Tag: 2010 Elections

Former Iowa GOP chairman Mike Mahaffey told CQ Politics that he is thinking about running against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district next year. (Hat tip to WHO-TV’s Dave Price.) Boswell barely defeated Mahaffey in his first bid for Congress in 1996.

CQ Politics highlights a big obstacle for Mahaffey if he runs:

A Boswell-Mahaffey rematch after a 14-year hiatus would also take place on quite different turf from their first race. The 3rd District in 1996 was located mainly in southern Iowa and was heavily rural; Boswell was aided in that race by the fact that he had spent his life outside of politics in farming. But redistricting, performed in a non-partisan procedure in Iowa, move the district’s boundaries north and east to take in the state capital of Des Moines, to which Boswell relocated from his rural hometown.

It will take a lot to convince me that Mahaffey, a small-town lawyer and part-time Poweshiek County attorney, poses a serious threat to Boswell in a district dominated by Polk County. So far IA-03 doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s list of competitive U.S. House districts, even though the DCCC still has Boswell in the Frontline program.

Note: Iowa Democrats will almost certainly be able to block any constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if they retain control of either the Iowa House or Senate in 2010.

Conservative blogger Craig Robinson argued earlier this month that “Iowa Republicans Have Plenty of Opportunity in the State Senate” in 2010. The GOP has almost nowhere to go but up. Republicans currently hold 18 of the 50 seats in the Iowa Senate, fewer than at any previous time in this state’s history. After making gains in the last four general elections, Democrats now hold 19 of the 25 Iowa Senate seats that will be on the ballot in 2010. Also, several Democratic incumbents are in their first term, having won their seats during the wave election of 2006.

To win back the upper chamber, Republicans would need a net gain of seven seats in 2010, and Robinson lists the seven districts where he sees the best chances for the GOP.

I generally agree with John Deeth’s view that only a few Senate districts are strong pickup opportunities for Republicans next year. Winning back the upper chamber will take the GOP at least two cycles, with redistricting likely to create who knows how many open or winnable seats in 2012.

After the jump I’ll examine the seven Iowa Senate districts Robinson views as worthwhile targets as well as one Republican-held district that Democrats should be able to pick up. Here is a map (pdf file) of the current Iowa Senate districts.

I’ll address these districts in the same order Robinson presents them, starting with the longest of the long-shots.

7. Like Robinson (but for different reasons), I would love to see wingnut Bill Salier challenge Senator Amanda Ragan in district 7 (Cerro Gordo County). Democrats have a big voter registration edge, and Ragan won re-election in 2006 with more than 70 percent of the vote. Crushing Salier would be particularly sweet, because it would show that Iowans are not interested in electing someone who’s done little lately besides speak out against same-sex marriage. I doubt Salier would take on this challenge. He seems more interested in threatening to support primary challengers against mainstream Republicans he views as insufficiently committed to overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Varnum v Brien.

6. Robinson thinks Steve Warnstadt is vulnerable in Senate District 1 (Woodbury County) because the Democrats representing the two Iowa House districts in this Senate district only won by narrow margins in 2008. He thinks either of the Republican candidates who almost won House races in 2008 would be strong challengers to Warnstadt. Don’t get your hopes up, Republicans. In 2008 the Obama campaign’s GOTV was extremely weak in western Iowa, leading to poor Democratic turnout in Woodbury County and elsewhere in the fifth Congressional district. Don’t count on the Iowa Democratic Party’s coordinated campaign repeating this mistake in 2010.

5. Robinson would like to see Mariannette Miller-Meeks take on Senator Keith Kreiman in district 47 (Wapello, Wayne, Appanoose, Davis Counties). I actually agree with him that Miller-Meeks has a better chance of getting elected to the statehouse someday than of beating Dave Loebsack in the Democratic-leaning second Congressional district. However, I don’t see her beating Kreiman, who won his district in 2006 by almost a 2-1 margin. Miller-Meeks would do better to run for an open Iowa House or Senate seat. Anyway, after seeing her speak at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines late last year, I got the impression that she plans to run for Congress again.

4. Robinson thinks Staci Appel is vulnerable in district 37 (Warren and Madison Counties) because she won by only 772 votes in 2006 despite “raising massive amounts of money […] She is also the wife of Iowa Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel, adding a unique twist to her re-election campaign.” State Representative Kent Sorenson would be the perfect candidate against Appel, having upset Mark Davitt in House district 74 in 2008: “An Appel/Sorenson race would be ground zero for the debate on gay marriage in Iowa.” To which I say, bring it on. Let the Republicans run Sorenson, who has endorsed Bob Vander Plaats for governor and whose clerk erroneously told the Warren County recorder that she did not need to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Then let Appel talk about her many achievements during her first term in the Senate.

