transportation bill without putting additional funds into public transit or stipulating that road money be spent on fixing existing infrastructure.

I urged Culver to veto a bill seeking more study of the livestock odor problem instead of action, but he signed it.

The legislature also approved a ban on smoking in most public places, with a few exemptions, such as casino gambling rooms.

I suggested 10 ways for smokers to stop whining about the smoking ban.

Mrs panstreppon speculated about the political ambitions of Bruce Rastetter, a businessman and funder of the anti-Democratic 501(c)4 group Iowa Future Fund. The Iowa Future Fund had been running television ads attacking Chet Culver.

Mrs panstreppon also wrote about the new Republican 501(c)4 group Iowa Progress Project, which was created to replace the Iowa Future Fund.

The Des Moines Register razzed Culver for staying at Bill Knapp’s Florida condo without paying the full market rental rate.

I wrote a four-part series on the Boswell campaign’s efforts to question Fallon’s ethics and explored the differences between Fallon and Boswell on farm issues.

Progressive Kick created an entertaining website highlighting Boswell’s voting record in Congress.

Fallon blasted Boswell’s vote for the Military Commissions Act, which gave the president the authority to determine what interrogation techniques are “torture.”

Boswell’s campaign sent out positive direct-mail pieces on the economy, Iraq and health care. His campaign also sent two direct-mail pieces in one week highlighting Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. I transcribed them here and here.

Polk County voters rejected a plan to borrow money to build a new courthouse.

A sign that the housing bubble had well and truly burst: Iowa’s largest home-builder ceased operations and laid off its entire staff.

Mixed-use developments are good for people, business and the environment.

I weighed in on a local hot topic when Pizza Hut fired a Des Moines delivery driver who shot an alleged armed robber. (The restaurant chain does not allow drivers to carry guns.)

In honor of cesarean awareness month I wrote about how to avoid having an unnecessary surgical birth.

I advised readers to drink tap water, but not from plastic bottles and to avoid using baby bottles containing bisphenol-A.

On the last day of the month the Iowa Utilities Board approved an application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

May 2008

I was extremely disappointed that the Democrats on the Iowa Utilities Board voted to approve a new coal-fired power plant.

I weighed in on why Hillary Clinton lost Iowa and eventually the nomination.

An article by Joe Trippi got me speculating on whether John Edwards should have stayed in the presidential race longer.

Tom Harkin gave some reasons to be concerned about John McCain, and I added ten more reasons not to vote for the Republican nominee.

I discussed why John and Jackie Norris were important early Obama supporters in Iowa and pondered which presidential candidate had the best celebrity supporters.

The removal of Lurita Doan as head of the General Services Administration reminded me of one of Bruce Braley’s finest moments in Congress.

Governor Culver signed into law a bill that establishes a statewide 1-cent sales tax for school infrastructure.

Prevention First discussed the Healthy Families project’s successful attempt to persuade state legislators to increase funding for family planning.

Sadly, no prominent Iowa Democrat stood up for repealing Iowa’s English-only law.

I welcomed the prospect of a court challenge against the smoking ban exemption granted to casinos.

A Des Moines Register report on the Culver administration’s alleged horsetrading with lobbyists was troubling.

In the fourth district primary, Becky Greenwald introduced herself to Democrats as “the girl next door.”

As the third district Democratic primary race heated up, Fallon highlighted his early opposition to the war in Iraq and portrayed himself as “new energy for Iowa.” He also urged Boswell (a Clinton supporter) to endorse Obama for president.

Fallon and Boswell clashed over ethanol, and Fallon called for a moratorium on new confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Boswell refused all invitations to debate Fallon.

He highlighted Al Gore’s endorsement in direct mail and reminded voters that Fallon backed Nader.

Noneed4thneed argued that Boswell is not a loyal Democrat on the issues that matter most.

A 527 group bankrolled by a central Iowa developer accused Fallon of not protecting kids from sex offenders, not supporting ethanol producers, and not protecting kids from sex offenders (yes, there were two dishonest direct-mail pieces on Fallon’s vote against residency restrictions for sex offenders).

The Southeast Iowa Lutheran Synod showed real leadership on global warming.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production published damning reports on conventional livestock production in the U.S.

An editorial by James Howard Kunstler on “Driving Toward Disaster” inspired this post on how to reduce Americans’ vehicle-miles traveled by car.

In honor of asthma awareness month, I suggested 10 ways to combat asthma.

I paid tribute to my friend and fellow activist LaVon Griffieon on Mother’s Day.

I gave parents some ideas about good books to read to children.

June 2008

June 3 was primary day in Iowa. I wrote up Boswell’s final radio ad as well as his campaign’s pathetic attempt to portray Fallon as unconcerned about meth.

I received two push-polls targeting Iowa House district 59 candidate Jerry Sullivan.

On election day Becky Greenwald easily won the four-way primary in the fourth Congressional district, while Boswell easily defeated Fallon in the third district. Mariannette Miller-Meeks narrowly won the Republican primary in the second district. Christopher Reed barely edged out two Republican rivals for the chance to get crushed by Tom Harkin.

Although Boswell wiped out Fallon by 20 points, I still believe the primary challenge was worth the effort. (At least my suburb got its own zip code.)

I urged unsuccessful fourth district candidate William Meyers not to make the mistake of running for Congress as an independent.

After Republicans nominated Miller-Meeks and Democrats nominated Greenwald, I again discussed some reasons why Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress.

I was confident that the third district Congressional race would not be competitive in the general election.

Dubuque and the Quad Cities moved one step close to passenger rail, thanks to work by Bruce Braley on the House Transportation Committee.

Activists for organized labor in Iowa were still mad at Chet Culver two months after he vetoed a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights.

I started making the case for supporting fifth district Democratic candidate Rob Hubler against “Jackass Award” winner Steve King.

Meanwhile, King chastised Scott McClellan for revealing misconduct inside the Bush White House.

Bleeding Heartland readers weighed in on potential future leaders in the Iowa Democratic Party.

Chris Woods examined the relationship between climate change and the Iowa floods and offered his take on how Iowa should pay for flood recovery.

I advocated an investigation into why the Des Moines levee that failed was never fixed after the 1993 floods.

I was taken aback by some conservative bloggers’ views on flood relief and discussed our disagreements here and here.

Also in connection with the historic flooding, I urged readers not to use chlorine bleach to clean flood-damaged surfaces and not to use DEET-based mosquito repellents.

Noneed4thneed called attention to a report on how special interests spent big money to influence Iowa lawmakers.

The Iowa Values Fund seems not to have been good value for the taxpayers’ money.

I disagreed with Iowa Utilities Board members who argued that meeting future electricity needs will require more coal or nuclear power.

Less than three weeks after winning the primary, Leonard Boswell voted with House Republicans to approve the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Chris Woods explained what was wrong with the FISA “compromise.”

Iowa Voter informed us that Chuck Grassley misled a town hall meeting audience on FISA. I linked to a bunch of commentaries on Obama and the FISA bill.

Opponents of the public smoking ban annoyed me when they called the new law “Soviet”  or “fascist.” Anyway, fears about the smoking ban’s impact on business were unfounded.

The US Department of Agriculture in effect told honeybees to drop dead.

I learned from noneed4thneed that Marshalltown passed an ordinance to reduce the use of plastic bags.

After reading a diary by nyceve on how insurance companies punish women who have had cesarean births, I posted more advice for pregnant women seeking to reduce their risk of having a c-section.

I had some friendly advice for Obama volunteers on how to talk to non-supporters about Obama.

I posted my take on what any Democrat should do if you get push-polled or message-tested.

July 2008

News that the Obama campaign would be running the GOTV operation in Iowa made me worried about the potential effect on down-ticket Democrats. (Sadly, the election results validated several of my concerns.)

AlanF cross-posted this excellent piece on tips for volunteers who knock on doors for a political candidate.

I offered readers five reasons to get involved in state legislative races.

Senator Tom Harkin held an online voting contest to determine which Democratic statehouse candidates would receive contributions from his campaign fund.

Second district incumbent Dave Loebsack signed on to a letter urging Congress to address transportation issues in forthcoming legislation on climate change.

Relations between Senator Chuck Grassley and social conservatives in the Republican Party of Iowa had seen better days. Some of the tension stemmed from Grassley’s inquiry into the tax-exempt status of some television-based ministries.

Leonard Boswell spent two weeks in the hospital after having surgery.

Becky Greenwald criticized fourth district incumbent Tom Latham for his loyal Republican voting record on Iraq and other issues.

I argued that Greenwald had a real chance to beat Latham, but the incumbent’s money advantage would be her biggest obstacle.

Latham put up a statewide radio ad on the need for more off-shore oil drilling.

