Tag: Governor

Less than three months after saying he would not run against Governor Chet Culver next year, former four-term governor Terry Branstad (1983-1999) now tells the Des Moines Register he is “not ruling it out.” Moreover,

Branstad is accepting invitations to meet with party activists. Two weeks ago, he met with about 50 political and business leaders at the Alden home of Bruce Rastetter, an influential Republican fundraiser and ethanol industry executive.

New calls for Branstad’s candidacy, and encouraging words from key donors such as West Des Moines developer Gary Kirke, underscore a growing feeling in his party that Democrat Gov. Chet Culver is vulnerable as he finishes his first term and that the emerging GOP field lacks a contender who can beat him.

A recent poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog found Branstad leading Culver 53-37, while Culver leads the other two best-known Republican gubernatorial candidates. Culver brings a lot of strengths to the re-election campaign, and his approval and favorability numbers weren’t bad in that Republican poll, but Branstad appears to be a stronger candidate than the declared contenders.

Branstad isn’t guaranteed a smooth path to the Republican nomination, though.

A Branstad candidacy would force some of the lesser-known Republicans from the race, but the current front-runner Bob Vander Plaats is signaling that he would stay in. He plays to the social conservative constituency that saved Branstad’s bacon in his tough 1994 primary against then-Congressman Fred Grandy.

I think there would be a niche for a third candidate who might emphasize Vander Plaats’ poor general election prospects and Branstad’s record of fiscal mismanagement as governor. When voters are reminded that Branstad kept two sets of books to enable him to run deficits, he will look less appealing as an alternative to Culver, under whom Iowa has a gold star bond rating.

Many Iowa Republicans deeply distrust Doug Gross, the 2002 gubernatorial nominee who was a top aide to Branstad and has been shopping for a candidate to support all year. An opinion poll Gross commissioned on behalf of the Iowa First Foundation in March sparked the Branstad for governor rumors.

Businessmen Bruce Rastetter and Gary Kirke, who are fueling the Branstad recruitment efforts, are big Republican players but not without controversy in Iowa GOP circles either. Rastetter gave a lot of money to Republican candidates in 2008 and may have been involved in a group running ads against Culver. But he also gave Culver’s campaign committee $25,000 in 2007, as did Kirke. Rastetter gave the maximum allowable contribution to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, and we all remember how highly Iowa Republicans thought of Rudy.

I do not think that rank and file Republicans are going to sit back and let these kingmakers choose Branstad as their candidate against Culver. Then again, I still think Branstad is not going to run for governor, so I could be proven wrong.

In other news on the GOP race for governor, Jason Hancock wrote a good piece for Iowa Independent on the pros and cons of a competitive Republican primary. I tend to agree with Republicans who think a tough primary will help the GOP by generating media buzz and starting to close the voter registration gap with Iowa Democrats (now around 114,000). On the other hand, there’s a chance that harsh infighting could damage the eventual nominee. The most disastrous outcome for Republicans is still John Deeth’s dream of Vander Plaats winning the nomination at a state convention. A Branstad candidacy would eliminate that possibility.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Pennsylvania, my home state, will see a lot of big races in 2010. We are electing a new Governor – electing new members of Congress from vacant seats, have a Senate election, and progressive Democrats need to win in the State House and Senate races (We have a very un-progressive Republican state Senate, the only Republican chamber left in the Northeast). It is CRITICAL that the netroots and the grassroots and all of the progressives come together and focus on PA…it's very important.

Please read on to learn more about our 2010 races!

Pennsylvania has been a swing state for some time now so what happens here is VERY IMPORTANT nationwide.

U.S. Senate

Democrats have both Senate seats for the first time since 1968 (okay, January 1969) thanks to the Specter Switcheroo.

Pat Toomey is Rick Santorum 2.0, and he MUST NOT become our new Senator. Arlen Specter or Joe Sestak MUST win.

