Tag: Chet Culver

• AL-07: Former Selma Mayor James Perkins (who was defeated in his attempt to seek a third term in 2008) is jumping into the open seat race here. He is likely to draw support away from Terri Sewell, Artur Davis’s preferred successor, also a Selma native.

• AL-Gov: Speaking of good ol’ Artur, he’s released an internal poll which shows him up 56-26 over Ron Sparks and 54-25 over Sue Bell in the Dem primary. He also purports to lead Republican Bradley Byrne by a 43-38 margin. I’m finding it hard to believe that a congressman has such high name rec (59-6 for Davis among Dems statewide!). But the best checksum: This survey has Obama’s favorables at 58%. Last month, SUSA had them at just 48%. Which do you think is more likely? In other AL-Gov news, state Sen. Roger Bedford (D) says he won’t run.

• IA-Gov: State Auditor David Vaudt, one of only two Republicans holding statewide office in Iowa, has declined to challenge incumbent Gov. Chet Culver next year.

• NC-Sen: Both Reps. Bob Etheridge and Mike McIntyre are leaving the door open to a Senate bid, with McIntyre sounding more enthused. Meanwhile, Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton is “not considering” the race, Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker is “not looking at running,” and state Rep. Grier Martin claims his “decision to decline a chance to run against Elizabeth Dole was also not to run in 2010.”

• NV-Gov: Jim Gibbons’ poll numbers are just horrendous – in a new Mason-Dixon survey for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 54% say they would “definitely vote to replace” him. Gibbons’ campaign manager claims things are lookin’ up, because his boss’s approvals were 25-69 in a January Reno Gazette poll but are an awesome 17-52 in this one.

• NV-Sen: Meanwhile, the same poll finds pretty lousy numbers for Harry Reid as well, but better than Gibbons’. Reid gets 45% “definitely replace,” but his approvals are “only” 38-50. The big difference, of course, is that the GOP doesn’t really have any strong candidates to challenge Reid, while plenty of folks are lining up to take a whack at Gibbons.

• FL-CFO: Checking in with an old friend, it looks like Annette Taddeo is considering a run to replace Alex Sink as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer.

• Redistricting: CQ has a story on five key races that could affect congressional redistricting. Roll Call has published the second half of its two-part series on the same subject (part one here). And finally, the National Conference of State Legislatures is holding the first in a series of training seminars on redistricting in San Francisco, June 11-14.

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.

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.

Angry social conservatives are speculating that Senator Chuck Grassley could face a primary challenge in 2010. The religious right has been dissatisfied with Grassley for a long time (see here and here).

After the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, Grassley issued a statement saying he supported “traditional marriage” and had backed federal legislation and a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But when hundreds of marriage equality opponents rallied at the state capitol last Thursday, and Republicans tried to bring a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the Iowa House floor, Grassley refused to say whether he supported their efforts to change Iowa’s constitution:

“You better ask me in a month, after I’ve had a chance to think,” Grassley, the state’s senior Republican official, said after a health care forum in Mason City.

Wingnut Bill Salier, who almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in 2002, says conservatives are becoming “more and more incensed [the] more they start to pay attention to how far [Grassley] has drifted.”

Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn denies that party activists are unhappy with Grassley. I hope Salier is right and Grassley gets a primary challenge, for reasons I’ll explain after the jump.  

Before anyone gets too excited, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Grassley vulnerable. His approval rating is around 71 percent (if you believe Survey USA) or 66 percent (if you believe Selzer and Associates). Either way, he is outside the danger zone for an incumbent.

That doesn’t mean Democrats should leave Grassley unchallenged. Having a credible candidate at the top of the ballot in 2010 will increase the number of straight-ticket Democratic voters. So far Bob Krause is planning to jump in this race. More power to him or any other Democrat who is willing to make the case against Grassley. We should be realistic, though, and understand that unless something extraordinary happens, we are not going to defeat this five-term incumbent.

So why am I hoping a right-winger will take on Grassley in the Republican primary? Here’s what I think would happen.

1. A conservative taking potshots at Grassley would intensify the struggle between GOP moderates and “goofballs” just when Iowa Republicans are trying to present a united front against Democratic governance. GOP chairman Strawn claimed this weekend that Democratic tax reform proposals had unified his party, but if Grassley faces a challenger, expect social issues to dominate next spring’s media coverage of Republicans.