I contrasted Bruce Braley’s record of delivering for his constituents with Steve King’s.

King kept making offensive comments regularly and showed that he has no interest in genuine Congressional oversight.

SW Iowa Guy, a fifth district resident, gave us a window onto a conference call with King.

Joe Trippi signed on as a consultant to Rob Hubler’s campaign.

A particularly horrible Associated Press story on how “Pet owners prefer McCain over Obama” inspired this post on confounding variables in opinion polling.

I posted Four comments and a question on the bad blood between Culver and organized labor.

Markos Moulitsas bashed me on the front page of Daily Kos.

I shared some thoughts on a new advocacy group seeking to repeal Iowa’s public smoking ban.

Iowa environmental groups encouraged state regulators to make utilities do more on energy efficiency.

I went over some reasons to buy local.

One of my occasional posts on parenting laid out some reasons to “wear your baby”.

August 2008

The revelation of John Edwards’ affair stirred up conflicting feelings for me, as for many other former Edwards volunteers. I posted ten words I thought I would never write and a precinct captain’s reflections on the Edwards story.

Edwards’ political career may be over, but his presidential campaign’s slogan lived on.

After getting more fundraising appeals from Tom Harkin (whose Republican challenger had only a few hundred bucks in the bank), I advocated a Use it or Lose it campaign to encourage safe Democratic incumbents to give more money to Democratic campaign committees.

Jason Rosenbaum asked readers to contact their representatives in Congress on health care.

Former Republican Congressman Jim Leach endorsed Obama for president. Leach later addressed the Democratic National Convention and headlined numerous “Republicans for Obama” events.

I suggested five ways Bleeding Heartland readers could help Rob Hubler’s campaign against Steve King.

Giant chickens started showing up outside King’s campaign events after he refused to debate Hubler.

I felt a special legislative session to deal with flood relief was warranted, but it never happened.

The Cedar Rapids-based Rebuild and Grow organization offered its own flood recovery action plan.

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released a report on why property tax cuts are the wrong approach for flood relief.

Chuck Grassley made some shameful comments favorably contrasting flood victims in Iowa to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, conventional agriculture interests trumped environmental concerns on the state’s flood recovery panel.

I posted some thoughts on how to reform the Democratic presidential nominating process.

I was impressed after attending one of the Obama campaign’s outreach events for women.

I argued that Joe Biden would be a good surrogate for Obama.

A conservative baby-sitter helped introduce my five-year-old to the concept of political pluralism.

Comparing the presidential campaigns’ ground games, I became convinced that Obama’s small-town outreach would crush McCain’s.

I posted a few questions on factors that could skew polls of the Obama-McCain race.

Caught up in the excitement of the Democratic National Convention, I finally gave some money to Obama’s campaign.

I was immediately convinced that Sarah Palin would become McCain’s gift to Democrats and noted that not all evangelical conservatives were thrilled with her candidacy.

Chet Culver criticized labor practices at the Agriprocessors meat-packing plant in a newspaper editorial, and the company responded.

I discussed another failure of employer-based health insurance as Whirlpool “filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to cut the medical benefits of thousands of retired Maytag workers.”

A well-known political scientist at the University of Iowa took his own life while under criminal investigation for allegedly giving students higher grades in exchange for sexual favors.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa warned about a proposed Bush administration regulation that would restrict access to contraception. (The administration implemented that new rule in December.)

I was annoyed that my son’s public school encouraged parents to buy Tyson chicken products.

Marvin Pomerantz, one of the most influential Iowa Republicans in the last 40 years, passed away.

September 2008

As September began I was thankful Iowa’s first Congressional district was not competitive, freeing me of the responsibility to write most posts on the idiot who ran against Bruce Braley.

Obama started running radio ads on abortion in Iowa and several other states.

American007 posted this excellent summary of Sarah Palin’s record in Wasilla.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer headlined Tom Harkin’s Steak Fry, but Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge gave the most memorable speech of the day.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put IA-04 on the list of “emerging races” and declared IA-05 a “race to watch.”

EMILY’s List finally endorsed Becky Greenwald two days after I posted this piece wondering why they hadn’t done so already.

The following week Greenwald went up on tv with a biographical ad that depleted her campaign coffers while doing little to boost her support.

Tom Latham’s first television ad highlighted his big “achievement” on health care: co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee. Greenwald’s campaign exposed Latham’s real record on health care in a press release, but unfortunately lacked the cash to put up a response on television.

I saw Latham’s ad as proof that he expected a big Democratic wave and was positioning himself accordingly on traditionally “Democratic” issues.

Tom Harkin posted this diary on McCain’s “crusade against renewable fuels.”

There was plenty of hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when the U.S. House passed an energy bill designed to give Democrats cover on the offshore oil drilling issue.

I again encouraged readers to get involved in the Iowa statehouse races.

While the presidential election still looked like a tossup, I discussed what would happen if neither candidate received 270 electoral votes.

I made the case for voting early here and here.

Annoyed by the fundraising appeals I kept getting from safe Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell, I asked Bleeding Heartland readers to tell Boswell to give more to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I argued that Democrats can win and hold districts like Iowa’s fifth. (Unfortunately, Hubler was not among the Democratic challengers who won deep-red Congressional seats this year, most notably in Maryland’s first and Colorado’s fourth districts.)

As a Democratic wave election appeared more likely, I wondered which Democratic pickups would shock us the most. (As it turned out, the most surprising pickup was probably in Virginia’s fifth Congressional district. We also had surprisingly narrow losses in California’s fourth and 44th districts.)

I thought labor unions were right to focus their political spending on the Iowa statehouse races and withhold contributions to Chet Culver’s re-election campaign for now.

The Sierra Club created an online petition for Iowans urging energy providers to invest in clean sources for electricity generation, not coal.

Environmental groups called on utilities to do more to save energy.

Renewable Rich summarized a report showing how clean energy can create thousands of new jobs in Iowa.

I went over some ways to improve the Iowa caucus system.

A grassroots group in Cedar Rapids organized volunteers every weekend for flood recovery work.

An advocate for factory farms stepped down from the state Environmental Protection Commission.

Former John Deere employees filed a class-action lawsuit in Des Moines that underscored the failures of our employer-based health insurance system.

I called for ending Iowa’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to water quality.

I had a feeling that the Wall Street bailout was a terrible idea and “a trap that will enrich a bunch of people while doing little to help the overall economy.”

There was a highly contentious election for the Des Moines school board, followed by an ill-advised attempt to censure the black sheep of the board. I found the lack of oversight on the Des Moines School Board disturbing.

A newspaper article on an abstinence club at my old high school inspired this post on why even abstaining teens need comprehensive sex eduction.

I explained why Iowa native Justin Roberts is our family’s favorite children’s musician.

October 2008

All three Iowa Democrats in the U.S. House voted for the second version of the Wall Street bailout package, while Iowa’s two Republicans voted no. The bailout became a central issue in Tom Latham’s campaign advertising after Becky Greenwald unwisely said she would have voted for the revised bailout package. Senators Harkin and Grassley both voted for the bailout.

I offered some advice to disappointed party activists on What to do when you don’t care for your party’s nominee. Bleeding Heartland user lorih followed up by explaining why she started volunteering for Obama despite her deep disappointment that Clinton did not win the nomination.

I continued to speculate on factors that might affect the accuracy of polls on the presidential race.

The third quarter Federal Election Commission filings showed all the incumbents in Iowa’s Congressional delegation with big money leads over their challengers, foreshadowing the double-digit victories all the incumbents posted a few weeks later.

I kept urging our safe Democratic incumbents to “Use it or Lose it” by donating some of their excess campaign cash to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee or the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Although I considered the second district race uncompetitive, I covered some key issues and events in Dave Loebsack’s campaign against Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Again I examined the reasons underlying Iowa’s failure to elect a woman to Congress.

Bleeding Heartland supported the Obama campaign’s strong push for Iowa Democrats to vote early (including an early voting RV tour). As it turned out, strong early voting saved several Democratic statehouse incumbents.

Tom Latham debated Becky Greenwald twice on the radio during October; I analyzed the candidates’ performance in the debates here and here.

Latham ran tv ads pounding Greenwald on the bailout, while the Democrat (lacking money for tv) had to make do with web ads and press releases highlighting Latham’s record on various issues.

Not long after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee upgraded the races in IA-04 and IA-05, I urged Bleeding Heartland readers to get serious about expanding the field by supporting under-funded longshot Democratic Congressional challengers.

Steve King continued to embarrass himself and all Iowans.

Although the outcome wasn’t what I’d hoped for, I have no regrets about encouraging Democrats to back Rob Hubler’s campaign.

Speaking of longshots, little-known Republican Senate candidate Christopher Reed blew it in his only debate with Tom Harkin.