Our Senate race is very important and has NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS, especially since Arlen Specter is known throughout the country for his switch to the Democratic Party. If Senator Specter wins his primary, we must vigorously support his re-election, no matter what.  So that means no more of the Snarlin' Arlen comments!

The U.S. House

The House delegation has gone from 12-7 Republican to 11-8, with four Democratic pickups (The biggest Democratic sweep in ANY state in 2006- no other state had more than 3 pickups).  In 2008, Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper won in PA-3 (the Erie district) and now we are at 12-7, a complete reversal of pre-2006.

We want to make sure Democrats continue to stay on a roll.

PA-15

My Congressional district of PA-15 is going to be one of the most important races in the country (to me, THE most important House race and a bellwether for the entire nation). Charlie Dent, Republican, has had a VERY easy time winning here despite a prO-bama majority. Mayor John Callahan of Bethlehem is running for the Democratic nomination.  We must make him Congressman. Plus, if you ask me, he's kinda cute (-:

 Mayor Callahan's Campaign Site (Very new)

PA-8

Jim Gerlach is running in the Republican primary for Governor and we have (so far) Doug Pike, who I don't know much about but will support if he is the Democrat.  I think this is VERY winnable.  If Gerlach loses, I'm not so sure he can get back into the race.  Curt Schroder is already running.  A Pike victory will mean A LOT on Election Day since it is expected the Republicans will narrowly hold onto this seat in the Philly suburbs.  It's an Obama district though.

Governor's Race

We also have to watch the Governor's race- most likely it will be between Jack Wagner and Tom Corbett.  Ed Rendell will not have very good approval ratings which will bode poorly for the Democrat but hopefully Jack Wagner (or Dan Onorato from Pittsburgh) will run a top-notch campaign and really narrow that gap in the last few weeks.  My mind says Corbett though.  Please let me wrong.

State Senate

We have a ridiculous 30-20 Republican majority in the State Senate and it keeps getting bigger by the day, so to turn it blue we'll need SIX MAGIC SEATS to take it back (I'm assuming Democrats had control of it at one point).

We will have 25 chances to win the Senate (half of it is up for election in 2010) and most of these will remain the same, however…judging from previous election results, I see these six Republican seats as the most vulnerable (Keeping in mind that they were all last up in 2006, a Democratic year):

SD 6 – held by Robert Tomlinson (R), last won by 53.4%

SD 10 – held by Chuck McIlhinney (R), won by a measly 51.5% against Democrat Chris Serpico

SD 12 – held by Stewart J. Greenleaf (R), won by 57.4%

SD 16 – held by Pat Browne (R), won by 54.2%

SD 24 – Bob Wonderling (R), won by 56.5%

SD 26 – Edwin Erickson (R), won by 52.2% (his challenger in '06 was Mike Farrell)

SD 34 – Jacob Corman (R), won by 56.0% (but Democrat Jon Eich only got 39.1%)

SD 44 – John Rafferty (R), won by 56.2%

SD 50 – Bob Robbins (R), won by 53.5% (challenger was Art Allen)

 The good news is that all of the Democratic seats will likely, barring any unusual events, be safe so we can focus on these nine seats, which are ripe for a takeover.

 State House

Democrats hold onto a 104-99 majority.  It's clearly not a safe majority.

All of the 201-or-some House seats are up and there are a lot of opportunities to pick off some of these Republicans, so let's go through the seats where the Republican won by less than 60%:

HD 15 – Jim Christiana, 51.5%

HD 26 – Tim Hennessy, 52.1%

HD 57 – Tim Krieger, 51.7%

HD 75 – Matt Gabler, 52.8%

HD 128 – Sam Rohrer, 52.2%

HD 142 – Frank Farry, 51.7%

HD 146 – Thomas Quigley, 53.4%

HD 187 – Gary Day, 52.3%

If we win all of these eight seats (a nice goal), and keep onto our close seats, we will have a 112-91, which will be a significant improvement.

