Author: desmoinesdem

UPDATE: The DCCC  added IA-04 to the Red to Blue list on October 14 and moved IA-05 up from Races to Watch to Emerging Races.

There have been no public polls in the race between Republican incumbent Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and neither candidate has released any results from internal polling.

However, Latham may be increasingly concerned about holding this D+0 district amid what looks like a landslide victory for Barack Obama in Iowa.

Until this week, Latham’s campaign messaging touted his record and mostly ignored his challenger. But on Monday he went negative, issuing this statement blasting Greenwald’s support for the recent bailout package. (She came out against the first bailout bill the House considered but supported the version that cleared the Senate before coming up for a House vote.)

Latham voted against both bailout bills, one of very few times he’s ever refused to support something the Bush administration wanted. For months, Greenwald has been hitting him on his lockstep Republican voting record. He is clearly grateful to have this issue to separate him from the White House and Republican leadership in Congress.

Last week Latham and Greenwald held two radio debates, and Latham brought up his no votes on the bailout at every opportunity. I commented at Bleeding Heartland that the bailout was the only thing that kept the second debate from being a rout for Greenwald.

During and after the debates, Greenwald brought up Latham’s consistent Republican voting record on lots of issues, including the deregulation of the banking sector which has contributed to the current economic problems. She also linked Latham to John McCain’s failed approach on health care reform and hammered him for supporting a privatization scheme for Social Security.

Latham denies he has backed privatizing Social Security, but to paraphrase Josh Marshall, he uses classic Republican “bamboozlement” language on this issue. He has supported private investment accounts, which could be devastating to seniors’ income in a bear market.

Greenwald has challenged Latham to televised debates as well. He declined one invitation and is dragging his feet on rescheduling an Iowa Public Television debate that was postponed while Congress was considering the bailout.

The third quarter financial reports for Latham and Greenwald are not available at Open Secrets yet. As of June 30, Latham had a big cash on hand advantage, in part because he sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because Greenwald had to get through a four-way Democratic primary (she won with more than 50 percent of the vote).

Greenwald’s summer fundraising must have been reasonably strong, because she went up on tv in September, got the endorsement of EMILY’s List, and was put on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Emerging Races” list.

No doubt Latham still has a money edge, because he has been advertising more extensively on tv and radio throughout the district. His first two television commercials focused on a bill he co-authored to address the nursing shortage and the need to “crack down on Wall Street greed” and help Main Street businesses.

Most House race rankings still put IA-04 in the “likely Republican” category, but this is a district to watch, especially in light of the big Democratic gains in voter registration and Obama’s double-digit statewide lead over McCain, confirmed by at least ten polls.

If Latham does hold on to his seat, I think he should send Nancy Pelosi a thank-you note. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate subsidies. Here’s Latham’s voting record that relates to government checks on corporate power. Here’s Latham’s voting record on corporate tax breaks in general (including sub-categories on tax breaks for the oil and gas industry and for the wealthiest individuals).

Yet despite his long record of standing with corporations rather than middle-class taxpayers, the bailout has allowed Latham to position himself this way going into the home stretch of the campaign:

“Reckless Wall Street CEO’s made a mess and they asked Iowans to pay to clean it up,” noted Latham for Congress spokesperson Matt Hinch. “Tom Latham stood up in Congress and protected Iowans by twice voting no on this massive Wall Street bailout. Tom Latham believes that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to reward, benefit and bailout those on Wall Street who created this mess.”

Highlights of Becky Greenwald’s endorsed Wall Street bailout plan includes:

* The largest corporate welfare proposal in U.S. history all at taxpayer expense;

* Gives the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and Wall Street veteran and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson a no-strings checkbook with $700 billion in taxpayer funds to spend as he sees fit;

* The Washington Post reports that there is a strong possibility of conflicts of interest, since the same companies who created the mess on Wall Street will, “be managing the assets while also selling their own troubled securities to the government.”;

* Taxpayer funded pork in the bill included tax breaks for rum, sports entities, television and the manufacturer of wooden arrows for children;

* And, no guarantee by Secretary Paulson that his plan will actually work.

“Becky Greenwald would reward the same greedy CEO’s who caused this crisis,” continued Hinch. “Becky Greenwald would spend $700 billion of Iowans’ money to fix Wall Street mistakes and greed. No accountability and no guarantee it will even work. It’s clear that Iowans can’t trust Becky Greenwald with our tax dollars.”