2. Although some delusional folks seem to think Grassley could lose a low-turnout primary, Grassley would crush any challenger from the right. That has the potential to demoralize religious GOP activists and their cheerleaders, such as the popular talk radio personality Steve Deace. (Deace already has plenty of grievances against Grassley.)

3. Every prominent Iowa Republican will have to take a position on the Senate primary, if there is one. I assume almost everyone will back Grassley, which would offend part of the GOP base. But if, say, Strawn or Congressman Steve King surprised me by staying neutral in the primary, that would demonstrate how much power extremists have within the Republican Party. Most people intuitively understand that you don’t try to replace a U.S. senator from your own party who has a lot of seniority.

A Senate primary could become a distracting sideshow for Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not clear yet how many Republicans will run against Governor Chet Culver, but almost all of the likely candidates would endorse Grassley over a right-winger. I would expect even Bob Vander Plaats to support Grassley, although he could surprise me. Vander Plaats believes Iowa Republican have been losing elections because they’ve become too moderate.

Watching the Republican establishment line up behind Grassley will remind social conservative activists that the party likes to use their support but doesn’t take their concerns seriously. These people will hold their noses and vote Republican next November, but they may not donate their time and money when Strawn and the gubernatorial nominee need their help to improve the GOP’s early voting operation.

My hunch is that no challenger to Grassley will emerge, because even the angriest conservatives must understand that they have little to gain from this course. Then again, we’re talking about people who believe the little-known, inexperienced Salier would have done better against Tom Harkin in 2002 than four-term Congressman Greg Ganske. Maybe some Republican is just crazy enough to run against Grassley next year.

• IL-05: Congratulations to our newest House member, Mike Quigley. The Cook County Commissioner won the special election in this safe Dem seat last night, defeating GOPer Rosanna Pulido 70-24 (with the balance going to Green Party candidate Matt Reichel). (There were only about 34,000 votes cast in this election, compared with about 58,000 in the primary, since that’s where all the action was.)

• AK-Sen: Gov. Sarah Palin will not be challenging Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 senate primary; in fact, she’ll be assisting Murkowski with raising money (despite simmering tensions between the two factions). It remains to be seen whether she’ll be running for re-election as governor in 2010, or bailing out after one term to focus on the 2012 presidential race (which, geographically speaking, is hard to do from Alaska).

• VA-Gov: If there’s one thing Terry McAuliffe is good at, it’s raising money. He raked in $4.2 million in the first quarter for his gubernatorial campaign. He started April with $2.5 million CoH as the race heads toward the June 9 primary.

• IA-Gov: With Iowa’s Supreme Court having effectively made same-sex marriages legal, the 2010 governor’s race could turn into a proxy referendum on the issue (with Gov. Chet Culver unwilling to amend the state constitution to block the courts). And this may draw a higher-profile challenger to the race: nutty GOP Rep. Steve King, whose name has been occasionally associated with this race, says the sudden rise of this issue makes him “more likely” to enter the race.

• GA-Gov: As noted by fitchfan28 in diaries, state House minority leader Dubose Porter has thrown his hat into the ring for the Democratic nomination for Georgia governor. He joins AG Thurbert Baker and former SoS David Poythress as announced candidates, with former governor Roy Barnes scoping out the race as well.

• NJ-12: Rush Holt may receive a credible challenge in 2010, from Fair Haven mayor Mike Halfacre, who just filed exploratory paperwork. Fair Haven is in Republican-leaning Monmouth County; the district as a whole, though, is blue, if not overwhelming so (Obama won 58-41).

• EFCA: In the wake of yesterday’s announcement that Blanche Lincoln would oppose EFCA’s current form, two more moderate Dem wafflers got off the fence in favor of EFCA (or, more technically, in favor of cloture): Mark Udall and Mark Warner. Campaign Diaries has a very handy head count, indicating that possible passage is still very close, and an unpacked version of the bill (for instance, containing the binding arbitration portion, leaving ‘card check’ for another year) may still be passed.

• CfG: With Pat Toomey about to leave the helm of the Club for Growth to pursue his senate bid against Arlen Specter, they need someone new to wave the sword for the circular firing squad. Looks like the job may fall to yet another ex-Rep who brought the crazy to a swing district, Chris Chocola. (Chocola got bounced from IN-02 in 2006 by Joe Donnelly.)