Worst Case Scenario

If the Republicans win PA big, we will have:

U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (formerly the president of right-wing Club for Growth and you can just imagine those tax breaks for the rich)

Governor Tom Corbett replacing the fairly progressive Ed

A 30-20 Republican Senate (I sincerely doubt they'll win any Democratic seats)

A Republican State House (which will pass an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, at top of their to-do list when they retake the House)

The loss of Democrats Paul Kanjorski (he barely won last time around), Jason Altmire (represents a very conservative district), Chris Carney (representing an even more conservative district), freshman Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, Republican victories in the 6th and 15th, which will give the Republicans a pickup of FOUR seats…which would undo the results of 2006, and perhaps if Joe Sestak runs for the Senate and abandons his House seat they will have FIVE seat pickups.

So as you can see the stakes cannot be higher here in the Keystone State.

Survey USA released a new batch of approval ratings for governors based on polls taken June 16. Iowa’s Chet Culver was at 42 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval. The previous SUSA poll in Iowa, taken in late April, found similar numbers for Culver: 42 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval.

CORRECTION: I did not realize that SUSA also conducted a poll in late May, which showed somewhat better numbers for Culver: 48 approve, 47 disapprove.

Probably this is just statistical noise, and Culver’s support is somewhere in the 40s. Alternatively, if you have some hypothesis that would explain why the governor’s support rose in May but dropped by mid-June, please post a comment.

Click here to see all of SUSA’s approval numbers for Culver since he became governor.

It would be nice if some other polling firm released a new Iowa survey soon.

Having noticed that Culver’s SUSA numbers bounced up last May and June after being in net negative territory from February through April 2008, I wondered whether a “legislative session effect” might have dragged him down from February through April of this year. Either that was not the case, or the weaker economy this year has prevented the governor from getting a post-session bounce.

Approval ratings in the low 40s are outside the comfort zone for an incumbent, but I wouldn’t hit the panic button yet. SUSA has tended to measure Culver’s support at lower levels than some other pollsters, and most governors have seen their approval ratings slip during the past year, presumably because of the economy and the fiscal problems affecting almost every state.

I couldn’t find any breakdown of Culver’s support among Democrats, Republicans and independents either at this site or on Survey USA’s site. If anyone has those numbers, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I still think a large number of Democrats and independents who may not “approve” of Culver would choose him in a heartbeat over Chris Rants or Bob Vander Plaats, who are most committed to running for governor.

We’ll have a better idea of the governor’s re-election prospects when we see polling of head-to-head matchups with potential Republican challengers. Some of the Republicans considering this race would be stronger than others in terms of personal appeal or fundraising (though Culver will probably be able to outspend even the best GOP fundraisers).

Finally, keep in mind that despite ups and downs in the economy, Iowa hasn’t voted an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

Share any thoughts about Culver’s chances or the GOP gubernatorial primary in this thread. Who has the potential to overcome Vander Plaats’ head start on campaigning? Can Rants reinvent himself as a likable politician? Who would benefit from a more crowded Republican field? Will the GOP primary be negative enough to do lasting damage to the eventual nominee?

Final note: Swing State Project currently considers the Iowa governor’s race to be safe D. I would rate it as likely D, and the Culver-skeptic contingent at Bleeding Heartland would probably argue for a lean D rating.

UPDATE: On May 21 Republican attorney and former State Senator Chuck Larson of Cedar Rapids said he’s not running for governor either.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver’s approval numbers have declined since the start of the year, but Republicans aren’t exactly beating down the doors to run against him. Earlier this month former Republican Governor Terry Branstad and Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa both quashed speculation that they might challenge Culver next year.

Today State Auditor David Vaudt announced that he won’t run for governor either. It’s bad news for Republicans who were hoping to recruit a candidate known for expertise on fiscal matters.

More details and analysis are after the jump.

At a press conference, Vaudt cited Iowa’s budget problems as his reason for not running:

“I know that if I were to run for governor, there would be some that would try to discredit important financial information that I’m providing to Iowans. They would do that by simply questioning the motives, since I would be running for governor.”