I don’t know whether this tactic will work for Latham, but I do know that if he were very confident, he would be sticking to a positive message.

Growing up liberal during the Reagan years taught me to go into elections expecting to be disappointed. Watching high-ranking Democrats in Congress fail to challenge the premise behind the dreadful and unnecessary proposed bailout of Wall Street, I share thereisnospoon’s concern that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

But looking at the polling trends in the presidential race and in key Senate races, even a pessimist like me has to admit that a big Democratic wave seems quite possible.

Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including a few districts where the Republican incumbent never saw it coming.

Waves can drag down well-funded incumbents with tremendous clout. Democratic losers in 1994 included House Speaker Tom Foley and my own 18-term Congressman Neal Smith.

This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4.  

I’ll get the ball rolling by telling you about Iowa’s two House districts currently held by Republicans.

In the fourth district (D+0), Becky Greenwald faces Tom Latham, who has remarkably little to show for his seven terms in Congress. I went over many reasons I think Greenwald can win this race here.

Latham understands that it will be a big Democratic year in Iowa, judging from his first television commercial (which glosses over his lockstep Republican voting record). David Kowalski noticed that Latham’s campaign website avoids mentioning that he is a Republican (see, for instance, this bio page). Aside from the odd newspaper clipping on his site that refers to him as R-Iowa, you would never be able to tell which party he belongs to.

IA-04 shows up as “likely Republican” on House rankings, in part because Latham sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because he has been re-elected by double-digit margins in the past. However, 2002 was the only time Latham faced a well-funded challenger, and that was a bad year to be a Democrat running for Congress. Greenwald had raised more by June 30 than our 2006 candidate against Latham raised during his whole campaign, and she’s fundraised aggressively since then. She is already up on television and recently got the endorsement of EMILY’s list.

Whatever pork Latham has brought back to his district is nothing compared to what Neal Smith brought to central Iowa during his 36 years in Congress, and that didn’t stop voters from giving Smith the boot in 1994.

Now let’s look at Iowa’s fifth district (R+8), where Rob Hubler is running against one of the most atrocious House Republicans, Steve King. I laid out my case for why Hubler can win this race at Bleeding Heartland, but here are the highlights.

Hubler is the first Democrat to run a real campaign against King, who does not have a big war chest and has not been campaigning actively. Although Republicans maintain a voter registration edge in IA-05, Democrats have made big gains since 2006, putting Hubler in position for an upset if he wins independents by a significant margin. King’s extreme views and tendency to make bigoted, embarrassing statements are a turn-off to moderates.

Also, an internal poll of the district for Hubler’s campaign showed the generic ballot for Congress virtually tied at 36 percent for the Democrat and 38 percent for the Republican.

Nearly three months ago, the editor of the Storm Lake Times newspaper wrote:

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Like I said at the top, upsets happen in wave elections. After winning in 1974, Tom Harkin represented most of the southwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for five terms, until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for six terms, until he retired because of health problems caused by Lyme’s disease.

Despite Sarah Palin’s presence on the ballot, I do not believe Republicans in western Iowa are going to be fired up to turn out this November. During the past month five separate polls have shown Barack Obama above 50 percent in Iowa and leading John McCain by double digits. McCain has never campaigned much in Iowa, skipping the caucuses in 2000 as well as 2008. He’s against ethanol subsidies, which causes him to underperform in rural Iowa. Certainly McCain lacks the appeal George Bush had to conservatives here in the last two elections.

Harkin is cruising against a little-known Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate, and King is not giving his supporters any reason to believe he’s concerned about Hubler. Why should the western Iowa wingnuts put a lot of effort into getting their voters out?

Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign has at least half a dozen field offices in both IA-04 and IA-05 to drive up turnout among Democrats and other Democratic-leaning voters.

Clearly, Greenwald and Hubler go into the home stretch as underdogs. But who thought Dave Loebsack was going to beat Iowa Congressman Jim Leach two years ago? Democrats put tons of money and effort behind a strong challenger to Leach in 2002 and came up short. As a result, Loebsack got no help from the DCCC or outside interest groups in 2006, and just about everyone viewed IA-02 as “likely Republican.”

Carol Shea-Porter’s amazing victory in New Hampshire’s first district seemed just as improbable two years ago. She was massively outspent by the Republican incumbent and got no help from the DCCC. By the way, NH-01 is D+0 and mostly white, as is IA-04.