• Omaha-Mayor: In last night’s Omaha mayoral all-party primary election, former GOP Rep. Hal Daub (himself a former Omaha mayor) squeaked into first place with 35.6% of the vote to Democratic concilman Jim Suttle’s 34.3%. Republican Councilman Jim Vokal came in third, picking up 28.2% of the vote. New Nebraska Network’s Kyle Michaelis argues that despite the Republican candidates picking up more votes overall, Daub’s weak finish is not a good sign for his chances in the general election. (J)

There’s nothing opponents of marriage equality can do to stop gay and lesbian couples from getting married in Iowa starting on April 24, but the political battle over marriage equality will go on for a long time after wedding bells start ringing.

After the jump I will bring you up to date on the political reaction to last Friday’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling, prospects for amending Iowa’s constitution and the latest statewide opinion poll on same-sex marriage.

First, a quick note for anyone planning to come to Iowa to get married. Daily Kos user Wee Mama posted information about getting a marriage license in Iowa for those who live elsewhere. If you would like to have a religious ceremony, I recommend contacting The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa for help in finding a sympathetic officiant, most likely to be from a United Church of Christ, United Methodist or Unitarian Universalist congregation. Couples wanting a Jewish wedding should contact Rabbi David Kaufman of Temple B’nai Jeshurun in Des Moines, if at least one partner is Jewish and the couple is open to raising children as Jews. Rabbi Kaufman has officiated at a same-sex commitment ceremony and published this blog post on Friday demolishing the arguments against legalizing gay marriage in Iowa.

We now resume our previously scheduled diary…

At the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland I published longer posts on reaction to the Varnum v Brien decision from Iowa Democrats and Iowa Republicans, so I’ll just hit the highlights here.

I was very happy to read the joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. I liked it so much, I am re-posting the whole thing:

“Thanks to today’s decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens’ equal rights.

“The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.

“When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today’s events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.

“Today, the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as any other Iowan.

“Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.

“In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.

“In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated “separate but equal” schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.

“In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.

“In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on civil rights.

“Today, we congratulate the thousands of Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized by our laws.”

I’m not the biggest fan of our legislative leadership in Iowa, but Murphy and Gronstal hit it out of the park on this one. Their statement sends a very strong message to the public as well as to wavering Democratic legislators. Statehouse Democrats met behind closed doors Monday to discuss this issue, and at least a few Democrats support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but I doubt Murphy and Gronstal would have issued such a strong statement on Friday if they had any intention of letting a Proposition 8-style bill get to the floor of the Iowa House or Senate. Gronstal confirmed on April 6 that the Iowa Senate will not debate this issue this year (scroll to the bottom of this diary to read a very strong statement from him). I believe leadership will block any attempt to pass a constitutional amendment restricting marriage equality during the 2010 session.

Governor Chet Culver tends to avoid speaking out on controversial topics, and he dodged on Friday with a statement acknowledging strong feelings on both sides of this “complicated and emotional issue.” He said he would review the court decision with his legal counsel and with the attorney general of Iowa. I would have liked to see more supportive comments from Culver, but he is in an awkward spot. After saying in September 2007 that “it’s important we let the judicial process work itself out here,” the governor unwisely promised in January 2008 to “do whatever it takes to protect marriage between a man and a woman” if the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Republican politicians and bloggers in Iowa are already demanding that the governor keep his promise.

I am not worried that Culver will actively fight the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, though. Not when a large segment of the Democratic base and Democratic legislative leaders support marriage equality. In addition, Culver promised on Friday to consult with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller before reacting to this ruling, and Miller (also a Democrat) issued a strong statement later the same day that began as follows:

The Court has issued a clear and well-reasoned opinion. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision is right, based on Iowa Constitutional law principles regarding equal protection. It is noteworthy that the decision was unanimous.

I wrote on Friday that two separately elected Iowa legislatures would have to approve a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage before the measure would go to Iowa voters. If Gronstal and Murphy are able to block such an effort in 2010, Republicans would have to win back the legislature in 2010, pass the amendment in 2011 or 2012, hold the legislature in 2012, and pass the amendment in 2013 or 2014. By then I believe support for marriage equality will be widespread in Iowa.