Harkin gave more cash to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. His campaign also launched a contest where Iowans could nominate county party organizations that deserved extra money for GOTV efforts. (Marion, Muscatine and Linn counties ended up winning.)

Mark Langgin urged Bleeding Heartland readers to support Democratic candidates for the Iowa House in light of a Republican focus on the House races.

The Republican 501(c)4 group American Future Fund exploited loopholes in rules governing political advocacy groups in order to run campaign advertising in targeted Iowa House districts.

The perils of leaving any Republican unopposed were exposed when news emerged that an incumbent Iowa senator with no Democratic challenger had previously been charged with a prostitution-related crime.

The Iowa Democratic Party kept producing videos on why McCain would be bad for Iowa.

I was puzzled by John McCain and Sarah Palin’s visits to Iowa late in the campaign, despite poll after poll showing Obama above 50 percent in Iowa, with a double-digit lead over McCain. In fact, a series of missteps by McCain got me wondering whether the Republicans should have nominated Mitt Romney.

The not-so-classy McCain used the Iowa floods in his campaign’s robocalls and direct-mail pieces.

Polk County Democratic activists gained national attention by holding a clothing drive for the DAV across the street from a Palin rally in Des Moines.

I went over some tips for phone bankers trying to recruit volunteers.

I supported a referendum on taking the word “idiot” out of the Iowa Constitution. (There was no organized opposition to that referendum, and it passed easily.)

For the first time in my life, the Des Moines Register endorsed the full slate of Iowa Democrats running for Congress. Ed Fallon urged his supporters to vote for Boswell in an e-mail that linked to the Register’s incredibly lukewarm endorsement of the incumbent.

Obama made one last stop in Des Moines shortly before election day.

Iowa Voter noted that the Brennan Center gave Iowa high marks for election readiness.

Jason Rosenbaum contributed this guest post on why health care reform matters. Rosenbaum was involved with the Health Care for America Now Coalition, which kept up the grassroots pressure on Senator Chuck Grassley to support universal health care.

I attended a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple who had gotten married in California a few months earlier.

November 2008

Obama won Iowa convincingly, but his 9-point margin was smaller than the 17-point lead he had in the final Des Moines Register poll of the campaign.

Democratic gains down-ticket were somewhat disappointing in Iowa, as in quite a few other states.

I looked at some reasons why Becky Greenwald lost to Tom Latham by more than 20 points in the fourth Congressional district.

It was weeks before recounts finally confirmed net Democratic gains of three seats in the Iowa House and two seats in the Iowa Senate.

Unsuccessful Congressional candidate Rob Hubler criticized the statewide GOTV effort in an e-mail to supporters. Hubler’s son lost an Iowa House race by only a few hundred votes in the Council Bluffs area.

I was particularly disappointed when Democrat Jerry Sullivan lost in my own district by fewer than 100 votes. He had been the target of negative advertising as well as last-minute robocalls and lit drops.

In the good news column, Democratic incumbent Eric Palmer won re-election in his House district despite Republican attempts to disenfranchise Grinnell College students who voted by absentee ballot.

Jackie Norris accepted an offer to become Michelle Obama’s chief of staff.

The presidential election results convinced Josh Goodman of Governing.com that Iowa is now the best bellwether state.

Likely future Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal reached out to social conservatives while visiting Iowa.

Meanwhile, the divided Republican Party of Iowa began work on turning the party’s electoral fortunes around by replacing its leaders in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate.

I suspect Democrats would benefit if Iowa Republicans take the advice of a leading social conservative.

Some Iowa Democrats grumble about Governor Culver, but I argued here that their discontent will not rise to the level of a primary challenge in 2010.

Bruce Braley played an active and visible role in Henry Waxman’s successful campaign to be named chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Stranded Wind sounded the alarm about the risk of famine in 2009.

A blogger’s struggle to pay medical bills inspired this post on the need for comprehensive health care reform. Our immoral and ineffective health care system was also the subject of this post.

I was surprised to learn that the Blog Gender Analyzer thinks I’m a man, a topic I explored further in this post at MyDD.

Wisconsin rejected an application to build a new coal-fired power plant, prompting the Iowa Environmental Council to call on Iowa policy-makers to follow the lead of “neighboring states to the west, north, and now east, which have concluded that clean energy makes more economic sense than coal.”

I owned up to a few things I got wrong and right during the long presidential campaign.

December 2008

Tom Vilsack’s nomination for Secretary of Agriculture was big news in Iowa. I covered the reaction to that appointment here and here.

The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Varnum v Brien, a same-sex marriage case. jpmassar walked us through some of the legal issues at hand, and I discussed the political implications of the court ruling expected sometime next year.

A week later I posted a recap and analysis of the Varnum v Brien hearing and reaction to it.

Deteriorating revenue projections prompted Governor Culver to impose two rounds of budget cuts. I discussed the merits of some approaches to balancing the budget here.

Culver’s announcement of $100 million in budget cuts the same day he had scheduled a $5,000 a head fundraiser inspired me to make the case for “clean elections” campaign financing.

Speaking of election reform, Sean Flaherty and I wrote about the importance of “verified voting.”

The Democratic leadership in the state legislature released the committee assignments for the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate.

I discussed Congressional Quarterly and Progressive Punch rankings for the members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation in 2008.

Bruce Braley announced plans to form a Populist Caucus and landed a spot on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I examined how the post-census reapportionment is likely to play out in the 2012 U.S. House races in Iowa.

Organic farming is carbon sequestration we can believe in.

There is no such thing as “clean coal.”

Bleeding Heartland user American007 won our election prediction contest.

I wondered whether it matters who ends up running the Republican Party in Iowa and nationwide.

Huckabee and Jindal appeal to social conservatives in Iowa

Skip this diary if you think it’s too early to start talking about the 2012 presidential campaign just because Barack Obama hasn’t been inaugurated yet.  

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, was back in the state this week in more ways than one. On Thursday he held book signings that attracted some 600 people in Cedar Rapids and an even larger crowd in a Des Moines suburb. According to the Des Moines Register, he “brushed off talk of a 2012 run” but

brought to Iowa a prescription for the national Republican Party, which he said has wandered from its founding principles.

“There is no such thing as fiscal conservativism without social conservativism,” Huckabee said. “We really should be governing by a moral code that we live by, which can be summed up in the phrase: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.”

Governing by that principle would lead to a more humane society, with lower crime and poverty rates, creating less demand on government spending, he said.

Huckabee was accompanied on Thursday by Bob Vander Plaats, who chaired his Iowa campaign for president. Vander Plaats has sought the Republican nomination for Iowa governor twice and is expected to run again in 2010. He recently came out swinging against calls for the Iowa GOP to move to the middle following its latest election losses. The Republican caucuses in the Iowa House and the Iowa Senate elected new leadership this month, and the state party will choose a new chairman in January. Vander Plaats is likely to be involved in a bruising battle against those who want the new chairman to reach out more to moderates.

Many Iowans who didn’t come to Huckabee’s book signings heard from him anyway this week, as he became the first politician to robocall Iowa voters since the November election. The calls ask a few questions in order to identify voters who oppose abortion rights, then ask them to donate to the National Right to Life Council. According to Iowa Independent, the call universe included some Democrats and no-party voters as well as registered Republicans. Raising money for an anti-abortion group both keeps Huckabee in front of voters and scores points with advocates who could be foot-soldiers during the next caucus campaign.

Meanwhile, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal made two stops in Iowa yesterday. Speaking in Cedar Rapids,

Jindal said America’s culture is one of the things that makes it great, but warned that its music, art and constant streams of media and communication have often moved in the wrong direction.

“There are things we can do as private citizens working together to strengthen our society,” he said. “Our focus does not need to be on fixing the (Republican) party,” he said. “Our focus needs to be on how to fix America.”

I’m really glad to hear he’s not worried about fixing the party that has record-high disapproval ratings, according to Gallup.

Later in the day, Jindal headlined a fundraiser in West Des Moines for the Iowa Family Policy Center. He said he wasn’t there to talk politics (as if what follows isn’t a politically advantageous message for that audience):

“It all starts with family and builds outward from there,” said the first-term Jindal, who was making his first visit to Iowa. “As a parent, I’m acutely aware of the overall coarsening of our culture in many ways.”

The governor said technology such as television and the Internet are conduits for corrupting children, which he also believes is an issue agreed upon across party lines.

“As governor, I can’t censor anything or take away anyone’s freedom of speech – nor do I want to if I could,” he said, “but I can still control what my kids watch, what they hear and what they read.”

The problem is that parents who want to control what their kids read often try to do so by limiting what other people’s kids can read. A couple near Des Moines

are fighting to restrict access to the children’s book “And Tango Makes Three” at East Elementary School in Ankeny. The book is the story of two male penguins who raise a chick together.