The partisan lean and demographic profile of IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural) is similar to KS-02 (R+7), where Nancy Boyda came from behind to beat a Republican incumbent in 2006. The DCCC did get involved in that race, but it didn’t appear to be a very likely pickup before the election.

Two weeks ago Stuart Rothenberg mocked the DCCC for putting “absurd races” (including the Hubler-King matchup) on its list of “Races to Watch” and putting long shots on the “Red to Blue” and “Emerging Races” list. James L. already took down Rothenberg in this great post, so I won’t pile on.

I will say, however, that I have put my money where my mouth is by giving as much as I can afford to Hubler and Greenwald.

Somewhere, somehow, some unheralded challengers will give House or Senate Republicans the surprise of their lives on November 4. I ask the Swing State Project community, who’s it gonna be?

cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland

If you were a loyal Republican foot-soldier seeking re-election in a state that’s trending Democratic, where the Democratic presidential candidate has a commanding lead over your party’s nominee as well as a much bigger ground game in your own Congressional district, you might want to reinvent yourself.

Late last week, Tom Latham did just that in his first television commercial of this election cycle. You can view the ad at Latham’s campaign website. It focuses on a bill Latham introduced to address the nursing shortage in Iowa.

Judging from the content of this ad, Latham recognizes that 2008 will be a big Democratic year in Iowa.

Neither the commercial nor the campaign’s accompanying press release mention that Latham is a Republican. Instead, they note that he authored “bipartisan legislation” in a specific area.

Polls typically give Democrats an edge on handling health care and education. Even someone watching this ad with the sound turned down can see that Latham is portraying himself as sensitive to these issues. Here are the words that flash on the screen during the commercial:

Nursing Shortage (footage of ambulance with siren, nurse alongside patient on stretcher)

Iowa Faces Severe Nursing Shortage (hospital scenes)

Bipartisan Legislation (Latham sitting and writing)

Help Nurses Repay Education Loans (nurse with patients)

Tom Latham (as he talks with one of the nurses quoted in the ad)

In addition, Latham’s ad features three testimonials from nurses. One of them is “nurse practitioner Linda Upmeyer,” wearing a white nurse’s coat with a stethoscope around her neck, who says, “Tom has done a wonderful job of hearing the need and translating that into legislation.” Conveniently, the ad fails to identify Upmeyer as the Republican state representative from Iowa House district 12.  

The press release announcing Latham’s television ad is even more blatant about running away from the Republican label. It describes Latham as “bipartisan” twice and notes that he “teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce this bill in the United States Congress.”

I never thought I’d see the day when the conservative Republican Latham would brag about working with Baldwin, who is openly gay and has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress. Latham’s voting record as a whole could hardly be more different from Baldwin’s.

Not only does Latham’s ad avoid mentioning his party affiliation, it seems designed to address the gender gap by having a female voice-over and three women nurses do almost all of the talking. The only male voice you hear is Latham’s at the very end, saying “I’m Tom Latham, and I approved this message.”

Democratic candidates tend to do better among women, and the disparity may be even greater this year in IA-04. Becky Greenwald is giving Iowans the chance to send a woman to Congress for the first time.

One clever feature of this ad is that it implies Latham has delivered for Iowa’s nurses, without mentioning whether the bill he authored has any chance of becoming law. The wording of the press release suggests that the bill has not advanced:

Latham teamed up with Iowa nursing and health care professionals through numerous roundtables around the state to listen to their unique perspective and input on what was needed. He then wrote legislation and teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce the bill in the United States Congress.

You would think that someone who spent 14 years in Congress (12 of them as part of a Republican majority) would be able to point to some concrete achievement on behalf of nurses or in the area of health care.

Instead, the Latham campaign talks about his “trusted leadership” on the nursing shortage, when he has nothing to show for this “leadership” other than writing one bill that went nowhere.

By the way, Latham signaled last week that he is not willing to defend the totality of his record in a public forum. He declined an invitation from KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register to debate Greenwald during prime-time television. Latham also refused invitations to debate in August.

In a debate, Latham might have to explain why he talks about helping nurses repay their student loans in his commercial, when he voted for enormous cuts to federal student loan programs in 2005 and 2006.

As a challenger, Greenwald has lower name recognition than Latham, and understandably used her first television ad to introduce herself to voters. With Latham avoiding debates and using skillful image construction to conceal his ineffectiveness, I believe Greenwald will need to run some television ads that spell out why she is seeking to replace “Iowa’s low-yield Congressman.”

UPDATE: The Greenwald campaign responded to this ad with a statement exposing Latham’s real record on health care.  