The last thing he wants to do, Vaudt said, is diminish his ability to keep Iowans informed about what’s happening with state finances.

Other factors might also have influenced Vaudt’s decision. He’s virtually guaranteed re-election if he stays in his current position, whereas he might have trouble in a Republican gubernatorial primary. Or, perhaps he doesn’t think Culver is particularly vulnerable. Even though Culver is below 50 percent in some polls, he still has time to bounce back. It’s worth remembering that Iowans haven’t turned an incumbent governor out of office since 1962.

I doubt Vaudt would have won the Republican nomination for reasons I described here, but he would have been a stronger general-election candidate than Bob Vander Plaats, the only Republican who seems certain to run. Vander Plaats is a Sioux City businessman who was Jim Nussle’s running mate in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Since then, Vander Plaats has served as Iowa chair for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and has argued that Republicans are losing elections in Iowa because they’re not conservative enough.

Vaudt’s decision is a blow to Republicans who are hoping the 2010 race will revolve around economic and fiscal issues. It also removes from the mix one of the most seasoned office-holders from a party that’s had a bad run in Iowa for the last decade.

Hill Research sent me partial results from the poll they took in March about the Iowa governor’s race. They redacted some of the most interesting findings, such as how appealing respondents found various types of candidates (including an “auditor who has kept track of how state money is spent”). Still, I found this result intriguing:

   Do you want an experienced and effective elected official, or an outsider with a fresh perspective and new ideas?

   Strongly want an experienced elected official: 34%

   Want an experienced elected official: 19%

   Fresh perspective: 14%

   Strongly want a fresh perspective: 27%

Vaudt is by far the most experienced statewide official who was considering running for governor. (Former Governor Terry Branstad has no desire to get back in the game.)

Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, the only other Republican currently holding a statewide elected position, is leaning toward running for re-election rather than governor. It makes sense. He would be heavily favored against Francis Thicke, the most likely Democratic candidate for secretary of agriculture. In contrast, I believe Northey would be a long-shot for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, having gone on record supporting a gas tax increase. Besides, the same-sex marriage controversy will probably give an edge to religious conservatives in next year’s primary. Even if Northey won the GOP nomination, I think that with no base of support in eastern Iowa population centers, he would be an underdog against Culver in the general.

One or two Iowa House Republicans seem likely to challenge Culver. Former Iowa House Speaker Chris Rants has been thinking about running for governor for a long time. Earlier this month he sent an e-mail to potential supporters saying that since the 2009 legislative session ended,

I’ve put 2,300 miles on my car driving around the state talking to donors and activists about running for Governor.

I’m not making any official announcements or anything like that just yet. I’m taking stock first to see if I can find the support, and if I do, then I’ll let the press know. I have my eyes wide open. Its at least an $8M – $10M endeavor – or $110,000 a week as I like to say… I want to put some money in the bank, and be sure of financial backing before I take a stab at that.

So far it’s been encouraging. I have a series of fundraisers set up, and people who have agreed to help organize and set things up for me. I’ll be on the road this coming week again – back to the east coast of the state.

If he runs, Rants will compete with Vander Plaats for the conservative vote. Rants tried several times last month to bring legislation banning same-sex marriage to a vote on the Iowa House floor.

State Representative Rod Roberts told the Daily Times-Herald of Carroll he is “very seriously considering” a gubernatorial bid. He’s an ordained pastor, but some fellow Republicans claim he can communicate a broader message than abortion and gay marriage. Whether a state legislator from western Iowa can raise enough money and gain enough name recognition to seriously challenge Culver is another question.

Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican blog thinks there is room for another Republican candidate besides Rants and Vander Plaats, but

A candidate from the business community or a candidate that hadn’t previously weighed in on the marriage debate may find the primary more difficult to navigate than it would have been if the [Iowa Supreme] Court’s decision had been different. This may be the reason why, out of nowhere, we have seen some long-time GOP powerbrokers like Dave Roederer and Doug Gross warning Iowa Republicans that the focus cannot be on the issue of gay marriage if we want to win elections. […]

Gross has not been shy about his belief that the fiscal issues create an agenda which will unite the Republican Party. Many, if not most, Republicans probably agree with that. The only problem is that the issue of gay marriage has been thrust to the forefront in Iowa by the Court’s decision. Ignoring the issue or trying to diminish its importance is simply not an option.