Another reason I would welcome this challenge is that it would open up House district 74. House Democrats were caught napping in 2008; they didn’t hire a campaign manager to focus on Davitt’s re-election, and he wasn’t the hardest-working incumbent in terms of voter contacts. We should be able to win back the district with a Democrat willing to pound the pavement and knock on doors–especially if Sorenson vacates the seat to challenge Appel.

3. Now we’re getting to the more realistic pickup opportunities for Iowa Republicans. Democratic Senator Rich Olive won district 5 (Wright, Hamilton, Story Counties) by only 62 votes in 2006. Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in the district. Even though Olive is not particularly liberal, Iowa Democrats will need to work hard to hold this district.

2. If Republicans can convince former State Senator Sandy Greiner to run against Becky Schmitz in district 45 (Washington, Wapello, Jefferson, Van Buren Counties), I agree with Robinson that this would be a very competitive race. Schmitz won narrowly in 2006 and is in her first term.

1. I don’t share Robinson’s opinion that former State Representative Bill Dix would be a particularly strong challenger to Bill Heckroth in district 9 (Butler, Bremer, Black Hawk, Fayette Counties). That said, Heckroth is a freshman and Republicans have a registration edge, so defending this seat will be high on the Iowa Democrats’ agenda.

Generally speaking, recruiting strong Senate candidates won’t be easy for Republicans, because the party is perceived to have a much better chance of retaking the Iowa House. Life in the minority isn’t much fun.

With only six Republican-held Iowa Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, there’s not much room for Iowa Democrats to make further gains in the upper chamber. It goes without saying that we should leave no Republican unchallenged, but most of the Republican incumbents will cruise. Deeth thinks Republicans may need to play defense in Senate district 35. I am less optimistic. Democrats had a strong and well-known candidate in 2006, former Ankeny Mayor Merle Johnson. The party spent a lot of money in the district, but Johnson lost to Larry Noble by more than 1,200 votes.

Instead, I would encourage the Iowa Democratic Party to make a major play for Senate district 41 (Scott County), held by David Hartsuch of Bettendorf. Here’s why:

1. Hartsuch is a first-term incumbent who won by only 436 votes in 2006.

2. Since then, Democratic voter registration has grown significantly in Scott County.  

3. A lot of moderate Republicans dislike Hartsuch because he defeated the well-regarded incumbent Maggie Tinsman in the 2006 GOP primary.

4. He is a polarizing figure. It’s fine to be a Steve King sound-alike if you represent a heavily Republican district, but Hartsuch doesn’t.

5. Deeth says of Hartsuch, “His failed Congressional bid [in 2008] may have helped his name ID, but not necessarily in a good way.” That’s putting it mildly.

Compare the results from the 2006 and 2008 elections in Iowa’s first Congressional district.  You can find them, along with the results of the state legislative elections from that year, on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website. Both years the Republicans nominated a candidate from Scott County. Bruce Braley won the district with about 55.1 percent of the vote against businessman Mike Whalen in 2006.

Now look at how Hartsuch underperformed in 2008. IA-01 has a partisan voter index of D+4, meaning that in a typical year we would expect it to vote about 4 percent more Democratic than the country as a whole. In 2008 Democratic candidates averaged 56 percent of the vote in U.S. House races, so we would expect Braley to win about 60 percent of the vote given the lean of the district. In fact, he won 64.6 percent against Hartsuch. Granted, Democratic turnout tends to be higher in a presidential year, and Braley turned out to be remarkably effective for a first-term Congressman. Still, Hartsuch’s performance was underwhelming.

Hartsuch didn’t look particularly strong in his home base of Scott County either. Whalen kept it close in Scott County in 2006, winning about 25,142 votes in the county to 29,465 for Braley. In 2008 it was a blowout, with Braley beating Hartsuch by 49,732 to 32,766 votes in this county. I did not look up the precinct-level results for the Congressional voting; presumably Hartsuch did somewhat better in the precincts that are in Iowa Senate district 41. Still, he doesn’t look like a hometown favorite to me.

I have no idea who would be the ideal Democratic candidate against Hartsuch in 2010. Hartsuch’s opponent in 2006 was Phyllis Thede, who went on to defeat Republican incumbent Jamie Van Fossen in Iowa House district 81 in 2008. As much as I like Thede, I would prefer not to leave any of our Democratic-held House seats open next year. There must be another good Democrat in Scott County who could beat Hartsuch.