In July I wrote about five reasons to get involved in state legislative races. My reasoning was:

 1.  The 2010 census looms, to be followed by redrawing Congressional districts in most states.

  2. Many policy matters are determined at the state level.

  3. Getting progressive Democrats elected to state legislatures will build our bench for future House, Senate or gubernatorial races.

  4. You probably can find a competitive statehouse race near you, no matter where you live.

  5. Your individual actions are more likely to make a difference in a statehouse race.

In addition to donating directly to good state legislators and legislative candidates in Iowa, I give to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which supports statehouse candidates across the country.

I was pleased to learn on Friday that the DLCC is accepting nominations for candidates to be included in its “40 essential races” program.

More below the fold.

Dear [firstname]:

It is no easy task to pinpoint a handful of essential candidates among the thousands of competitive legislative races this year, but that is exactly is what we at the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee intend to do over the next three weeks.

Using the information and resources we’ve gathered so far this cycle, we will identify 40 candidates in top races all across the country who need help in this election. For our part, we will provide these candidates with strategic support and promote their races among our partners and allies.

We also know that there are plenty of strong Democrats throughout the country with the potential to win important districts whose races are just emerging — so we are asking for your help to find them.

While we reveal the list of our targets, we will also accept nominations for an additional 10 candidates to go on our essential races list. Please submit a name:

http://www.dlcc.org/action/200…

And while you’re on our site, will you also take a minute to make a contribution of $25 or more?

Every dollar that you give will go directly into taking the fight to the Republicans who want to control our state houses. With your help, we will elect leaders who won’t let the GOP pass their radical policy agendas or redraw districts to create a permanent conservative majority. Can you support us today?

http://www.dlcc.org/action/con…

The DLCC is committed to electing Democratic majorities all across the country, but in order to win in competitive states, we need support from friends like you.

Thank you for all that you do,

Michael Sargeant

Executive Director

Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

I asked someone at the DLCC whether these “essential races” will mostly feature challengers or incumbents. I was told that most of the targeted races involve Democratic challengers trying to take Republican-held seats. However, some will be incumbents, and some will be challengers trying to hold Democratic seats.

I encourage progressives to get informed about the key races in your state, then go to the DLCC site and nominate the candidate of your choice for this program.

For example, strong Democratic challengers seeking Republican-held seats in Iowa include Jerry Sullivan in Iowa House district 59 and Swati Dandekar in Senate district 18 (both seats are open because of Republican retirements).

A good candidate trying to hold the open Iowa House district 29 is Nate Willems, a former regional director for Howard Dean and occasional contributor to MyDD.

Incumbents being targeted this year in Iowa include Eric Palmer in House district 75, Elesha Gayman in House district 84,  and Tom Rielly in Senate district 38.

Please let the good candidates in your state or region know about the DLCC program.

You can also set up your own ActBlue page to raise money for your favorite candidates, whether or not they are named an “essential race” by the DLCC. Century of the Common Iowan blogger noneed4thneed created this page to support Tim Hoy in House district 44, Sharon Steckman in House district 13, Gayman, Palmer, and Sullivan.

Vox Populi provides information about three good Indiana House candidates on this ActBlue page.

Remember, even if your state is not competitive in the presidential campaign and your representatives in Congress are safe incumbents, you can probably find a swing statehouse district not far from where you live.

We can’t afford to neglect those down-ticket races. Donate, volunteer, and spread the word.

UPDATE: On September 16 EMILY’s List announced their endorsement of two more Congressional challengers: Becky Greenwald in IA-04 (D+0) and Sharen Neuhardt in OH-07 (R+6).



Maybe someone out there who knows the inner workings of EMILY’s List can explain to me why this group has not put money behind Becky Greenwald, the Democrat challenging loyal Republican foot-soldier Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district.

I have been going over the list of Democratic women running for Congress whom EMILY’s List is supporting, with a particular focus on the six challengers most recently added to this group in early August. I do not mean to denigrate any of those candidates, and I recognize that every race has its own dynamic.

However, after comparing Greenwald’s race to those of other candidates, I remain puzzled that EMILY’s list is not more involved in IA-04.

Follow me after the jump for more.