With only 397 days until the primary, it is likely that the gubernatorial primary will be between Vander Plaats, Rants, and maybe one other candidate. While it is true that there is plenty of time for candidates to emerge, the clock is ticking. It takes time to organize people and raise the huge amounts of money needed to run statewide campaigns.

Robinson asserts that Roederer and Gross “are probably having difficulty recruiting a candidate of their liking.” Vermeer Corporation chief executive Mary Andringa has already said she’s not running for governor next year.

In theory, today’s announcement from Vaudt could leave an opening for a Republican moderate hoping conservatives will split the primary vote. On the other hand, there aren’t many moderates left in Republican political ranks, and Culver doesn’t look endangered enough to make this race attractive for someone from the business community, in my opinion.

Pleas share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Meant to cross-post this from Bleeding Heartland a few days ago, but better late than never.

I’ve argued this year that Iowa Governor Chet Culver is in decent shape going into the 2010 re-election campaign for various reasons. Iowans love to re-elect incumbents, and Culver’s poll numbers, while not spectacular, have mostly been above the danger zone for sitting governors.

Survey USA recently released new polling numbers for Iowa, and it wasn’t good news for Culver. Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval was at a multi-year low in the same poll.

Links, numbers and some analysis are after the jump.

SUSA found Culver’s approval rating at 42 percent, with 50 percent disapproving. In February and March, SUSA found that 46 percent of Iowans approved of Culver’s performance as governor.

Culver’s approval number isn’t too bad compared to that of some other governors, but if you look at the graph of SUSA’s numbers for Culver since he took office, you’ll see that 42 percent is the lowest approval number SUSA has ever recorded for him.

Since Culver took office in January 2007, his approval has been in the 50s most of the time. He dipped into “net negative territory” (with disapproval exceeding approval) from February through April 2008, then bounced back above 50 percent for the rest of last year. When I first saw the graph, I thought maybe Culver got a bump during last summer’s floods, but his approval rating was already noticeably higher in May 2008.

The trendlines for Culver got me wondering whether the governor’s difficult working relationship with the Democrats who run the Iowa House and Senate is at the heart of his poor numbers in February through April of 2008 and 2009. The Iowa legislature usually meets only from early January through some time in April. The most recent SUSA poll was in the field on April 24 through 26, which coincided with the final marathon days of the 2009 legislative session.

If a “legislature effect” is dragging Culver’s numbers down, add that to the list of reasons the governor and statehouse leaders need to figure out a way to cooperate more effectively during the 2010 session.

Of course, we’re also in the middle of an economic recession, which has been the focus of massive media coverage since the start of the year. In the coming months, Culver’s I-JOBS program will lead to lots of new spending on infrastructure projects. It will be interesting to see whether his approval goes up.

It’s also possible that Culver’s approval slipped a little in April because of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v. Brien. The Republican Party of Iowa trumpeted this poll as a sign the public disagrees with Culver on labor unions, taxes, spending and gay marriage.

It’s worth noting that SUSA’s numbers on Culver run a bit low compared to other pollsters. For instance, in late March SUSA had Culver at 46 percent approval while Selzer and Associates put that figure at 55 percent, and the Republican firm Hill Research measured his approval at 52 percent. Nevertheless, the SUSA numbers and trendlines bear watching. If other polls also put Culver’s approval in the low 40s, I would tend to agree with Bleeding Heartland user American007 that he looks vulnerable,with the caveat that the GOP would have to nominate someone other than Congressman Steve “10 Worst” King or Bob Vander Plaats, a religious conservative businessman who was Mike Huckabee’s Iowa chairman during the presidential campaign.