We still have 531 days until the 2010 election but the race for governor in Minnesota has already been underway for months. Seven major candidates have entered the DFL field and I continue to hear buzz about five more. Tim Pawlenty remains publicly undecided about if he will run for re-election to a third term or not.

With all that in mind KSTP commissioned a poll from SurveyUSA pitting 9 current or potential DFL candidates against Pawlenty. All announced candidates minus Steve Kelly and plus R.T. Rybak, Chris Coleman and Margaret Anderson Kelliher. It has a fairly small sample size of 552 and doesn’t take into account potential IP or other third party candidates but it’s still interesting to political junkies like me (and probably you if your reading this). It has very good news for R.T. Rybak and Mark Dayton.

In addition it’s very bad news for Tim Pawlenty. When a incumbent is under 50 percent they are considered vulnerable in politics. Three candidates hold him under that mark.  

First here is a link if you want the entire poll, crosstabs and all.

47% Tim Pawlenty

43% Mark Dayton

10% Undecided

This is very good news for Dayton. His camp will use this heavily. He has a nice argument developing for his candidacy. He is the only candidate who has won statewide, he polls the best and has strong stances on the issues to boot. He’s already a household name among DFL activists and has a loyal base of support. Entenza has been making smart staff hires, campaigning hard and picking up endorsements recently so this gives the Dayton camp some much needed momentum.

47% Tim Pawlenty

42% R.T. Rybak

11% Undecided

Out of all the potential candidates Rybak is shaping up to be the strongest. Current legislators seem to be doing poorly, Gaertner and Coleman have RNC issues to deal with and Entenza, Dayton and Kelly are longtime players in statewide politics which could damage them among some. Plus he already has a statewide base of loyal suporters from campaigning extremely hard for Barack Obama and other DFL candidates in 2008. He’s running for re-election in 2009 and so can’t do much until November but I wouldn’t be suprised if he’s already taking a very hard look at running.

48% Tim Pawlenty

37% Chris Coleman

15% Undecided

Solid numbers for Coleman who seems to be making clear signals that he’s in the race but it won’t help that his fellow big city mayor is doing 6 points better then him.

51% Tim Pawlenty

37% Matt Entenza

12% Undecided

Encouraging signs for his campaign that he’s doing better then any current legislators including MAK  but he still has a lot of work to do closing the gap.  

50% Tim Pawlenty

36% Susan Gaertner

14% Undecided

Decent numbers for the Gaertner camp. They can point to the fact that she’s doing better then all the legislators and keeps Pawlenty to 50 percent but it won’t matter much if she can’t put together a viable endorsement campaign.

52% Tim Pawlenty

34% Tom Bakk

14% Undecided

Bakk has a slightly more influential position then Thissen which probably is why he does three points better but he’s never run for statewide office and is from the Iron Range so it’s not hugely surprising that not many people know who he is and thus tell pollsters they wouldn’t vote for him.

51% Tim Pawlenty

34% John Marty

15% Undecided

Marty was on the ballot statewide in 1994 so you’d hope he would do a little better then this. But the gap between him and Pawlenty is about half as much as how much he lost to Arne Carlson by so it’s progress I guess.

51% Tim Pawlenty

34% Margaret Anderson Kelliher

15% Undecided

Not very good news for Kelliher and will probably make her think twice about giving up the Speakership which she could probably hold for decades (she’s in her early 40s) for a risky run for governor.

51% Tim Pawlenty

32% Paul Thissen

17% Undecided

Not great numbers for Thissen but not very surprising. How many people do you think know who he is? He’s a state representative who isn’t in the leadership and has been serving for 7 years. I can’t imagine his name ID was very high.

There you have it. It is a long, long way until the election and if polls decided elections President Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House currently (and would be nominating Barack Obama to be Justice Barack Obama?) but this is very good news for Rybak and Dayton and not good news for MAK and the rest of the legislators. It’s interesting that Steve Kelly got left out. What’s up with that KSTP?  

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.

Yesterday Taniel at the Campaign Diaries blog posted about 68 Democratic-held U.S. House seats that could potentially be competitive in 2010. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on that list.

IA-03 did not make Stuart Rothenberg’s list of competitive House seats for 2010 either.

The National Republican Congressional Committee released a list of 51 targeted Democratic-held House districts in January. Lo and behold, IA-03 is not on that list either.  