The Ankeny parents want it either removed or moved to the parents-only section, arguing that it promotes homosexuality and same-sex couples as normal and that children are too young to understand the subject.

Gay rights are sure to be an issue in the next Republican caucus campaign, especially if the Iowa Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality next year. The court will soon hear oral arguments in a gay marriage case.

For now, though, it’s enough for Jindal to speak generally about “family” and “culture” and raise his name recognition among the religious conservatives who have often crowned the winner in the Iowa caucuses.

What did you get wrong? What did you get right? (updated)

We’ve had ten days to decompress from the election. It’s time for a little self-promotion and self-criticism.

What did you predict accurately during the past campaign, and what did you get completely wrong?

The ground rules for this thread are as follows:

1. This is about your own forecasting skills. Do not post a comment solely to mock someone else’s idiocy.

2. You are not allowed to boast about something you got right without owning up to at least one thing you got wrong.

3. For maximum bragging rights, include a link to a comment or diary containing your accurate prediction. Links are not required, though.

I’ll get the ball rolling. Here are some of the more significant things I got wrong during the presidential campaign that just ended.

I thought that since John Edwards had been in the spotlight for years, the Republicans would probably not be able to spring an “October surprise” on us if he were the Democratic nominee. Oops.

In 2006 I thought Hillary’s strong poll numbers among Democrats were

inflated by the fact that she has a lot of name recognition. I think once the campaign begins, her numbers will sink like Lieberman’s did in 2003.

Then when her poll numbers held up in most states throughout 2007, I thought Hillary’s coalition would collapse if she lost a few early primaries. Um, not quite.

I thought Barack Obama would fail to be viable in a lot of Iowa precincts dominated by voters over age 50.

I thought Obama had zero chance of beating John McCain in Florida.

Here are a few things I got right:

I consistently predicted that Hillary would finish no better than third in the Iowa caucuses. For that I was sometimes ridiculed in MyDD comment threads during the summer and fall of 2007.

I knew right away that choosing Sarah Palin was McCain’s gift to Democrats on his own birthday, because it undercut his best argument against Obama: lack of experience.

I immediately sensed that letting the Obama campaign take over the GOTV effort in Iowa might lead to a convincing victory for Obama here without maximizing the gains for our down-ticket candidates. In fact, Iowa Democrats did lose a number of statehouse races we should have won last week.

By the way, if you are from Iowa or have Iowa connections, please consider helping the progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland analyze what went wrong and what went right for Democrats in some of the state House and Senate races.

UPDATE: I wasn’t thinking just in terms of election predictions. I meant more broadly, what were you right and wrong about during the course of the whole campaign? Such as, “I thought Obama was done after Nevada” or “I thought the long primary battle was going to destroy Obama’s chances” or “I thought once Reverend Wright emerged Hillary would win the nomination.”

A Look at the Post-Mortems

Overall, last night was a great night, in spite of a few blemishes. So far my predictions in the presidential and governor races are pretty close to the actual results, my Senate predictions may be depending on how the recount in Minnesota and the Georgia runoff go, and it looks like my House predictions may have been a tad optimistic. Once the dust completely settles, I will have a more detailed analysis of my predictions vs. the actual results. For the time being, enjoy my state-by-state analysis of the 2008 election below the flip.

Alabama – Everything here panned out according to my predictions, including the surprise Democratic upset in the 2nd district that I changed to a Dem win at the last minute.

Alaska – Seems like the polls in the Senate and House races underestimated the Palin effect on the convicted Stevens and the embattled Young. My opinion of Alaska has officially gone down. It’s a beautiful state, but they elect horrible politicians!

Arizona – Everything here panned out according to my predictions, including the presidency, though I had a slight hope of an Obama upset in the wake of recent polls showing only a few points between Obama and McCain, and in AZ-03, which I believe was McCain’s House seat in the 80s.

Arkansas – I am disappointed, though not very surprised, in the presidential results here, having McCain up by only high single digits in the final prediction when he ended up taking the state in a 20-point blowout. Arkansas, like most of the Upper South, is PUMA land. Though the state and the area are trending away from us, don’t be surprised to see Hillary win here if she runs again.

California – My home state was a VERY mixed bag last night. I will give a fuller analysis of the results later on, when the few million uncounted ballots are in, since a few Assembly races and a ballot measure are still undecided. The good news first, is that Obama won in a huge landslide by about as much as I predicted, though my gut feeling was that Obama’s numbers would be closer to Kerry’s, being the first Democrat (and second overall) winning over 60% of the vote since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936. We also had some wins in the ballot measures, passing 1A (High-Speed Rail w00t!) and 2 (more humane farm animal confinement), and beating back the odious 4 (Parental Notification III). Now for the bad news: disappointing results in the House races (though McNerney won, McClintock may become the new Congressman in CA-04), state legislature (a razor-thin battle in SD-19 and being ahead in only 3 of the 7 competitive Assembly races, one of the ones we’re behind in being a Dem-held seat), and especially on Proposition 8, which outlaws same-sex marriage.

Colorado – We had yet another great year here, finally knocking off culture warrior Marilyn Musgrave, taking the open Senate seat, and Obama winning! How many people were predicting Colorado to be this blue just six years ago? Not many, and those that did would probably have been laughed out of the room. Major kudos to Dean for choosing Denver for the convention!

Connecticut – Another great state for Dems, with Obama winning by more than 20 points, and finally completing the task of shutting out Republicans in every single House seat in New England with Chris Shays outta there!

Delaware – Just a few years ago, Delaware was seen as a possible Republican pick-off with Rudy and in the open governor’s race with a tepidly popular incumbent Democrat. Now, with the Biden effect and Markell’s huge landslide (ensuring that a Democrat will succeed Biden in the Senate), it is hard to believe that was the case. Taking the state House of Representatives was the feather in the hat.

District of Columbia – Though the result was beyond predictable, I was still amazed that Obama managed over 90% here.

Florida – I nearly passed out when Obama was declared the winner here. This is the first time in recent history that the polls were actually on par with the results. I was less surprised with the House results, however. Keller and Feeney went down as predicted, as did Tim Mahoney (and good riddance! An unusual time when I want to see a Democrat out of Congress), while the Cuban incumbents prevailed.

Georgia – Not long ago, I was expecting Georgia to only get redder across the board. Surprisingly, the vote went to McCain by only a few points, as well as the odious Chambliss in the Senate race (with a runoff possible if no one gets 50%). The two Democratic Congressmen, Marshall and Barrow, who were expected to be in serious trouble prevailed by much wider margins than even I expected. I guess for them 2010 (and then redistricting in 2012 if they survive then) will be the real test.

Hawaii – I was expecting the Islands of Aloha to be Obama’s widest margin, though I was still surprised at the 45% margin obliteration Obama handed McCain here.

Idaho – McCain won by a wide margin as expected, but his coattails could not save the repugnant Bill Sali, who was picked off by Walter Minnick in ID-01, who will be the first Democratic congressman from Idaho since 1992.

Illinois – The Land of Lincoln went to Obama by a huge margin as expected, though his coattails were not long enough to drag Dan Seals in IL-10 across the finish line. Halvorson and Foster did win in their districts, though. Now the next step is who Governor Blagojevich appoints to Obama’s Senate seat.

Indiana – Perhaps the biggest upset of all is Obama’s win in this state that has been strongly Republican since the party’s founding, only going Democratic in huge Democratic landslides. Downballot, however, everything else played out according to expectations, except for the “bloody 9th”, in which Baron Hill surprisingly smashed Mike Sodrel in their fourth consecutive matchup.

Iowa – Once one of the swingiest of swing states, going narrowly for Gore and then narrowly for Bush, Obama won this corn-heavy state very handily. Tom Harkin also scored his first ever landslide, while Latham won by a wider margin than expected.

Kansas – We still have a lot of work to do here, though Obama did close the gap considerably, as Nancy Boyda in KS-02 fell to moderate Republican State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins, the survivor of a bloody primary with ex-Representative Jim Ryun, who was much more conservative.

Kentucky – After Obama had secured the nomination, I initially expected Kentucky, like most other PUMA-heavy states, to be among his worst. However, Louisville probably helped him stay at Kerry-esque levels. The other competitive races went according to prediction, with Republican Senator Mitch McConnell holding on by single digits, Brett Guthrie holding the open KY-02, and Democrat John Yarmuth in KY-03 brushing off a rematch with the Republican he unseated, Anne Northup.