First things first: IA-04 has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+0. Since 2004, every Congressional district in Iowa has seen big gains in Democratic voter registration, which surged in connection with this year’s presidential caucuses. For the first time since Iowa’s districts were last redrawn, IA-04 now has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

Democrats have an advantage in the generic Congressional ballot nationwide, but what may be more relevant for this district is Barack Obama’s big lead over John McCain in Iowa (double-digits according to the two most recent polls). The Obama campaign’s enormous ground game in Iowa will be working in Greenwald’s favor too. Her staffers and volunteers seem pleased with the level of coordination between the campaigns’ turnout efforts.

Turning to Greenwald as a candidate, you can see from her bio that she has strong roots in the district as well as experience in the business world and a history of volunteering for causes including the Iowa Democratic Party. She dominated the four-way Demomcratic primary on June 3, winning over 50 percent of the vote. As of June 30, she had raised about $143,000 for her campaign but had only about $82,000 cash on hand because of her competitive primary.

Several Iowa political analysts observed this summer that Greenwald can beat Tom Latham if she can raise enough money to compete. Latham serves on the House Appropriations Committee and was sitting on more than $800,000 cash on hand as of June 30. Then again, plenty of well-funded incumbents have lost seats in Congress when facing a big wave toward the other party. Cook has this race as likely R, but I would consider it lean R. There have been no public polls on the race yet.

The current reporting period ends September 30. I don’t have inside information about Greenwald’s cash on hand now, but I know she has been aggressively fundraising all summer long. I assume things have gone fairly well on that front, because the DCCC just put IA-04 on its “Emerging Races” list. One thing working in Greenwald’s favor is that the Des Moines and Mason City markets, which cover most of the 28 counties in the district, are not too expensive for advertising. So, she can be up on the air for several weeks, even though she clearly won’t be able to match Latham dollar for dollar.

Side note: Shortly after the Democratic primary in IA-04, the sore loser who finished third vowed to run for Congress as an independent. However, he quickly turned his attention to the fight against Iowa’s new smoking ban. He then failed to submit petitions to qualify for the ballot, took down his Congressional campaign website and reportedly moved to Florida. In other words, he won’t be a factor in November.

Why should EMILY’s list get involved in this race? Not only is Greenwald a good fit for the district, she is pro-choice whereas Latham has a perfect zero rating on votes related to abortion rights.

As a bonus, Greenwald has the potential to end Iowa’s disgrace as one of only two states that have never sent a woman to Congress or elected a woman governor.

Now, I will briefly examine the six candidates for U.S. House whom EMILY’s list most recently endorsed. As I said earlier, I don’t mean to knock any of these candidates, but I do question why these districts would be considered more winnable than IA-04.

1. Anne Barth. She is running against incumbent Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia’s second district (R+5, somewhat more Republican than IA-04). Cook has this race as lean R, Swing State Project sees it as likely R. As of June 30, Barth had about $353,000 cash on hand, compared to more than $1.2 million for Capito. My understanding is that this district is quite expensive for advertising because of its proximity to Washington, DC.

2. Sam Bennett. She is running against incumbent Charlie Dent in Pennsylvania’s 15th Congressional District (D+2, slightly more Democratic than IA-04). Cook and Swing State Project both rate this race as likely R, although Chris Bowers is optimistic given the partisan lean of the district. As of June 30, Bennett had just under $354,000 cash on hand, compared to about $687,000 for Dent.

3. Jill Derby. She is running against incumbent Dean Heller, who beat her in the 2006 election to represent Nevada’s second district (R+8, markedly more Republican than IA-04). It’s not too uncommon for Congressional candidates to win on their second attempt, but Cook and Swing State Project both view this district as likely R. As of June 30, Derby had about $314,000 cash on hand, while Heller had just over $1 million in the bank.

4. Judy Feder. This is another rematch campaign, as incumbent Frank Wolf beat Feder by a comfortable margin in 2006 in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District (R+5). Again, Cook and Swing State Project agree that this is a likely R district. As of June 30, Feder was doing quite well in the money race with about $812,000 cash on hand, not too far behind Wolf’s $849,000.

5. Annette Taddeo. She is running against incumbent Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in Florida’s 18th Congressional District (R+4). Cook and Swing State Project both rank this district as likely R. Taddeo made a great impression on people at Netroots Nation and had just under $444,000 in the bank on June 30, while the incumbent reported nearly $1.9 million.

6. Victoria Wulsin. In 2006, she fell just short against incumbent “Mean Jean” Schmidt in Ohio’s second district (R+13). Granted, Schmidt is ineffective as an incumbent, which is probably why Swing State Project has this in the lean R category (it’s likely R according to Cook). Wulsin also had about $378,000 in the bank on June 30, compared to about $390,000 for Schmidt. Still, this is a markedly more Republican district than IA-04.