I realize that Boswell only won the district with 56.3 percent of the vote in 2008, but I don’t hear any chatter from Iowa Republicans about recruiting a candidate to run against him. The focus is on the governor’s race and the Iowa House.

I bring this up because the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has kept Boswell on its list of “Frontline Democrats” for 2010. John Deeth recently noticed that Boswell is “by far the senior member” of the 41 Frontline candidates. Almost all of them were first elected to Congress in 2006 or 2008. The others with more terms under their belt represent districts significantly more conservative than IA-03 with its partisan voter index of D+1.

For Deeth, this is yet another sign that IA-03 deserves better than Boswell. I view it as a sign that the DCCC is wrong. Boswell definitely needed to be in the Frontline program the first five times he ran for re-election, but he was a safe six-term incumbent in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe he won’t be a safe seven-term incumbent in 2010.

According to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office, Iowa’s third district had about 433,000 registered voters as of May 1, 2009. Of those, about 399,000 were “active voters.” More than 156,000 of the active voters in IA-03 are registered Democrats. Only about 118,000 are registered Republicans, and about 124,000 are registered no-party voters.

Why should you care if the DCCC erroneously classifies Boswell as vulnerable? Frontline Democrats are exempt from paying DCCC dues, which are used to support Democrats in competitive races across the country.

Look, I would still prefer to elect a new Democrat to IA-03 in order to avoid a potential matchup of Boswell and Tom Latham in 2012. But since Boswell has no plans to retire, let him pay his DCCC dues just like every other House incumbent whose seat is not threatened next year.  

On a related note, Deeth recently cited Progressive Punch lifetime ratings as an argument for replacing Boswell. It’s worth noting that Boswell’s voting record in the current Congress is much better than his lifetime Progressive Punch score suggests. (For instance, he was not among the Blue Dogs who voted against President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.) Yes, IA-03 should be represented by a more progressive Democrat than Boswell, but I’m cutting him slack as long as he’s not casting egregious votes in the current Congress.  

I see no reason to keep him in the Frontline program, though. We will genuinely be playing defense in dozens of House districts next year. Until there is some sign that Republicans are making a serious play for IA-03, Boswell should pay his DCCC dues.

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.

I’ve never thought Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was likely to retire, especially after Tom Vilsack’s appointment as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture took the A-list challenger out of contention. (Only an unexpectedly tough re-election campaign, in my opinion, might have pushed Grassley toward retirement.)

The Hill reported today that Grassley has reached an agreement with his colleague Jeff Sessions of Alabama:

Under terms of the deal, Sessions will serve as ranking member [of the Senate Judiciary Committee] until the 112th Congress, when he will take over the ranking member post on the Senate Budget Committee. Current Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress.

Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, will then become ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

It’s a good deal for Grassley. Even though the Judiciary Committee will consider at least one Supreme Court nominee before 2011, the Senate Finance Committee will help write important health care and tax legislation this year.

Grassley has long wanted to be the ranking member at Judiciary, a position that opened up last week when Senator Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party. His deal with Sessions removes any doubt about whether Grassley intends to stick around for one more term.

I’m sorry to say that I see little prospect of any Democrat beating Grassley in 2010.

For a long time my money’s been on Grassley retiring in 2016, when his grandson, Iowa House Representative Pat Grassley, will be old enough to run for the U.S. Senate.

Crossposted at Daily Kos

It’s been a while since I wrote one of these, and foolishly, I penned this diary yesterday evening with little sense that something as dramatic as a Supreme Court retirement was mere hours on the horizon…alas!

Irrespective of the indisputably riveting SCOTUS chatter, let’s start with the gov contests of 2009 before moving to 2010. Read about all 36 races below the fold…

First, a map of the entire gubernatorial state of play between 2009 and 2010:

As you may have guessed, light-colored states are open seats (10 Democratic, 7 Republican). The states with circular holes (Minnesota, Florida, and Wyoming) are states where it isn’t clear yet whether or not the incumbent will seek another term.

2009

New Jersey – Jon Corzine (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Tossup

Polls still show Corzine losing to GOP frontrunner Chris Christie, a former U.S. Attorney; the latest poll, from Monmouth University, shows Christie leading 39-35, with Corzine’s job approval at 40% to 49% disapproval. While New Jersey politicians typically poll badly, it’s foolish to discount these numbers…Corzine is in serious trouble. If there is a silver lining, it is that as public confidence in the economy and the direction of the country has ticked up, Corzine’s numbers have inched closer to parity with Christie. I’ve heard the occasional rumor that the Governor will “pull a Torricelli” and bow out at the 11th hour in favor of someone less controversial. Three problems with that: the replacement candidate won’t have Corzine’s money, Garden State voters may (rightfully) grow tired of those sorts of antics, and who would the replacement be, anyway? (I don’t think popular former Gov. Dick Codey fancies a comeback.) For better or worse, Corzine may have to correct this ship himself.