However, I forgot about something MyDD user political22 pointed out. Every ten years, Iowans vote on whether to call a Constitutional Convention, and the next scheduled vote on this matter is in 2010. Secretary of State Mike Mauro discussed this scenario Monday with Radio Iowa:

Under the traditional method of amending the state’s constitution, 2012 is the earliest an amendment banning gay marriage could be placed on the ballot. But Secretary of State Michael Mauro says in 2010, Iowans can vote to convene a constitutional convention to consider amendments to the document.

“If it were to happen, it opens up many possibilities to make all kinds of amendments,” Mauro says. “It’s wide open.”

If a constitutional convention comes up with an amendment or amendments to place before Iowa voters, a special election could be scheduled in 2011 according to Mauro. Mauro, the state’s top election official, says a constitutional convention could not rewrite the entire state constitution and would be restricted to proposing amendments — but there’s no limit on the number of amendments which could be proposed.

I forgot about this option because Iowans have never come close to approving a Constitutional Convention any of the previous times they’ve voted on the measure (in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000). I contacted Mauro today for further information, and here is the process as he described it to me.

The question about calling a Constitutional Convention will automatically be on the general election ballot in November 2010. A simple majority vote in favor is all that’s needed to approve the measure. If it passes, the legislature would have to come up with a process for selecting delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and the statute provides very little guidance on how this would be done. The governor plays no role in these decisions; it would be up to the Iowa legislature to approve rules on selecting constitutional delegates.

The Constitutional Convention would meet sometime during 2011, after which the legislature would have to set an election date for the public to vote on any amendments that come out of the convention. Most likely, the special election would be held in late 2011 or early 2012. The amendments would not be voted on as a package. Each amendment would appear separately on the special election ballot. They could deal with almost any issue, from reducing the number of Iowa counties (the constitution currently stipulates that we have 99 counties) to consolidating school districts to giving counties zoning authority over large hog lots to various worker protections favored by labor unions.

Iowa Republicans would be taking a huge risk by going all-out to approve a Constitutional Convention in 2010. They may feel the public is with them on gay marriage; a poll that was in the field last week showed that just 26 percent of Iowans support gay marriage, with another 28 percent supporting civil unions. Perhaps a campaign on amending the constitution would be a helpful backdrop for Republican candidates for governor and state legislature. On the other hand, focusing on the ballot initiative would keep divisive social issues front and center, and Republican candidates running on social issues didn’t fare well in the 2006 or 2008 Iowa legislative races. Also, that recent poll showed a huge generation gap, with nearly 60 percent of Iowans under age 30 supporting gay marriage, and three-quarters of Iowans under 30 supporting either gay marriage or civil unions. Republicans need to weigh whether a short-term benefit in 2010 is worth the long-term damage to the GOP’s image among younger voters who have been trending Democratic.

A Constitutional Convention would bring other risks for Republicans too, because it could consider a lot more than gay marriage. It will be an uphill battle for Republicans to regain control of the legislature in 2010. Democrats currently have a 56-44 majority in the Iowa House and a 32-18 majority in the Iowa Senate.

If voters approve a Constitutional Convention while keeping Democrats in charge of the legislature, Democrats would be able to draft the rules for selecting delegates to that convention. Who becomes a delegate will inevitably influence the kind of amendments the assembly would consider.

Certain interest groups may not be pleased by a campaign to approve a Constitutional Convention. Kay Henderson did some scenario spinning at Radio Iowa today and suggested that road-builders might be afraid of losing the constitutional provision that earmarks all gas tax revenues for the Iowa’s Road Use Tax Fund. I wouldn’t be surprised if agribusiness fought the idea of a constitutional convention too, because there’s a lot of support in both parties for “local control” over large hog confinements.

I assume someone will soon poll Iowans on whether they would vote to call a Constitutional Convention to overturn gay marriage. I’m particularly interested to know whether Iowans who say they are for civil unions, but not gay marriage, feel strongly enough about that to support amending the Iowa Constitution.

Setting aside the constitutional discussion for a moment, many political observers are wondering how the Iowa Supreme Court ruling will affect the 2010 races. This will be a hammer for Republicans to use against Democrats in marginal state legislative districts, even if some of those Democrats themselves oppose gay marriage. I am not too worried, because no Democratic incumbents lost in 2008 after they voted to add sexual orientation to Iowa’s civil rights law. The overall economy and deteriorating budget projections are much bigger threats to Democratic incumbents in 2010, in my opinion.