Grassley’s latest approval number, according to SUSA, is 59 percent, with 32 percent disapproving. That’s well out of the danger zone for an incumbent, but low for Grassley, who was at 71, 71 and 68 in SUSA’s polls for January through March. In fact, SUSA has only found Grassley’s approval below 60 once in the past four years of polling.

My hunch is that Grassley’s support among Republicans has dropped because he hasn’t been pounding the table about overturning the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. It’s also possible that his approval rating fell for some other reason, or that this poll is an outlier.

Whatever the reason, it’s interesting that both Grassley and Culver hit multi-year lows in the same SUSA poll. Senator Tom Harkin’s approval in the poll was 51 percent, with 38 percent disapproving. That’s only slightly down from SUSA’s March poll that put Harkin’s approval rating at 53 percent.

Incidentally, SUSA’s April survey found that 59 percent of Iowans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing, down about ten points since the beginning of the year. There was no statistically significant gender gap; Obama’s approval was 59 percent among men and 60 percent among women. The numbers for Culver showed a clear gender gap, with 47 percent approval among women and only 37 percent approval among men.

Offer your own theories about any of these poll numbers in this thread.

Looks like PPP just released a poll out of Illinois for both the Gubernatorial and Senatorial Democratic primaries and it looks pretty bad for Burris and Quinn (if Madigan decides to run):

(without Schakowsky)

Burris 20
Giannoulis 49

(with Schakowsky)

Burris 16
Giannoulis 38
Schakowsky 26 

PPP shows that even if Jan Schakowsky runs for the Senate, Giannoulis still holds a fairly commanding lead (and in that scenario actually holding a plurality of African American voters). One of the major concerns has been that a really divisive primary between Schakowsky and Giannoulis could set up a way for Burris to squeak by on the backs of a united African American vote, but with Schakowsky actually taking African American support from Burris in the poll, it seems that Sen. Burris's mausoleum will only show him as Senator for 2 years (what a shame!).In the Governor's race it's

Madigan 45
Quinn 29

Personally, I have no horse in the Governor's race but I'd probably prefer Schakowsky in the Senate over Giannoulis (though I'm not picky about it either). Either way though, it looks like Burris isn't in good shape for the primary.

UPDATE: One other thing I noticed which makes me wonder why Madigan doesn't seriously consider running for Senate is that even in a crowded primary against Giannoulis, Schakowsky, and Burris, she still dominates the field:

Madigan 44
Giannoulis 19
Burris 13
Schakowsky 11

Right now Madigan's numbers are better than all three candidates combined (not including the undecideds) and even if Schakowsky didn't run and all of her support went to Giannoulis or Burris and all the undecideds broke entirely for Giannoulis or Burris (more likely the former) she would still hold a one point lead over Giannoulis. I know that Madigan wants the governor's mansion, but she should seriously consider making a move for the Senate.

CQ politics has finally released its ratings for the 2010 Senate and gubernatorial elections. Here they are:

Incumbent in parenthesis, *=retiring

First, the Senate races:

Safe Democrat

California (Boxer)

Hawaii (Inouye)

Indiana (Bayh)

Maryland (Mikulski)

New York (Schumer)

North Dakota (Dorgan)

Oregon (Wyden)

Vermont (Leahy)

Washington (Murray)

Democrat Favored

Arkansas (Lincoln)

Colorado (Bennet)

Delaware (Kaufman*)

Leans Democrat

Nevada (Reid)

New York (Gillibrand)

Wisconsin (Feingold)

No Clear Favorite

Connecticut (Dodd)

Florida (Martinez*)

Illinois (Burris)

Kentucky (Bunning)

Missouri (Bond*)

New Hampshire (Gregg*)

North Carolina (Burr)

Ohio (Voinovich*)

Pennsylvania (Specter)

Leans Republican

Louisiana (Vitter)

South Carolina (DeMint)

Republican Favored

Arizona (McCain)

Georgia (Isakson)

Kansas (Brownback*)

South Dakota (Thune)