Virginia (OPEN) – Tim Kaine (D) term-limited

Outlook: Tossup

As in 2005, a well-liked Democratic Governor is term-limited, the Republicans have united around the Attorney General as their nominee, and said Attorney General has a lead in most polls on the Democratic possibilities. Hopefully, as in 2005, dynamics will change after the June 9 Democratic primary. On the Dem side, Terry McAuliffe has seemingly catapulted into the lead, if the latest SurveyUSA poll is to be believed, with 38% to 22% each for State Del. Brian Moran and State Sen. Creigh Deeds. Each of the candidates narrowly loses to Attorney General Bob McDonnell, for now, but as I said, Kaine was well behind Jerry Kilgore all through summer 2005 as well. One odd item of trivia: the sitting President’s party has lost every Virginia gubernatorial election since Watergate. Such history is always subject to change (“bellwether Missouri” says hi), but it’s an amusing stat nonetheless.

And on the docket for 2010

Alabama (OPEN) – Bob Riley (R) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Republican

To date, the sole official GOP candidate is real estate developer Tim James, son of 1994-1998 GOP Gov. Fob James, though a run seems quite likely by the legendary (and not in a good way) Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the state’s Supreme Court. The major Democratic candidates, Rep. Artur Davis and State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, seem a heck of a lot more impressive, but given the Yellowhammer State’s continued leanings (even a boost in black participation only pushed Obama to 39% here), the Republicans must warrant an early if narrow edge.

Alaska – Sarah Palin (R) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Safe Republican

Congratulations to one Bob Poe and one Rob Rosenfeld, two Democrats who I assume are as unfamiliar to most Alaska voters as they are to the average political junkie, for choosing to run against Gov. Thanks But No Thanks. The drama surrounding Palin’s career — and there is plenty — is unfortunately unrelated to her prospects for reelection at the moment.

Arizona – Jan Brewer (R) seeking full term

Outlook: Tossup / Tilts Republican

According to Politics1, Brewer is already drawing several primary opponents even as not a single Democrat has yet announced. Insert all clichés here about the advantages of incumbency, but Arizonans I talk to seem dubious about Brewer’s ability to effectively confront the state’s fiscal problems. Dems hold their breath as Attorney General Terry Goddard mulls it over, and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon’s name has been tossed around more than once as well.

Arkansas – Mike Beebe (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Safe Democratic

Beebe is one of the few governors presumably not suffering from declining approval ratings these days, and last I checked was one of the most popular in the nation.

California (OPEN) – Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Democratic pickup

At the moment, the Republican primary is, surprisingly, more crowded than the Democratic one, with former Rep. Tom Campbell, State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman duking it out. Most seem to give the well-financed Whitman an edge, though Poizner is the only candidate of the three to have successfully sought statewide office. On the Dem side, two Bay Area heavyweights are in (Attorney General and former Gov. Jerry Brown and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom) while Lt. Gov. John Garamendi is out (underwhelmed by his poll numbers against Brown and Newsom, he is seeking to replace Ellen Tauscher in Congress if and when she is confirmed as one of Hillary Clinton’s deputies). The mega-name still weighing his options? Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the only Southern Californian and the only Hispanic being talked about in a state ever more ethnically diverse and heavily dominated by its southern counties. This race was assured long before it began to be a headliner.

Colorado – Bill Ritter (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Leans Democratic

Most thought Ritter was one of the less obviously endangered governors in 2010 (and nearly all of them have taken a hit from economic worries and state budget crises), but a Public Policy poll shows trouble, with his approval in the red at 41-49 and mediocre numbers against potential opponents like former Rep. Scott McInnis and State Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry. There is plenty of time for Ritter to turn things around, but his supporters should certainly fight complacency.

Connecticut – Jodi Rell (R) seeking 2nd full term

Outlook: Likely Republican

There are credible Democratic candidates in former State House Speaker Jim Amann, Secy. of State Susan Bysiewicz, and Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, but as far as I know Rell is still fabulously popular (as the New York Times puts it, her approval ratings read like the temperature in Honolulu) and should defeat all comers.