I understand that EMILY’s List does not have unlimited resources, but I still find it surprising that they have not jumped in to support Greenwald. A little money goes a long way in the Mason City and Des Moines media markets.

If you want to help send her to Congress, go here and give what you can. September 15 is her birthday, by the way.

I look forward to reading your comments about EMILY’s list or any of these Congressional races.

On Saturday a fundraising solicitation arrived in the mail from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. It asked me to confirm delivery of the enclosed “supporter card” within ten days, and also to “help keep my 2008 re-election campaign on the road to victory” with a special contribution.

Funny, I wasn’t aware that Harkin needed any extra help. Everyone in the election forecasting business has labeled this seat safe for him. The available polling shows Harkin with a comfortable lead.

According to Open Secrets, Harkin had $4.1 million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter. His little-known Republican opponent, Christopher Reed, has raised a total of $11,765 for his Senate campaign and had $292 (two hundred and ninety-two dollars) on hand as of June 30.

Harkin’s letter got me thinking that we need a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign for 2008.

In 2006, MyDD and MoveOn.org launched a “Use It Or Lose It” campaign to contact “ultra-safe Democratic House Representatives and ask them to help fully fund all of our competitive challengers this cycle.” The project spurred at least $2.3 million in additional major donations from House incumbents (click the link to read details).

A similar project targeted at safe incumbents in the House and Senate has the potential to raise even more money this year.

The Democratic House and Senate campaign committees have been crushing their Republican counterparts in fundraising. At the end of the second quarter, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had about $46.2 million cash on hand, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had $54.7 million cash on hand. As of June 30, the DSCC had about twice the cash on hand as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the DCCC had six times the cash on hand as the National Republican Congressional Committee.

But we should be able to outspend the Republicans even more if our Democrats in safe seats donate more to the relevant committees.

Everyone agrees that the Democrats have an unusually large number of solid pickup opportunities. Here’s the Swing State Project list of competitive Senate races. All them are Republican-held but one (Louisiana), and that one is “lean Democratic.” Only one Democratic-held seat (New Jersey) is even on the “races to watch” list.

Look at the most recent Senate forecast by Chris Bowers. He’s projecting a pickup of six seats. He also lists ten “Democratic held, uncompetitive locks”:

Arkansas (Pryor), Delaware (Biden), Illinois (Durbin), Iowa (Harkin), Massachusetts (Kerry), Michigan (Levin), Montana (Baucus), Rhode Island (Reed), South Dakota (Johnson), West Virginia (Rockefeller)

I haven’t added up the cash on hand numbers for all those incumbents from the latest FEC filings, but it must total many millions of dollars.

In the past six weeks, the DSCC has sent out many fundraising e-mails touting “11 battleground states” (Alaska, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia).

How many more Senate races could become more competitive if the DSCC were able to put significant resources behind our candidates? Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Georgia immediately come to mind.

The netroots are already working hard to promote Democratic challengers for Republican-held seats. Daily Kos has featured 10 House and four Senate candidates in its “Orange to Blue” ActBlue page. MyDD is raising money for five Senate candidates on its “Road to 60” ActBlue page. SenateGuru even went “on strike” until readers donated enough to three of eleven candidates on SenateGuru’s ActBlue page.

But it’s likely that Tom Harkin alone could donate more to the DSCC than all of the donors to all of those ActBlue pages combined.

Not only that, but safe Democratic incumbents sitting on huge war chests could do a lot for legislative candidates in their home states. A few thousand dollars can go very far in a statehouse race.

I don’t mean to pick on Harkin. (After all, he was the only senator to have the guts to vote against confirming Gen. David Petraeus as the new chief of U.S. Central Command last month.)

More to the point, I know Harkin is already helping other Democrats. He has reportedly donated to the Iowa Democratic Party’s GOTV efforts. Over the weekend he held a joint event with Becky Greenwald, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. He’s holding a fundraiser with Rob Hubler, candidate in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, this Thursday. Earlier this summer, he gave $2,000 each to five Iowa House and five Iowa Senate candidates, plus an extra $5,000 to two candidates who received the most votes from constituents in Harkin’s “Building Blue” contest. I hear rumors that Harkin will hold fundraisers for other Democratic candidates in key Iowa statehouse races, or perhaps donate substantial amounts to the Iowa House and Senate Democratic leadership funds.