Safe Republican

Alabama (Shelby)

Alaska (Murkowski)

Idaho (Crapo)

Iowa (Grassley)

Oklahoma (Coburn)

Utah (Bennett)

Now the governor’s races:

Safe Democrat

Arkansas (Beebe)

Maryland (O’Malley)

New Hampshire (Lynch)

Democrat Favored

Hawaii (Lingle*)

Ohio (Strickland)

New Mexico (Richardson*)

Leans Democrat

California (Schwarzenegger*)

Colorado (Ritter)

Illinois (Quinn)

Iowa (Culver)

Maine (Baldacci*)

Massachusetts (Patrick)

New York (Paterson)

Oregon (Kulongoski*)

Wisconsin (Doyle)

No Clear Favorite

Michigan (Granholm*)

Minnesota (Pawlenty*)

Nevada (Gibbons)

New Jersey (Corzine)

Pennsylvania (Rendell*)

Rhode Island (Carcieri*)

Virginia (Kaine*)

Wyoming (Freudenthal. Apparently he is considering suing to overturn the term-limits law, so CQ is unsure about rating this race until that is resolved)

Leans Republican

Alabama (Riley*)

Arizona (Brewer)

Oklahoma (Henry*)

South Carolina (Sanford*)

Tennessee (Bredesen*)

Texas (Perry)

Vermont (Douglas)

Republican Favored

Alaska (Palin)

Connecticut (Rell)

Georgia (Perdue*)

Florida (Crist)

Idaho (Otter)

Kansas (Parkinson*)

South Dakota (Rounds*)

Safe Republican

Nebraska (Heineman)

You can see the maps here:

http://innovation.cq.com/senat… http://innovation.cqpolitics.c…

Please comment and say what you think of CQ’s first batch of race ratings!

In January I went over some of Democratic Governor Chet Culver’s strengths and weaknesses looking ahead to the 2010 campaign. Click the link for the analysis, but to make a long story short, I saw three big pluses for the governor:

1. He’s an incumbent.

2. Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge since Culver won the first time.

3. He has at least $1.5 million in the bank.

I saw his problem points as:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election.

4. Culver’s campaign had a high burn rate in 2008, so may not have a commanding war chest going into the next campaign.

A lot has happened since then, so let’s review after the jump.

Last month Bleeding Heartland user American007 expressed concern about Culver’s re-election prospects in light of a Survey USA poll showing Culver at 46 percent approval/47 percent disapproval.

However, the most recent Des Moines Register poll by Selzer and Associates measured the governor’s approval rating at 55 percent. That’s down from 60 percent in the Register’s polls from September 2008 and January 2009, but much better than the approval ratings many other governors currently have (like New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine or California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The poll also revealed some reservations by Iowans about Culver, as the Democrat looks toward mounting a 2010 campaign for a second term.

Just 35 percent said they would definitely vote to re-elect Culver, while 28 percent said they would consider an alternative and 18 percent said they would definitely vote for someone else. […]

Iowans also appear to be split on Culver’s effectiveness in some key areas.

Almost six in 10 say they are either very or reasonably satisfied that Culver presents himself as a strong leader, while a slightly smaller majority say they are satisfied that he has a vision for what Iowa could and should be.

Only 36 percent say they are satisfied that Culver has the right priorities for the budget, while 54 percent say he could do better.

If you assume Survey USA is correct, Culver is below 50 percent approval (never a great place for an incumbent). More worrying from American007’s perspective was that SUSA measured Culver’s support among Democrats at only 59 percent. I was less concerned about that number, because I believe lots of Democrats who might tell you they don’t approve of the job Culver is doing will certainly vote for him in 2010 against any Republican.  

If you believe Selzer’s poll numbers, Culver looks to be in a relatively strong position with 55 percent approval. A lot of governors around the country would love to trade places with him. While Selzer found that only 36 percent of Iowans are satisfied with Culver’s priorities for the budget, I wouldn’t draw many conclusions from that number. Again, plenty of liberal Democrats and environmentalists might tell you they’re not satisfied with Culver’s approach to the budget, but they’re going to vote for him in 2010 anyway.