Florida – Charlie Crist (R) either seeking 2nd term or running for the Senate

Outlook: Likely Republican if Crist runs again, Tossup if he vacates

The new conventional wisdom seems to be that Crist is prepping to run for the Senate and will announce in a matter of days, not weeks. To sum up what would happen in that event, I’ll sum things up in four words: “open governor’s mansion, Florida”. Let the generous cash infusions from both national parties begin.

Georgia (OPEN) – Sonny Perdue (R) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Republican

This race saw an interesting shakeup recently when Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, the putative frontrunner in the Republican primary and possibly in the general election as well, bowed out suddenly based on recent health concerns (there were other rumors about what informed his decision, but we’ll not go into those). The Republican primary is absurdly crowded, even if you only note the major candidates: Secy. of State Karen Handel, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, State Sen. Eric Johnson, Rep. Nathan Deal, and State Rep. Austin Scott. On the Democratic side, Atty. Gen. Thurbert Baker easily leads State House Minority Leader DuBose Porter and former Labor Commissioner David Poythress, but all eyes are on former Gov. Roy Barnes, who may mount a comeback and would probably be favored over Baker. After Obama’s 47% total in Georgia, Democrats are curious to test the waters either with a previous known quantity like Barnes or a well-known black candidate like Baker.

Hawaii (OPEN) – Linda Lingle (R) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Democratic pickup

The Republicans are lucky to have a well-known candidate like Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona, because any competent Democrat starts out favored in an open governor’s race in deep blue Hawaii (as an aside, remember circa 2004 when everyone fretted about future trends in the Aloha State?). The only Dem candidate so far is longtime Rep. Neil Abercrombie, but Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann and State Sen. Colleen Hanabusa, two names perennially floated for statewide office, are each considering an entrance.

Idaho – Butch Otter (R) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Safe Republican

Well, who do you have in mind?

Illinois – Pat Quinn (D) seeking full term

Outlook: Likely Democratic

Here is some food for thought from Public Policy Polling: Quinn’s approval rating is a healthy 56%, quite good for a governor in 2009’s political climate, yet Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, a possible primary foe, leads the incumbent 45-29. Could it simply be that Madigan is more popular than Quinn? Rumor has long favored a Madigan gubernatorial run with State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias seeking the Senate seat, but the entire Blagojevich saga, and resulting ascent of the purportedly squeaky clean Quinn, may have cooled Madigan’s interest a bit. The GOP field includes at least two fairly big names in DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett and State Sen. Bill Brady, but either Quinn or Madigan would seem odds-on favorites for now.

Iowa – Chet Culver (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Leans Democratic

Like Ritter in Colorado, Culver is appearing more vulnerable than was initially suspected, but the GOP bench is weak and plenty of Democratic governors seem more obvious targets. I hear that far-right icon Rep. Steve King is mulling a run, but that hardly seems reason for Culver to tremble given Iowa’s decidedly moderate electorate.

Kansas (OPEN) – Mark Parkinson (D) retiring after partial term

Outlook: Likely Republican pickup

It’s too bad the newly minted Governor isn’t interested in a full term, because he might actually have a fighting chance (though perhaps not against longtime Sen. Sam Brownback, probably the next Governor regardless of whom the Democrats eventually settle on).

Maine (OPEN) – John Baldacci (D) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Democratic (one assumes)

The only announced candidate right now with an electoral history is former Atty. Gen. Steve Rowe (D), after former Rep. Tom Allen declined. I’ve heard rumors about Rep. Mike Michaud, but it seems that few are yet anxious to capitalize on this once-every-eight-years opportunity.

Maryland – Martin O’Malley (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Likely Democratic

O’Malley’s approvals are iffy but the GOP bench is virtually nonexistent, other than former Gov. Bob Ehrlich, who already lost to O’Malley in 2006.

Massachusetts – Deval Patrick (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Likely Democratic

Patrick’s approval ratings are actually rather horrendous (27-68 according to SurveyUSA). The only announced challenger is an Independent, businessman Christy Mihos, and if Patrick has anything to feel good about, it’s the lack of quality GOP possibilities in the Bay State (odd considering their 16-year reign over the governor’s mansion). There has been gossip about a serious primary challenge, and with 27% approval, one assumes there would be room for that, but nothing has materialized just yet. This is definitely one to watch, for internecine fights if nothing else.