For all I know Harkin has already donated a substantial amount to the DSCC as well. I couldn’t find a list of Senate incumbents who have given to that fund.

But still–Harkin had more than $4.1 million in the bank at the end of June, which is more than 14,000 times the amount his Republican challenger had in the bank. Couldn’t Harkin dig a little deeper to help the DSCC get behind Scott Kleeb, Jim Slattery, Andrew Rice and other good Democrats?

While I’ve talked primarily about Senate races in this diary, of course a potential “Use It Or Lose It” 2008 campaign should also focus on some House incumbents. The DCCC has reserved ad time in 51 districts so far, and only 17 of those are Democratic-held. (Click here for the first wave of DCCC ad buys and here to see the 20 districts targeted in the second wave.) I take that to mean that the DCCC feels confident about holding more than 200 of our House seats.

There have to be at least 150 House Democrats who meet the “ultra safe” standard and should be putting more of their campaign funds into the DCCC pot.

Look at Swing State Project’s list of competitive House races. Four Republican-held seats are in the “lean Democrat” category, another 11 are “tossups”, another 17 are “lean Republican,” and at least two dozen more could become competitive with more money for Democratic challengers to spend. Meanwhile, no Democratic-held seats are in the “lean R” category, and only two are even rated tossups.

How many of those Lean R or Likely R races can we break open with more money for challengers to spend? How many races not even on Swing State Project’s list right now could become surprise wins for us, along the lines of NH-01 in 2006?

For instance, Swing State Project’s list does not currently include the two Republican-held seats in Iowa, but in my opinion both Becky Greenwald in IA-04 and Rob Hubler in IA-05 have a chance to win in a strong Democratic year. (I explain why here and here.)

I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments on a possible Use It Or Lose It campaign. Bob Brigham had some great suggestions earlier today at MyDD:

1. The earlier the better. Getting the money moving now helps a great deal with budgeting. Money spent just after Labor Day is worth far more than a last minute spree just before the election.

2. When it comes to lose it for senators, I wouldn’t just focus on those with a safe race this year, but those who left 2006 with big warchests.

3. I think after they pay up, they should be made a secondary ask to their supporters to get involved in local federal races. This is easy to do. Yet since most out of state money comes from blue, urban areas, this segment could be asked to Adopt-A-Race.

MyDD user Ramo already thought of a reasonable proposal for the senators:

If you’re Landrieu, Lautenburg, or Obama, we’re not asking for anything.  If you’re vulnerable in 2010 (Boxer, Salazar, Dorgan, Reid, and Feingold), we’re asking for 3% of your CoH.  If you’re vulnerable in 2012, we’re asking for 7% (McCaskill, Tester, Conrad, Menendez, Brown, and Webb).  Otherwise, 10%.

That would net us $9.693 million.

cross-posted in slightly different form at Bleeding Heartland

Congressman Tom Latham is a conservative Republican representing a swing (D+0) district. He has a lot more money in the bank than Democratic candidate Becky Greenwald, but Iowa political observers think this race could be very competitive.

Today Latham opened up his war chest to start running statewide radio ads touting his advocacy of more oil drilling in the U.S.

Follow me after the jump for more.

Iowa Politics has this press release from Latham’s campaign about

a statewide radio ad highlighting Latham’s work to lower gas and energy prices for Iowa families.

The sixty second ad reinforces Latham’s continued commitment to renewable energy but also discusses the need for Congress to work immediately to increase domestic energy supplies that America controls.

“$4.00 a gallon gas hurts Iowa families,” notes Latham in the ad. “And they’re frustrated with leaders in Congress for not doing more about it – and they have every right to be.”

“I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of alternative energy research and production, but we need to work for solutions that get Iowans from point A to point B without busting their family budget.”

Latham has been working in Congress on legislation aimed at increasing our domestic supply of affordable that will lower gas and energy prices through the increased use of our current resources, to include off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

Latham recently told Iowa Independent that Republicans can ride high gas prices to victory this November. It’s not clear to me why this is a big selling point for the GOP–shouldn’t they have been doing something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil during the years Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency?

Anyway, some Republicans clearly believe that this issue will save them from an otherwise hostile political environment. Last week John McCain started running a television ad blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling.