Louisiana – With many Democratic voters displaced by Hurricane Katrina, McCain improved upon Bush by a few points. Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu won her third term by a close margin, like her other two elections, though this time she will not go into a runoff. Corrupt Congressman Bill Jefferson is headed for another term in LA-02, which is based in New Orleans; the winner in the open LA-04 will be determined after a December runoff. Another major disappointment happened in LA-06, with black independent candidate Michael Jackson playing the role of spoiler and causing Democrat Don Cazayoux’s loss to Bill Cassidy.

Maine – Nothing special. Exactly as my formulas predicted, Obama and Republican Senator Susan Collins won in landslides.

Maryland – Probably the state that best fits Obama, he won by a very comfortable 20%+ margin on par with California’s as expected. The 1st congressional district on the Eastern Shore, open because the incumbent moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest was beaten in the primary, was up in the air for a few days after the election, was finally won by the Democrat, Frank Kratovil, who got Gilchrest’s endorsement.

Massachusetts – Uneventful. Landslides for Obama and all 10 representatives. Surprisingly, no Republican stepped up to challenge Niki Tsongas, who barely won a special election just a year ago.

Michigan – Once considered a possible Democratic loss, Michigan came out for Obama and Democrats big-time, with Obama and Senator Carl Levin winning in landslides, and Democrats knocking off two Republican congressmen, one of which beat a moderate Republican in the primary last time.

Minnesota – Like 2004 and 2006, this too was expected to be a great year for Democrats in Minnesota, but the results fell short of expectations. Obama improved upon Kerry, though not by much in the outstate areas. The Senate race between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken was expected to be the closest Senate race in the country, and still is as the result still has yet to be called and is going into a recount. On the House front, Democrats came disappointingly short in winning the Republican-held open seat in a moderate suburban Minneapolis district, and in unseating nutball Michele Bachmann in her not-as-conservative district.

Mississippi – Obama improved upon Kerry, but not by much, and the special Senate election ended up falling into Republican quasi-incumbent Roger Wicker’s hands despite a stronger-than-usual challenge from former governor Ronnie Musgrove, who’s campaign collapsed at the last minute. Good news, though, Democrat Travis Childers won reelection to a full House term.

Missouri – Once again, Missouri was a battleground state as everyone expected. If you are wondering which state in the US gave major victories to both parties, look no further than Missouri. Of the candidates this year, Obama was the worst Dem, though Missouri usually goes Democratic in bad economic times, while McCain was the best Repub and was expected to win until he chose Palin, so it is no surprise that polls towards the end were tied. McCain ended up winning by an extremely slim margin, making this presidential election the first since 1956 that Missouri did not vote for the winner. The two House districts that were expected to be close, the 6th and 9th, ended up staying in GOP hands, though the latter was closer than expected. In the statewide races, Democrats won them all except for the Lieutenant Governor, where moderate Republican Peter Kinder held on in another close race. Democrat Jay Nixon crushed Congressman Kenny Hulshof in the open governor’s race, overperforming traditional Democratic numbers in the heavily Republican southwestern corner of the state in the Ozark Mountains while underperforming in the north of the state due to Hulshof having represented part of that area in Congress. Democrats also took the open Treasurer and Attorney General offices, while Democrat Robin Carnahan won reelection as Secretary of State in a landslide.

Montana – Having gone Republican by over 20 points in the last two elections, Montana was one of the last states to call its presidential results, which stayed with McCain, but only by 3%. As expected, Democrats Brian Schweitzer and Max Baucus won reelection to the Governorship and Senate respectively in landslides.

Nebraska – For the first time ever, a state that splits its electoral votes did so, with Obama taking the 2nd congressional district, based in Omaha! Unfortunately, the House race did not follow a similar path. Though the margin presidentially was less than 2004, McCain still won comfortably, as did Republican Mike Johanns in the open Senate seat.

Nevada – What was once a strongly red state not that long ago, and is a neighbor to McCain’s own home state to boot, has gone for Obama by double-digits and turned away Republican Congressman John Porter for Democrat Dina Titus in a suburban Vegas House district.

New Hampshire – Nope, the Democratic tsunami from 2006 was not a fluke. Obama won by double digits, Governor John Lynch crushed another Republican, former Governor Jeanne Shaheen knocked off incumbent Republican Senator John Sununu, and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter rode the wave in with Obama, Lynch, and Shaheen.

New Jersey – Obama and Senator Frank Lautenberg won comfortably as expected, as did John Adler in the Democratic-leaning 3rd congressional district. Linda Stender fell further short in the marginal open 7th district than she did in 2006.

New Mexico – Another great state for Democrats, with them taking the state’s electoral votes, the open Senate seat, and both open Republican-held districts (including the conservative southern New Mexico district) by landslide margins. Thank you so much, Governor Richardson. THANK YOU!!! ¡Muchas, muchas, MUCHAS gracias, Señor Richardson!

New York – Everything played out here according to predictions, with Obama winning in a landslide and Democrats taking the 13th, 25th, and 29th districts while holding the 20th. The 26th was disappointing (but not surprising after the crazy primary), as was the 24th, where freshman Democrat Mike Arcuri won by a surprisingly small margin after winning by a wider margin just two years ago.

North Carolina – What an amazing turnaround for Democrats in this Upper South state that seemed to be slipping further out of our grasp! Obama was finally declared the winner Friday, Beverly Perdue held off a strong challenge from moderate Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory to hold the open governorship and become the first female governor in the state, and in a dramatic upset, Kay Hagan defeated Elizabeth Dole! Democratic success in the Tar Heel State did not stop here, though. The 8th congressional district, out in NASCAR country, turned away controversial incumbent Robin Hayes for populist Democrat Larry Kissell. Welcome to the Democratic Party, NASCAR Dads!

North Dakota – Though polls showed Obama within range here in this sugar/ethanol-heavy state, McCain ended up pulling off a win here. Also, according to predictions, Republican Governor John Hoeven won in a huge landslide.

Ohio – I was thrilled when the networks called Obama the winner here. No Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio. The margin did become uncomfortably small as the night wore on, but Obama held on in the end. On the House front, Democrats picked off Republican seats in OH-01 (Cincinnati) and OH-16 (next to the Cleveland area). Mean Jean Schmidt held on in the suburban Cincy-based 2nd district, and the Columbus-based 15th is still too close to call, though Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy is slightly behind.

Oklahoma – No surprises. McCain won big. Inhofe won big.

Oregon – After being a cliffhanger in the last two elections, Obama won big here, and his coattails probably helped Democrat Jeff Merkley edge out moderate Republican Senator Gordon Smith. Democrats also comfortably held the open 5th House district.

Pennsylvania – Once thought to be McCain’s best shot at picking off a Kerry state, Pennsylvania ended up giving the Democrats another great year. Obama won in a landslide, we picked off the 3rd district while giving Jason Altmire in the 4th, Paul Kanjorski in the 11th, and John Murtha in the 12th another term. We left Bob Roggio in the 6th for dead against incumbent Republican Jim Gerlach, and Gerlach only won with 52%. Seems our best chance to take out Gerlach will at the soonest be 2012, if we can redistrict him into more Democratic turf.

Rhode Island – Landslides for Democrats all across the board.

South Carolina – Turnout among blacks improved here, cutting McCain’s margin to half of Bush’s, but it wasn’t enough to drag Democratic candidates in the Senate race or the 1st or 2nd districts across the finish line.

South Dakota – Though McCain won the state, Obama improved Democratic numbers in the east of the state. Tim Johnson also won his first easy reelection to the Senate, and a less draconian abortion ban also went down.

Tennessee – Probably the heart of PUMA-land. Though Obama won strongly in Memphis and Nashville, which saved him from doing worse than Kerry, he got clobbered everywhere else in the state. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander also won in a huge landslide.

Texas – Without a native son on the ballot, Texas has shown its true numbers this year, with McCain and Cornyn both winning by margins in the lower teens. In the House races, the 22nd was a disappointing, but not surprising, defeat for Nick Lampson. We never expected Lampson to hold this seat long-term, and the true justice from the DeLay-mander overturn was in the 23rd, where Democrat Ciro Rodriguez, who was also a victim (though in the primary) won in a surprise upset in 2006 and held on this year. There was buzz on the 7th and 10th districts being competitive, but they ended up staying Republican in the end. A point of concern is the 17th district, where incumbent Democrat Chet Edwards held on by just 7 points, much less than expected and much less than his 2006 margin.

Utah – As expected, McCain won big here, though Obama picked up a couple of counties, a feat neither Gore nor Kerry were able to accomplish.

Vermont – Obama’s second-best state.

Virginia – Another state that was unfriendly Democratic turf just a little while ago, gave Democrats wins all across the board, handing Obama its electoral votes, handing ultra-popular former governor Mark Warner a landslide victory in the open Senate race, and handing two House seats, Virginia Beach-based VA-02 and NOVA-based VA-11, to the Democrats. A third House seat has the potential to flip as well, with VA-05 not yet called.