Michigan (OPEN) – Jennifer Granholm (D) term-limited

Outlook: Tossup

With redistricting around the corner and Michigan’s economy far worse even than the national one, this is a major concern for the Democrats. It is said that Lt. Gov. John Cherry (D) fails to impress as a stump speaker, but for now he is the odds-on primary favorite over Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel, MSU Trustee George Perles, State Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, and former Flint Mayor Don Williamson (who resigned to avoid recall in February). Non-fans of Cherry’s hope to see State House Speaker Andy Dillon jump in. Major Republican candidates include Rep. Pete Hoekstra (ranking member on House Intelligence), State Sen. Tom George, Secy. of State Terri Lynn Land, and Atty. Gen. Mike Cox. The polls between Cherry and the Republicans are even at best, trending the wrong way at worst.

Minnesota – Tim Pawlenty (R) not sure whether he’ll seek 3rd term

Outlook: Tilts (not Leans) Republican if Pawlenty runs, Leans Democratic otherwise

Pawlenty has made no indications that he won’t seek a third term, but isn’t exactly jumping on a reelection campaign either. The Democratic field is crowded, with five current or former state legislators, Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, and former Sen. Mark Dayton. Until we’re clear on Pawlenty’s plans, the situation remains opaque. (And honestly, aren’t we all accustomed by now to long waits re: Minnesota electoral politics?)

Nebraska – Dave Heineman (R) seeking 2nd full term

Outlook: Safe Republican

Politics1 lists no announced or potential candidates. That about sums this one up.

Nevada – Jim Gibbons (R) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Likely Democratic pickup if Gibbons wins primary, Tossup otherwise

Last I heard Gibbons’ approval is in the 20s. The good news is that he’ll be gone after 2010; the bad news is that he may well lose the GOP primary to a superior pick like former State Sen. Joe Heck. No official Dem candidate yet, but the bench is deep considering Democrats’ dominance of statewide offices and the beginning of term limits affecting the state legislature.

New Hampshire – John Lynch (D) presumably seeking 4th term

Outlook: Safe Democratic

Lynch was reelected with 74% in 2006 and 70% in 2008, so he would have had to crash and burn since then (and I don’t think he has) to face a tough race in 2010.

New Mexico (OPEN) – Bill Richardson (D) term-limited

Outlook: Likely Democratic

Lt. Gov. Diane Denish is Richardson’s obvious successor and the Republican bench in the Land of Enchantment is as poor as ever. I suppose the dynamics could shift here, but for now, this is looking like a snooze-inducing changing of the guard.

New York – David Paterson (D) seeking full term

Outlook: Tossup if Paterson wins primary, Likely Democratic otherwise

Did I read right when I saw his approval rating at 19%? Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo says he isn’t interested in running, for now, but players in the New York Democratic Party must be praying that he’s lying. Fortunately, New York is bluer than ever, but Paterson is damaged goods and someone simply must take the leap.

Ohio – Ted Strickland (D) seeking 2nd term

Outlook: Leans / Likely Democratic

Strickland’s approval is a healthy 56%, though it’s 48% on the state’s inarguable top issue, the economy. Personally, I give him kudos for somehow maintaining decent numbers while serving as Governor of economically battered Ohio during a severe recession. His only announced opponent so far is State Sen. Kevin Coughlin.

Oklahoma (OPEN) – Brad Henry (D) term-limited

Outlook: Tilts Republican pickup

This is something of a doppelganger to Hawaii. Like Linda Lingle, Henry has preserved his favorability in a politically adverse state, the incumbent party’s candidate(s) is (are) strong, but the overwhelming partisan leanings of the state give the opposition party a leg up. Democrats Jari Askins, the Lt. Governor, and Drew Edmondson, the Atty. General, are no hacks, but this state was John McCain’s best at 66-34 over Obama. Rep. Mary Fallin leads the GOP field for now, but media favorite former Rep. J.C. Watts is seriously floating his name as well.

Oregon (OPEN) – Ted Kulongoski (D) term-limited

Outlook: Likely Democratic

If Oklahoma is a sort of reverse Hawaii in 2010, Oregon is Maine’s twin. As in Maine, the Democrats, whose bench is deep, should be enthused about a chance at the top office opening up in a blue state, particularly since the incumbent Governor’s approvals were never stellar, but only a single serious candidate has yet jumped in (in this case, former Secy. of State Bill Bradbury).