The rapid response from Becky Greenwald’s campaign points out the various misleading aspects of Latham’s radio ad:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

July 29, 2008                                                                                                         515-537-4465

Latham Runs Misleading Ad on Drilling To Divert From Votes Against Immediate Gas Price Relief

Waukee, IA – This week, Tom Latham’s campaign released a radio ad misleading voters about offshore drilling. Experts agree that offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices for seven to ten years, and its clear that this ad is a diversion from Latham’s votes against opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases. (McClatchy, 6/18/08)

“I’m running for Congress because of these sort of shenanigans. Latham is trying to get Iowans to think about leasing 2,000 more acres when 68 million acres already leased are open, untapped and will lower prices. Latham is trying to divert attention from his failure to support immediate relief through opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases,” said Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th District. “Is it too much to ask for leaders to be honest with us?”



Unfortunately, Latham, like George Bush decided to play politics with gas prices. Last week, he voted against a bill that would release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve to bring relief from high gas prices. This bill would bring almost immediate relief to high gas prices. (H. Res. 6578)

And two weeks ago, Latham voted against a bill to force oil companies to drill on existing leases. There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies. That is two times the size of the state of Iowa available for energy production that is now sitting idle. (H.R. 615)

Instead, Democrats in Congress and Becky Greenwald are fighting for a comprehensive energy policy that includes in the short term, opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on almost 68 million acres of existing leases.

In the long term, Becky will fight to invest in a green energy industry here in Iowa by investing in ethanol, wind energy, biodiesel, and other homegrown, alternative forms of energy.

“I know that investing in renewable fuels will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, including Iowa’s 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “It’s time for a solution, not diversion tactics.”

The bolded passages were bold in the original, by the way.

Latham’s advocacy of more oil drilling will do nothing to solve our energy problems. Even the president of the Teamsters Union, which has long supported increased oil drilling in the U.S., declared last week that

“We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Furthermore, public opinion on this matter may not be where Latham thinks it is. The polling firm Rasmussen says the public is divided on whether more drilling is the answer:

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.

A major partisan divide on the issue, like the split in Congress, is evident, however. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans say lifting the ban is the highest priority, while 59% of Democrats – and 48% of unaffiliated voters — say controlling speculators is more important. Only 29% of unaffiliateds say lift the ban first.

Unaffiliated or “no-party” voters have a slim plurality among registered voters in Iowa’s fourth district, and there are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

If Rasmussen’s findings are accurate, it seems that Latham is out of step with his district on this issue.

If you reject Latham’s misleading spin on energy policy, please donate to Greenwald’s campaign to help her respond on the air. She has a lot going for her in this race and a real chance to win if she raises enough money to get her message out. Remember, the fourth district has a partisan index of D+0.

Final note: Latham’s press release says the radio ad is running statewide. That’s a lot more expensive than just running the ad in fourth district markets.

Is he trying to raise his profile outside his district to pave the way for a gubernatorial bid in 2010? If he loses to Greenwald, he could start campaigning for governor immediately. But even if he wins re-election, serving in Congress isn’t much fun when you’re in the minority party.  

Five-term Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley’s seat is safe for him as long as he wants it. He’s never had a tough re-election challenge, and Democrats failed to field any candidate against him in 2004. [CORRECTION: Art Small did file against Grassley in 2004. The fact that I forgot he ran should tell you something about how much effort the Iowa Democratic Party put behind his candidacy.]

However, I think this race bears watching, because Grassley is out of favor with some of the Christian conservatives who gained more power at the Iowa GOP’s July 12 state convention. In fact, the Iowa Republican Party’s central committee broke with tradition and did not give Grassley a slot as a voting delegate to the GOP’s national convention.

Grassley’s staff downplayed the significance of that decision, since he will have access to the convention floor in St. Paul anyway as a member of Congress. However, many observers think evangelicals snubbed the senator because he has been investigating the activities of six tax-exempt “television-based ministries.”

Grassley seems to enjoy his job and his popularity in Iowa, but he was frustrated recently that the Senate passed a Medicare bill over Republican objections. According to Grassley, he and Democrat Max Baucus of Montana had worked out a different version of the Medicare bill that would have had bipartisan support.

If Democrats make big gains in the 2008 Senate elections, and relations between Grassley and Iowa Republicans continue to go downhill, this may be a seat to put on retirement watch. No big name is likely to challenge Grassley, but if he ever gets fed up enough to retire, this becomes a prime pickup opportunity for Democrats in 2010.

Possible Democratic contenders for an open seat include former Governor Tom Vilsack and current Governor Chet Culver, whose father John Culver held the seat before Grassley rode Ronald Reagan’s coattails into office in 1980.