Washington – So far, Obama won handily, Democratic governor Christine Gregoire won a rematch against Dino Rossi, who she beat in an incredibly close nailbiter by only 133 votes and after recounts. In the 8th congressional district, Democrat Darcy Burner is ahead of Republican incumbent Dave Reichert by a tiny margin, and the outcome will likely not be decided for a while because of Washington’s vote-by-mail tradition.

West Virginia – Another PUMA state, West Virginia gave McCain a similar margin that it gave Bush in 2004, meaning the state trended dramatically Republican presidentially since the national margin shifted from a +2 Bush margin to +6 Obama margin. Some good for us, though, Democrats Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller landslid to another term in the governorship and Senate respectively. There was buzz in the 2nd House district about Democrat Anne Barth possibly taking down incumbent Republican Shelley Moore Capito, but that buzz ended up going nowhere.

Wisconsin – Hard to believe this state was the closest Democratic win just a mere four years ago. Now, the state has gone Democratic by double digits and gave incumbent Democratic congressman Steve Kagen another term.

Wyoming – This state was a minor disappointment. Wyoming was not expected to go as Republican as its neighbors Idaho and Utah, as well as Oklahoma, but results show it may be the most Republican state. The Senate races, one of which was up in a special election, went heavily Republican as expected, and Democrat Gary Trauner, who came within one point of unseating controversial Republican incumbent Congresswoman Barbara Cubin (who retired this year) fell further short against Republican former State Treasurer Cynthia Lummis.

So overall, my expectations of Democrats on the national level pretty much played out, with an occasional disappointment here and there. Back home in California, though, was mostly another story. My fuller analysis of elections there will come later on when all the votes are in.

Election Thoughts State by State

For the second consecutive election cycle, Democrats had much to celebrate. We won the largest Presidential election mandate in 20 years, we gained seats in the Senate even though we didn’t get to the filibuster-proof majority, and have won an additional 20 seats in the House, give or take a couple of close calls. Obama’s likely 364 electoral vote tally easily bested by prediction of 291, while my Senate seat pickup prediction of seven now looks optimistic, but my cautious prediction of 17 House seat pickups looks pretty close.

As for my two broader-themed predictions, it was a split decision. I had guessed that “moral values” would once again shock the world by emerging as the second-most important concern of voters going to the polls yesterday. It wasn’t even in the top four. On the other hand, I was laughed out of the room by numerous people when suggesting that Ralph Nader would overperform his 2004 numbers as a protest vote for alot of older Democrats who just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black man. But I was vindicated on that one as Nader exceeded 2004 margins in just about every state where he was on the ballot. As for the exit polls, they appeared to be even worse than those of 2004. Most of the close races showed huge Obama victories in the exit polls while even many red states looked to be breathtakingly close based on erroneous exit poll data.

State by state thoughts below the fold….

Alabama–In the Presidential race, I was kind of surprised this wasn’t worse. Alabama’s black population is below 30%, so I figured McCain’s margins would be epic, but he actually underperformed Bush four years ago. And winning Jefferson County (Birmingham) was a nice victory for Obama. I also can’t argue with the way the Congressional races turned out. I never would have thought Bobby Bright would be able to close this deal in his crimson red district, but he eked it out, while Parker Griffith hung onto a tough seat in AL-05 as well.

Alaska–Wow, what can you say about this place other than Palin, Stevens, Young and all their cohorts in crime at the ballot box deserve each other. While there’s a substantial absentee vote hanging out there that could yet unseat Ted Stevens, it seems pretty certain that Don Young will be back in Congress for two more years. Alaska is becoming another Florida, where any favorable poll needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Every poll showed Tony Knowles leading Lisa Murkowski in the 2004 Senate race yet Murkowski won by five points. Now there’s a very good chance a convicted felon may have overcome a 22-point poll deficit in eight days to keep a Senate seat that his own party’s leader said he was gonna boot from the caucus. What a surreal place!

Arizona–Close polls notwithstanding, McCain pulled ahead in the end as expected, yet still underperformed Bush’s 2004 numbers. The Congressional races went as predicted, with Democrats Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Giffords winning easily and Republican Shadegg holding on in AZ-03, a race I never thought would go our way.

Arkansas–Looking at last night’s Presidential numbers, I can say without hesitation that I’m more disappointed in Arkansas than any other state. The polls showed a double-digit edge for McCain, but never would I have expected a 20-point McCain romp and double-digit victories for McCain in most 2004 Kerry counties. Hard to assume this outcome was about anything other than race, even in a state where the racial polarization in political affiliation had traditionally been much less significant than in the rest of the South. Perhaps the Southern Republican realignment will soon consume its last remaining holdout of Arkansas now that the Democrats had the audacity to elect a black President.

California–It’s easy to dwell on the disappointment of the Prop 8 hate measure’s narrow passage, but Obama’s 23-point victory in the state that brought us Ronald Reagan is nothing short of incredible, and appears to be running up the score of the popular vote for Obama as the state’s final numbers come in. Obama came within four points of winning Orange County. That’s amazing. Less impressive were the Congressional race outcomes. While McNerney held on, neither Nick Leibham or Debbie Cook prevailed in their longshot races even though Obama was overperforming at the top of the ticket. It’s still too close to call in the Brown-McClintock race, but McClintock narrowly leads. I was always suspicious of the prospect of a Democrat winning a district this mercilessly red now matter how perfect the circumstances.

Colorado–An epic blue tidal wave sweeps Colorado. This state’s transformation has been one of the most rapid I’ve ever seen, and bodes well for Ken Salazar’s ability to hold his Senate seat two years from now in what will likely be a tough, defensive climate. Who would have thought back in 2002 that Colorado would be this blue only six years later? Obama won comfortably, Mark Udall won the Senate seat by even more and voters in CO-04 finally expired culture war bomb thrower Marilyn Musgrave by an incredibly lopsided margin.

Connecticut–Another good night for Democrats in Connecticut with Obama trouncing McCain by more than 20 points in the Presidential race and helping Democrats score a complete blue sweep of New England Congressional districts with the unseating of Chris Shays in CT-04. I’m assuming a heavy black turnout in Bridgeport is what did Shays in.

Delaware–A huge Biden bounce turns Delaware as blue as Massachusetts and New York in this year’s Presidential race. Still interesting that the state’s southernmost rural county went McCain though. Also nice to have elected a Democratic Governor in Delaware to fill Biden’s Senate seat.

Florida–For the first time in living memory, pre-election polls in Florida actually played out as expected with Obama winning a small but significant two-point victory. The margin of difference came from Tampa-St. Petersburg and especially Orlando, a region that has trended dramatically blue in the last 10 years (Bob Dole won Orange County in 2006), and a fast-growing Hispanic population is credited for improved Democratic margins in the Orlando area. I held out some hope to see a few heavily black rural counties in northern Florida go blue this year, but apparently whites voted more Republican and offset higher black turnout as occurred in much of the South. I can’t say I was disappointed with Florida’s Congressional races either as I never expected either of the Diaz-Balart voters to be unseated in South Florida. On the bright side, once again in Orlando, Democrats Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas unseated Republican incumbents. Predictably, slimeball Democrat Tim Mahoney was unseated (good riddance!). My only surprise was that Mahoney still managed to get 40% of the vote.

Georgia–Early numbers made the Presidential race look like an epic McCain blowout, but Obama closed the gap to nearly five points as the late returns rolled in. That’s pretty impressive considering Bush won this state by 16 points four years ago. And the last I saw, Saxby Chambliss was just below 50% in the Senate race and thus looking at a runoff next month. I don’t give Jim Martin very good odds of toppling Chambliss in that setting, but it was nonetheless an impressive feat in a state Democrats had completely written off several years ago. Both of the Democratic House members rumored to be endangered (Jim Marshall and David Scott) held on easily, in Marshall’s case much easier than I had expected.

Hawaii–Hard to believe this was a battleground state four years ago. In 2008, it was Obama’s best state in the nation, giving him more than 70% of the vote. He had a certain homefield advantage here, but the margin was still impressive.

Idaho–As election nights go for Democrats in Idaho, this can only be described as an incredibly successful won. Obama inched his way up to 36% in the Presidential race, while noxious Republican dunderhead Bill Sali was narrowly unseated by Democrat Walt Minnick in ID-01, a race I doubted would turn. Now Minnick is the proud owner of the most Republican Congressional district in the country represented by a Democrat.

Illinois–Naturally, Obama kicked butt in his home state and won by about 25 points, but didn’t have the coattails to drag along Dan Seals in IL-10 as I predicted (in contrast to Minnick, I expect IL-10 is now the bluest district in the nation represented by a Republican). On the bright side, Debbie Halvorson easily picked up the IL-11 open seat for the Dems and Dem Bill Foster easily held on in IL-14, Denny Hastert’s old district.