As I mentioned above, Governor Culver doesn’t have a lot of good options now. He has no choice but to backtrack on his promise to “do what it takes” to “protect” heterosexual marriage from gay unions. Pushing for a constitutional amendment would produce a strongly negative response from much of the Democratic base. On the other hand, there are also Democrats and independents who oppose gay marriage and will want to see the governor do something. I hope he will use the unanimity of the court ruling and the legal advice he receives from the attorney general as excuses to revise his previous opinion on marriage equality. Republicans will try to hurt Culver on this issue in 2010, but the passionate opponents of gay marriage were never going to vote for Culver anyway.

Paradoxically, Culver could benefit from this controversy if it helps a social conservative win the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year. I believe the governor will win or lose based on economic issues, and he would have a tougher campaign against State Auditor David Vaudt or even Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey than against a hard-core “values Republican” such as Bob Vander Plaats.

The best scenario for Democrats would be for Congressman Steve “10 worst” King to run against Culver. I don’t know anyone from either party who thinks King could win a statewide election. King told the Omaha World-Herald on Friday that he is more likely to run for governor in 2010 if Culver does not “step up” to try to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.

By the way, David Waldman (formerly known as Kagro X) used King’s reaction to the Varnum v Brien ruling to mock King’s lack of understanding of the whole “checks and balances” concept. We Iowans learned long ago never to expect logic or coherence from Steve King.

Ultimately, it’s far too early to guess the impact of gay marriage on the 2010 elections. There’s no consensus among Bleeding Heartland commenters about how much this hurts Democrats. While some Republicans are hoping the issue will save their party, others are angry about what they view as a weak response by Republican leaders on this issue. I am confident that public opinion will shift toward supporting marriage equality when people see the sky didn’t fall because some couples who were already living together made it official. Then again, Nate Silver thinks it will be 2013 before a majority of Iowans are ready to vote to support gay marriage.

For now, my advice to fellow Iowa Democrats is “Don’t worry, be happy” about the Varnum v Brien decision. Even if I’m wrong about the potency of gay marriage as an electoral weapon for Republicans, some things are worth losing elections over.

Final note: On April 6 I received this press release from the Iowa Senate Democrats. The bold part was bolded in the original.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader

Mike Gronstal rejects amendment to reverse marriage equality

DES MOINES:  Monday night, April 6, was the first time the Iowa Senate discussed the unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to allow same sex couples to marry. During the discussion, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs made clear he would not agree to suspend the rules to allow a vote on an amendment to reverse the court decision.  

Without the support of Senate Majority Leader Gronstal, efforts to amend the Iowa Constitution can not move forward in the Senate.

Below is the text of Senator Gronstal’s response to Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley of Chariton .  It is also available on YouTube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

“One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men.  And those guys were talking about gay marriage.  They were talking about discussions going on across the country.  

“Any my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: ‘You guys don’t understand.  You’ve already lost.  My generation doesn’t care.’

“I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that.  And I’ve talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley.   I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

“Is that so wrong? I don’t think that’s so wrong.  As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife.  You know I’ve been married for 37 years.  I hugged my wife.  I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

“No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.”

• NY-20: Paper ballots to be recanvassed will be released after today’s court hearing. As of the end of the day on Friday, the state Board of Elections found the race was a true tie, with 77,225 votes apiece. These numbers didn’t account for two recanvasssed counties, which would give Scott Murphy a 198-vote lead for the time being, according to the New York Observer.

On a mostly unrelated note, the guy who could still be representing NY-20, John Sweeney, just got arrested for DWI over the weekend… for the second time in 17 months. He’s gotta learn to stay away from those frat parties.

• KY-Sen: Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo pulled in a respectable-sized fundraising haul in Q1: $420,000. This may well beat opponent Jim Bunning, who has publicly admitted that his fundraising has been “lousy.”

• CT-Sen: The stink lines coming off Chris Dodd seem to be attracting even more challengers. Businessman Jack Orchulli, who got demolished by Dodd in 2004 (66-32), is suddenly looking for a rematch. He’ll face a crowded primary, though, but unlike ex-Rep. Rob Simmons and state sen. Sam Caligiuri, Orchulli can draw on deep pockets to self-finance. (If ex-Ambassador Tom Foley decides to get in, he’s also a potential self-financer.)