Looking back at Culver’s strengths, as I saw them in January,

1. He’s still an incumbent, and we Iowans like to re-elect our incumbents.

2. Iowa Democrats still have a large registration edge, although I am concerned that turnout in 2010 could be much lower if Democrats don’t have enough big achievements to show for their years in power.

3. I have no idea how much Culver’s campaign committee has in the bank or how their fundraising has been going this year. However, he still has more money in the bank than any Republican who currently seems likely to run against him.

What about Culver’s problem points?

1. The economy is not getting better yet. Iowa and the nation continue to lose jobs every month. More people are losing health insurance as well. Many people believe the economy will start to turn up by next year, but job losses in this recession are worse than in any recession since the early 1980s.

If the $700 million infrastructure bonding package gets approved by the Iowa legislature, which seems possible but not guaranteed, then Culver will be able to travel the state for the next year and a half touting projects funded thanks to his leadership. Republicans have taken the position that we shouldn’t be spending money we don’t have, which sounds good in an abstract way. But people like to see things getting built or fixed in their own communities. I believe the infrastructure bonding program will garner more public support than the recent Selzer poll suggested. But first Democrats have to pass it.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. It’s way too early to know whether this will also be the case in 2010. A lot depends on the economy and what President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress can deliver by then. I get a steady stream of press releases about money from the stimulus bill being spent on this or that program in Iowa.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in 2008. That’s a given, but we don’t know by how much, or which voters won’t show up.

We can almost guarantee a strong turnout by the Republican base if gay marriage is one of the GOP’s main issues, and they are certain to hammer Culver for not doing enough to “protect” Iowans from same-sex marriage. However, I think Culver took exactly the right position after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling (see here and here).

I am not convinced that Culver and other Democrats will be hurt on this issue in 2010. By late next year I think a lot of Iowans will have realized that marriage equality didn’t affect their freedom in any way. (In the long term I expect marriage equality to cement Democratic dominance among younger voters.)

My biggest concern is that Democrats will have trouble inspiring our own base. Our legislature has delivered very little on the key priorities for organized labor, and has even tried to undercut the Department of Natural Resources on some environmental issues.

4. I have no idea what the burn rate has been for Culver’s campaign committee so far in 2009. I hope it’s lower than in 2008, when about half the money raised was spent.

As I wrote in the comments under American007’s diary, a lot will depend on who the Republicans put up against Culver next year. His poll numbers may not be great, and the economy may be in bad shape, but you still can’t beat something with nothing. I would put money on most dissatisfied Democrats coming home to vote for Culver in 2010, especially if he ends up running against a candidate like Bob Vander Plaats.

I believe State Auditor David Vaudt would be a stronger candidate for the Republicans than an outspoken social conservative, but I doubt he will make it through a GOP primary if he runs for governor. Earlier this year he dared to suggest that Iowans may have to pay higher gas taxes in order to adequately fund road projects. Culver killed the gas tax proposal with a veto threat, but Republican primary rivals will remember.

Vaudt also told the Iowa Political Alert blog that he hasn’t focused much on social issues in the past. He added that on abortion he’s a “pro-life person” who would make exceptions in the case of rape or when the mother’s life is in danger. I believe this was Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ stand on abortion, and social conservatives savaged her for it last year when she was running against Congressman Dave Loebsack in IA-02.

I look forward to hearing from members of the Swing State Project community about Culver’s re-election prospects.

Final note: I haven’t heard any leaked information about findings from the Republican poll on the 2010 governor’s race, which was in the field a few weeks ago.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

QUESTION: What do you think about the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state?

PERRY: Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it.

But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what might come out of that.

This man is seriously deranged.  He is getting dangerously close to treason.

Rasmussen 6/10/2008

Perdue (D): 47 (39)

McCroy (R): 46 (45)

http://rasmussenreports.com/pu…