Indiana–I always thought Obama was wise to put forth such an effort in Indiana for the benefit of future Democrats, but never entertained the idea that he would win the state outright until I started seeing those early returns roll in last night, with McCain barely managing a lead before even the first returns from Indianapolis, Bloomington, or Lake County rolled in. Now, Indiana is a blue state, swinging an incredible 22 points towards Democrats since the last Presidential election. In the House, I never expected Mark Souder to be unseated in his hard-red district, but was pleased to see Baron Hill finally driving a stake through the heart of Mike Sodrel in IN-09 with his double-digit landslide.

Iowa–Another deeply blue year for my current state of residence with a solid nine-point Obama victory that cut well into the Norman Rockwell farm country of western Iowa. Tom Harkin had his first true landslide in the Senate race, laying waste to a clueless fourth-rate GOP challenger and winning 94 of 99 Iowa counties. I was originally bullish about Becky Greenwald in IA-04, but could feel the oxygen getting sucked out of her campaign in the closing weeks as Latham badly outspent her. I was nonetheless shocked at the 21-point thumping Greenwald got, underperforming Latham’s invisible Democratic challenger Shelden Spencer in 2006. Iowa’s other House Democrats all won double digit victories, with Leonard Boswell once again underperforming everybody else on the ballot. The comically awful western Iowa Republican Steve King prevailed for a fourth term as predicted.

Kansas–Obama did narrow traditional Republican margins in Kansas a bit, but still lost by 15 points. I predicted Nancy Boyda would have a hard time hanging on in KS-02 and was unfortunately proven correct as she lost by a significant five points. Kansas continues to be a very long-term project.

Kentucky–Louisville almost by itself saved Obama from badly underperforming Kerry in Kentucky. I was skeptical that Obama could prevail in east Kentucky, even in counties like Floyd and Knott where Kerry got more than 60% of the vote, and was unfortunately proven correct. One wonders if McCain’s ninth-inning cheap shot about coal further suppressed Obama’s numbers in Appalachain coal country. Nonetheless, it was heartening to see four east Kentucky counties go Obama, along with Fayette County (Lexington) and a couple unexpected rural counties across the Ohio River from Indiana. The Senate race played out as expected with McConnell prevailing by a small but significant margin, while Yarmuth predictably hung on in KY-03 and Brett Guthrie predictably kept the KY-02 open seat in GOP hands.

Louisiana–Unlike Arkansas, I expected a 20-point McCain blowout in Louisiana. I was really starting to get worried about Mary Landrieu by about 10 p.m. last night as she clung to a few thousand vote lead, but she didn’t better than expected in Jefferson County (suburban New Orleans) and went on to win convincingly. In the House, I thought those polls showing huge leads for Don Cazayoux in LA-06 seemed to good to be true given that he would assuredly be hemorrhaging black support to Independent candidate Jackson. Cazayoux lost by eight points, and of course Jackson was the difference. The open seat for LA-04 won’t be settled until a December runoff, but I think it’s probably an uphill fight for Democrat Paul Carmouche.

Maine–Polarized double-digit blowouts for Obama in the Presidential race and Republican Senator Susan Collins, both predicted even though Collins’ margin was even larger than expected. Not much to report here.

Maryland–This is a demographically perfect state for Obama, and he delivered with a 23-point victory. The complicated MD-01 open seat race is still officially undecided, but Democrat Frank Kratovil holds a 1,000-vote lead in this uber-Republican district where he most certainly didn’t get much in the way of coattails from Obama.

Massachusetts–Not much to see here. Obama won by about 25 points and all the state’s all Democratic Congressional delegation held on once again.

Michigan–Hard to imagine just a month ago that Michigan was deemed likely to be one of the nation’s biggest Presidential battlegrounds. It’s definitely clear why McCain chose to pull out of the state, having lost it to Obama in a geographically widespread 16-point landslide, particularly impressive given the generations-old racial polarization in metropolitan Detroit. And even though the GOP drew up a Congressional map in 2001 that seemed like a nearly impenetrable firewall, the Democrats managed to crack it by unseating two Republican incumbents in MI-07 and MI-09, the latter of which ended up being a landslide defeat for long-time suburban Detroit incumbent Joe Knollenberg.

Minnesota–My home state certainly delivered for Obama last night, but nonetheless disappointed on several fronts. I was struck that Obama’s growth in outstate Minnesota was much less than the growth seen in its neighboring states. Most disappointing is that the asshats of the Minnesota Independence Party carried on their now decadelong tradition of inadvertantly electing Republicans. This year, it’s very likely that the IP cost the Democrats no fewer than three races. Al Franken is only 500 votes behind Norm Coleman in the fiercely contested battleground Senate race and could still conceivably emerge victorious in a recount, but it’s odds-against….and it’s abundantly clear that Independent Dean Barkley got more would-be Franken votes than Coleman. There’s no guarantee that Ashwin Madia would have won the MN-03 open seat if not for David Dillon, but the race would certainly have been closer. And the most disappointing result of the night was the re-election of one of Congress’ worst members, the execrable Michelle Bachmann in MN-06, made possible by a crackpot IP candidate who scored 10% of the vote that probably would have gone to Democrat El Tinklenberg. All things considered, it was a disappointing night in Minnesota.

Mississippi–Despite a robust African-American turnout, the needle didn’t move much in Democrats’ direction in racially polarized Mississippi. Obama bested Kerry’s performance by about five points, but Senate candidate Ronnie Musgrove was still handed a 10-point defeat at the hands of quasi-incumbent Republican Roger Wicker. I didn’t figure Wicker would win this race, but I figured it would be closer than this. On the bright side, Travis Childers won another double-digit victory in the very conservative MS-o1 race.

Missouri–The only thing worth celebrating in Missouri was a landslide election of a new Democratic Governor. It appears as though John McCain will prevail by about 6,000 votes in the Presidential race, verifying that Missouri is now more Republican than the country (who would have though 20 years ago that Indiana would be a blue state and Missouri a red state?). As I expected, both of the longshot House races went to the Republicans, narrowly in the case of Blaine Luetkemeyer for the MO-09 open seat, but in a crushing landslide in M0-06.

Montana–I’m fairly impressed that Obama managed to make Montana a three-point race. Polls early and late in the election cycle suggested it was possible, but only a month ago it looked like another GOP landslide in the works.

Nebraska–While Obama narrowed the gap by a good 10 points in the Presidential race, McCain still prevailed by a substantial 16-point margin and brought Republican Congressional candidates along for the ride. Scott Kleeb, one of the Democrats’ most impressive candidates, fell woefully short to Mike Johanns in the open Senate race while Lee Terry held on in his Omaha-based House district. Nebraska stays red.

Nevada–Pretty much everybody expected Obama would win Nevada, but could anybody have foreseen Nevada would end up bluer than Minnesota or Iowa? If this trend continues, it spells huge trouble for Republicans in a state that was a nearly uncontested GOP stronghold only 20 years ago. Republican Dean Heller hung on as predicted in his upstate NV-02 race, but Democrat Dina Titus took out incumbent GOPer John Porter in the suburban Vegas district.

New Hampshire–The blue tidal wave that crashed upon New Hampshire in 2006 was no fluke, with Obama scoring a huge double-digit win, taking along Democratic Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen and endangered incumbent Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter along for the ride with their own impressive victories.

New Jersey–Not much surprising in the Presidential and Senate races, with Obama and Lautenberg winning by fairly predictable double-digit margins. In the two battleground open seats in the House, it was a split decision, with Democrat John Adler narrowly taking the Republican-held NJ-03, but Republican Leonard Lance trouncing his seemingly strong Democratic challenger in the NJ-07 race.

New Mexico–Another state where Republicans were positively overwhelmed by a dramatic Democratic tide. Four years after George Bush eked out a win here, Barack Obama went on to win by 15 points this year. And if that wasn’t enough, the state’s Congressional delegation went from 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats to 5 Democrats and zero Republicans overnight, with double-digit Democratic victories in all three contested races. Of all 50 states, the Dems probably had their best night last evening in New Mexico.

New York–As expected, a 25-point Barack Obama blowout, but the real story is the near-invisibility of the Republican Party in virtually every corner of New York. Republicans started out last evening with six members of Congressional delegation that has now been reduced to three, with two open seats in Staten Island and Syracuse swinging to the Democrat and Eric Massa toppling an incumbent Republican in the state’s reddest district. The Dems did fail to get the red-leaning NY-26 open seat after a primary that turned into a comedy of errors and freshman Democrat Mike Arcuri had a scare in his race, ekeing out a 51-49 victory in a race not expected to be close.