• IA-Gov, IA-Sen: A Des Moines register poll showed surprisingly low re-elect numbers for Gov. Chet Culver, who isn’t facing a top-tier challenge (yet). Only 35% said they would definitely re-elect, while 28% would consider an alternative and 18% definitely would not. (Sen. Chuck Grassley, by contrast, can plan on another six years if he wants; he’s already at 48% definitely re-elect.)

• AL-07: State representative Earl Hilliard Jr. announced he’ll be running for the open seat being vacated by Artur Davis, who’s running for Alabama governor. If the name sounds familiar, he’s the son of ex-Rep. Earl Hilliard, who was defeated in a 2002 primary from the right by Davis. He’ll have a name recognition advantage in a crowded field: attorney Terri Sewell is already running, and they may be joined by Jefferson Co. Commissioner Sheila Smoot, and state senators Rodger Smitherman, Bobby Singleton, and Hank Sanders. This is one of our best opportunities to replace a centrist with a progressive in a dark-blue district without primarying an incumbent.

• CA-32: A late entrant to the special election to replace Hilda Solis has an ace in the hole: she’s a former aide to Solis. Benita Duran launched her campaign website today. With the entry of another prominent Latino candidate to split the field, this may help Board of Equalization chair Judy Chu at the expense of state senator Gil Cedillo. Or, on the other hand, with the entry of another woman to split the field, this may work to Cedillo’s advantage.

• CO-04: Former State Senator and current Larimer County Commissioner Steve Johnson is said to be weighing a challenge to freshman Dem Betsy Markey. SSP’s analysis shows that McCain barely won this district, 50-49, after a 17-point Bush win in 2004. (D)

• NY-19: After drawing a weak opponent in 2008, John Hall hopes he’ll be Still the One for NY-19 voters in the face of a stronger challenge in 2010. State assemblyman Greg Ball has formed an exploratory committee. Obama won this district by only 3 points (same as in NY-20), but Ball is a bomb-throwing conservative who seems out of step with the district’s Rockefeller Republican roots.

• OH-SoS: Ohio Dems have a strong candidate lined up to try and hold the crucial Secretary of State position, as current SoS Jennifer Brunner goes for the promotion to Senate: Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown. She’s likely to face GOP state senator (and former state house speaker) Jon Husted, who just announced his candidacy.

• DCCC: The DCCC is moving aggressively to target the 8 districts in California where Obama won but a GOP representative hangs on. A new study shows that GOP registration has dropped precipitously in these districts, so there may be something more significant going on in California suburbs than just a big one-time Obama downdraft.

Also on the DCCC front, the NY Times profiles Rep. Chris Murphy, a rising star who, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is heading the DCCC’s Frontline program for defense of vulnerable incumbents (mostly freshmen).

It’s the third year that Democrats control both chambers of the Iowa legislature as well as the governor’s chair, and party leaders want to seize the opportunity to pass some good labor legislation. In 2007, Democrats controlled the Iowa House 53-47 but couldn’t find enough votes to pass a “fair share” bill that would have forced individuals represented by unions to stop being “free riders.” In 2008, Governor Chet Culver angered labor activists by vetoing a bill that would have expanded collective bargaining rights. That prompted several major labor unions in Iowa to stop giving to Culver’s campaign committee.

This week a “prevailing wage” bill dominated debate in the Iowa House. It’s one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities for this session. Democratic leaders want to pass this bill, and Culver, who wants to heal last year’s wounds, has spoken out strongly on the issue.

Although Democrats now have a 56-44 majority in the lower chamber, they were unable to find a 51st vote for the prevailing wage bill during five hours of debate on Friday. Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy now plans to keep the vote open all weekend, sleeping in the chamber, until some Democrat’s arm can be twisted on this issue.  

I don’t want to wade too far into the Iowa weeds here; I’ve written more on this mess at Bleeding Heartland.

I’m bringing this to the attention of the Swing State Project community because it underscores the cost of the inadequate get-out-the-vote effort last year on behalf of our statehouse candidates.

Last summer Barack Obama’s campaign took over the “coordinated campaign” role from the Iowa Democratic Party and promised to work for candidates up and down the ticket. But staffers and volunteers in the unprecedented number of Obama field offices didn’t even collect voter IDs for our state House and Senate candidates. Our legislative candidates weren’t usually mentioned in scripts for canvassers and rarely had their fliers included in lit drops. After the election, Rob Hubler, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, took the unusual step of publicly criticizing the GOTV effort.