North Carolina–A huge Democratic year in a state that seemed to be trending hopelessly Republican just four years ago, with a dramatic defeat for incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole, an apparent narrow victory for Obama in the Presidential race, and a Democratic gubernatorial victory that was no sure thing heading into election day. And the icing on the cake was Larry Kissell’s double-digit thumping of Robin Hayes in NC-08, a race the Dems should have gotten in 2006.

North Dakota–As I said at the outset, the exit poll data was horrendous again this year. At the time of poll closing, McCain appeared poised for a 15-point blowout in North Dakota while South Dakota looked to be breathtakingly close. In the end, both states had nearly identical margins with nine-point victories for McCain. I never really expected Obama to win here, but shrinking GOP margins from 27 points to 9 is impressive nonetheless, as well as Democratic victories in Fargo and Grand Forks, which even Bill Clinton failed to pull off. Now my top priority is making sure one of my favorite Senators, Byron Dorgan, isn’t swept out of office in 2010 against potential GOP challenger John Hoeven, who was just re-elected to the Governor’s office in one of the evening’s most lopsided blowouts.

Ohio–I was heartened to see Ohio called as early as it was for Obama and early exit poll data showing a huge win, but became disappointed when I saw the returns roll in and saw that Obama’s margins were entirely the product of running up the score in the northern part of the state, yet did not move the needle much if at all in the state’s Appalachian region as I had hoped. Hard to imagine that a place as economically decimated as Steubenville, OH, could continue to lurch rightward (officially going from blue to red this year). Nonetheless, it was nice to see Obama winning Hamilton County (Cincinnati), a feat even Bill Clinton never pulled off. The Cincinnati-based OH-01 also went to a Democrat, as did the OH-16 open seat in the Canton area. Surprisingly, it looks as though Mary Jo Kilroy fell short once again in the Columbus-based OH-15. Gotta be hard for her to lose two consecutive races she was expected to win. Nonetheless, a decent night for Dems in Ohio, but just like 2006, I still felt the state could have and should have done better.

Oklahoma–My prediction was that Oklahoma would be McCain’s best state. I thought its competition would be Idaho and Utah, but it was actually Wyoming that ended up being this year’s reddest state. Still, a nearly 2-1 McCain blowout in this increasingly hopeless state which also handed one of America’s worst Senators, Jim Inhofe, a near 20-point re-election victory.

Oregon–The annoying vote-by-mail tradition of Oregon is once again lagging the process of knowing the results. Obama won in a landslide as predicted, but it’s still soon to call the hard-fought Senate race. Early reports suggested that the Portland vote was entirely in, which led me to believe incumbent Gordon Smith would hang on, but now it seems as though most of the remaining vote is in Portland, which means Democrat Jeff Merkley is probably poised for a come-from-behind victory. The Dems easily held onto the OR-05 open House seat as well.

Pennsylvania–A very strong Democratic year in Pennsylvania for the second election in a row with Obama pulling off the double-digit victory that was expected and the Dems winning all the battleground House races. John Murtha won comfortably despite his megagaffe, Paul Kanjorski surprisingly held on, along with Jason Altmire and Chris Carney. We even picked up a GOP-held seat in PA-03, while only narrowly losing PA-06, a blue district without a top-tier challenger to Jim Gerlach which is easily one of this year’s biggest recruiting failures for Dems. The only other disappointment was continuing to watch southwestern Pennsylvania slip away from Democrats, with McCain winning over the last remaining blue counties encircling Pittsburgh. Surprisingly, Obama managed to win back Cambria County (Johnstown) which went Bush in 2004.

Rhode Island–Not much to report here. Landslide victories for Obama and every other Democrat on the ballot.

South Carolina–The high black turnout was successful in cutting Bush’s 2004 margin in half to nine points, but even in this environment, Lindsey Graham won by nearly 20 points against a weak opponent and two Democratic House candidates failed to topple weak Republican incumbents. South Carolina continues to be very inhospitable terrain for Dems.

South Dakota–Despite very bullish early exit poll numbers, it was the pre-election polls that were right about South Dakota as McCain won by nine points. Nonetheless, some very impressive inroads for Obama in eastern South Dakota farm counties, as well as wins in population centers Brown County (Aberdeen) and Minnehaha County (Sioux Falls, which I certainly didn’t see coming). Tim Johnson scored his first non-nailbiter Senate victory, winning by a 25-point landslide and sweeping all but four South Dakota’s 66 counties. The double-digit defeat of South Dakota’s overreaching abortion ban was also an unexpected surprise.

Tennessee–A very ugly year in a state where ugly years are becoming a regular occurrence for Democrats. Obama’s margin was no better or worse than Kerry’s four years earlier, but only because of a very strong Obama performance in Memphis and Nashville. Elsewhere, all but one of the Yellow Dog Democrat counties of West Tennessee and Middle Tennessee went red and in most cases dramatically red. Put this state in with Oklahoma as states that have become virtual lost causes for Democrats for the foreseeable future.

Texas–Last night’s returns for both McCain and Cornyn give a more balanced assessment of where Democrats stand in the state since native son Bush wasn’t on the ballot. Both Obama and Noriega narrowed the margins to low double-digits, with dramatic improvement for Dems in heavily Hispanic counties and outright Obama victories in Dallas and Harris Counties (I would have never predicted the latter would turn this quickly). In Congressional races, Dems fell far short in the longshot TX-07 and TX-10 races, and we unfortunately lost Nick Lampson, who I was pulling for because he seems like a good man…and a good Congressman. And Chet Edwards’ soft seven-point margin against a fourth-rate opponent is a wake-up call that he’s never safe in that crimson red district.

Utah–Modest growth for Obama in America’s reddest state, yet still a near 30-point deficit. It was nice to see Obama was able to do what neither Gore or Kerry was able to do and turn two Utah counties blue.

Vermont–Second only to Hawaii for Obama’s margins, it’s hard to believe that Vermont was the most Republican state in America up until 1992.

Virginia–A great year for Democrats in one of our most unfriendly states in the last half century, with Obama winning comfortably, a landslide victory in an open Senate race, and at least two Congressional seat pickups, one in traditionally conservative Virginia Beach and one in northern Virginia. Most surprising is the still-undecided VA-05 race where Virgil Goode is currently leading by the slimmest of margins. Hopefully this Democratic momentum continues.

Washington–A huge Obama victory is thus far the only headline out of Washington this year. The vote-by-mail tradition will delay the call of another jarlid-tight House race between Burner and Reichert in WA-08, but if the vote count follows the same pattern as it did two years ago, Reichert is probably favored to hang on.

West Virginia–Another incredibly disappointing election for a state that used to be one of our most reliable. Again, the GOP’s demagoguery about coal was probably worth at least a couple of points to McCain in this state, but there was clearly more working against Obama here. As coal continues to become more controversial, it’s hard to see how this state remains in the Democratic fold at any level for much longer. The only bright spot was the state’s northeastern most county, bordering Northern Virginia, turning blue this year, suggesting that a marginal demographic shift in the panhandle could help decide a close race or two to the Democrats’ favor.

Wisconsin–I was shocked to look at the overwhelmingly blue Wisconsin county map last night, where Obama had taken more than 75% of Wisconsin’s counties and overperformed both Minnesota and Iowa. I’m not necessarily sure why Wisconsin is such friendly terrain for Obama, both in the primary and general election, but I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth and hope for continued Democratic strength in future election cycles. The only contested House race in WI-08 also went the Democrats’ way.

Wyoming–I expected better of Wyoming than last night. Polls suggested the race between Obama and McCain was only half as lopsided as the two most recent elections where native son Cheney was on the ballot, but Wyoming still emerged as McCain’s only 2-1 victory of the night while both Senate races were won in 3-1 Republican landslides and House candidate Gary Trauner, tied in the polls until last week, lost by 10 points. Looks like the GOP will continue to have one stronghold in the Rocky Mountain West.

All said, hard to imagine a much better night for Democrats than last, even though we came up short in a few places where we shouldn’t. And now, the Dems own the levers of political leadership. Getting them was the easy part. Governing well enough to keep them in the current state of financial and global crisis will definitely be the hard part.

United Democratic Party Money Bomb

From the about section of the ActBlue page I’ve created:

Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it’s time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.

And while we’re at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America’s international problems.

We’ve noted with glee that Obama is advertising in states like Alaska and Georgia and opening campaign offices in states like Indiana.  And this strategy of expanding the map and out-organizing McCain will yield results in down ballot-races as well.  An Obama get out the vote operation in Georgia helps Senate candidate Jim Martin.  Organizing in Alaska helps make the words “Senator Begich” or “Representative Berkowitz” possible.  

Let this unified party money bomb:

http://www.actblue.com/page/un…