In the end, Obama carried this state by 9 points, but we lost several excrutiatingly close races in the Iowa House (more details on that are at Bleeding Heartland). If even one of those races had gone the other way, we would have the votes to pass the prevailing wage bill without the fiasco that is now unfolding.

The Iowa Democratic Party must run a better coordinated campaign in 2010 and must insist that the GOTV in 2012 is about more than re-electing President Obama. Even Obama’s general election campaign director in Iowa, Jackie Norris, admitted that more could have been done for the down-ticket candidates:

I also think that a lot of the people who voted were new voters and while we educated them enough to get them out to support the president they need to now be educated about the down ballot races.

I have stopped donating to the Democratic National Committee for now, because I am concerned that new DNC chairman Tim Kaine plans to replace efforts to strengthen state parties across the country with a 50-state strategy to re-elect President Obama.

We need better coordinated campaigns to GOTV in 2010 and 2012, because even if Obama remains as popular as he is now, support for him will not magically translate into votes for other Democratic candidates.

As the fate of the prevailing wage bill in Iowa shows, lack of attention to down-ticket races will affect what Democrats can achieve long after the election.

David Yepsen published a weird column in the Des Moines Register about Culver’s vulnerability in the 2010 election.

After the jump I’ll assess Yepsen’s analysis and handicap the 2010 Iowa governor’s race.

Yepsen notes that Culver’s approval rating has been “stuck at 60 percent” (with only 32 percent disapproval), as if that’s a bad thing. Any campaign operative will tell you that an incumbent is considered vulnerable only if his or her approval rating drops below 50 percent.

Yepsen is convinced that Culver has been badly damaged by Iowa’s current budget shortfall and a “fiasco” over the proposed sale of the Iowa Lottery. Contrary to Yepsen’s column, Culver did not “float” the idea of selling the lottery to private investors. He listened to other people floating that idea and waited too long to issue a statement ruling out the proposal. (Yepsen glosses over his own incorrect prediction last week that claimed the fix was in on selling the lottery.)

Yepsen notes that Culver’s “relations with the labor movement soured over his veto of their pet collective-bargaining bill last year.” But I expect that the bad blood between Culver and organized labor will dissipate if the governor signs one or more good bills on labor issues this year. Democrats expanded their majorities in the Iowa House and Senate and should be able to pass another collective bargaining bill, or perhaps a a “fair share” bill. I sincerely doubt labor will sit out the 2010 election if an anti-union Republican challenges Culver.

While I don’t agree with most of Yepsen’s analysis, I do agree that the governor may be vulnerable to a strong challenge in 2010.

Culver has several big advantages going into a re-election campaign:

1. He’s an incumbent. It’s been many decades since Iowans voted an incumbent governor out of office.

2. Since Culver won the 2006 election by a 100,000 vote margin out of 1.05 million votes cast, Iowa Democrats have opened up a large registration edge. There are now approximately 110,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Iowa.

3. He already has about $1.5 million in the bank, and even some Republican businessmen have cut him large checks.

Here are the danger signs for Culver:

1. The economy is lousy and could get worse before 2010. There’s plenty of time for Culver’s approval rating to drop into the danger zone. Poppy Bush had 70 percent approval ratings in early 1991.

2. The first midterm election is often tough for the president’s party. Democrats control the legislative and executive branches in Iowa as well as Washington, and voters may punish Culver if they don’t like what they see. The governor is presiding over budget cuts that may be unpopular.

3. Turnout will be lower in 2010 than it was in the 2008 presidential election (about 1.5 million Iowans cast ballots for president). Traditionally, lower turnout helps Republicans, although that didn’t prevent Iowa Democrats from winning gubernatorial elections in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

4. Culver’s campaign committee burned through a lot of money in 2008, spending more than half of what was raised. If the burn rate stays high in 2009, that war chest may not be big enough to scare off a serious Republican challenger.

Who might that challenger be? Yepsen thinks Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey might have a shot. He’d certainly be a stronger candidate than three-timer Bob Vander Plaats. (Vander Plaats thinks Republicans lost recent elections because they moved too far to the middle and can win again if they “effectively communicate a compelling message of bold-color conservatism.”)

I still think it would be tough for the low-profile Northey to beat Culver. He doesn’t have a base in any of Iowa’s population centers. If the state budget outlook continues to worsen, I’d be more worried about State Auditor David Vaudt, who warned that last year’s spending increases would be unsustainable.

What do you think?