Pennsylvania (OPEN) – Ed Rendell (D) term-limited

Outlook: Tossup

Along with Michigan, this will be big-ticket defense for the Democrats, and for the same reasons. In this case, history would appear to be on the Republicans’ side — Rendell has been Governor since 2002, the GOP was in power from 1994-2002, the Dems from 1986-1994, the GOP from 1978-1986, the Dems from 1970-1978, the GOP from 1962-1970, the Dems from 1954-1962…see a pattern? But history is always true until it isn’t anymore. Businessman Tom Knox is the only announced Democratic candidate but the names being bandied about are some big ones, including Pittsburgh heavyweights Dan Onorato, the Allegheny County Executive, and Jack Wagner, the state’s Auditor General. On the GOP side, Rep. Jim Gerlach is looking at the race (though the NRSC wants him to challenge Arlen Specter), while Atty. Gen. Tom Corbett is the frontrunner for now.

Rhode Island (OPEN) – Don Carcieri (R) term-limited

Outlook: Who the heck knows?

No Democrat or Republican is running yet to replace Carcieri in liberal Rhode Island. But former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (probably) is, and as an Independent. Chafee did serve in the Senate as a Republican, but now that he is a third-partyer there is little love left for him in the GOP, particularly with the Steve Laffey wing ascendant. Meanwhile, Democrats have no candidate to win what should be a slam dunk pickup. This could be interesting…

South Carolina (OPEN) – Mark Sanford (R) term-limited

Outlook: Likely Republican

Compared to Alabama and Georgia, the Palmetto State Democratic bench is weak. The current odds-on favorite to replace Sanford is backbencher Rep. Gresham Barrett (R), and rumors abound of a run by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who would give Barrett a competitive primary. For now, it’s hard to see Democrats running seriously here.

South Dakota (OPEN) – Mike Rounds (R) term-limited

Outlook: Safe Republican assuming Rep. Herseth Sandlin (D) doesn’t run

The gossip about Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) has visibly died down, so drama will likely be reserved for the Republican primary (currently headlined by Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard and State Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson).

Tennessee (OPEN) – Phil Bredesen (D) term-limited

Outlook: Leans Republican pickup

State Senate Minority Leader Roy Herron, former State House Majority Leader Kim McMillan, and businessman Mike McWherter (son of former Gov. Ned McWherter), are credible choices on the Democratic side, but momentum has long been with the Republicans in Tennessee (along with Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, it was one of five states to move against the Democrats and Obama in the 2008 presidential election compared to 2004). Between Shelby County D.A. Bill Gibbons, Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam, State Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, and Rep. Zach Wamp, the GOP should be well positioned to snatch this one (for redistricting purposes, Democrats should stay focused on races for the evenly divided state House).

Texas – Rick Perry (R) seeking 3rd full term

Outlook: Likely Republican

My gut tells me all statewide races in Texas should automatically be put as Safe Republican unless specific conditions indicate otherwise, but the lack of certainty about this race’s development forces me to stay open-minded. As we all know, Perry faces a stiff and long-anticipated (by long-anticipated, I mean that it’s been chatted about for eight years at least) primary challenge from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Hutchison was expected to trounce Perry, but the governor’s recent appeal to far-right secessionists and fundamentalists seems to have helped his viability against the famously popular Hutchison. And the Democrats? Former Ambassador to Japan Tom Schieffer and — yup — Kinky Friedman.

Vermont – Jim Douglas (R) seeking 5th term

Outlook: Tilts Republican

Douglas has routinely maintained good approvals and capitalized on a divided left due to Vermont’s electorally strong Progressive Party, but the Democrats seem ready to give him a real race in 2010, with Secy. of State Deb Markowitz and State Sen. Doug Racine (who lost to Douglas by a hair in 2002) both announced candidates. If the third parties sit this one out for once, there may be a real shot at turning Vermont’s state government wholly blue, especially with an energized left in the wake of gay marriage’s statewide enactment.

Wisconsin – Jim Doyle (D) seeking 3rd term

Outlook: Tossup / Tilts Democratic

Doyle’s fundraising hints at a third bid, and familiar Republicans like former Rep. Mark Neumann and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker are lining up to take him on. With Doyle’s approvals a measly 32-63, color me surprised that more commentators aren’t characterizing him as seriously vulnerable.

Wyoming (OPEN???) – Dave Freudenthal (D) term-limited?

Outlook: Safe Democratic if Freudenthal runs, Likely Republican pickup otherwise

Freudenthal is term-limited, but has been floating the idea of challenging the state’s term limit law in court, particularly since similarly worded state legislative term limits were overturned as unconstitutional a few years ago. Everyone seems to agree that Freudenthal is nearly unbeatable as an incumbent, but that few Democrats stands a chance in his absence.

OVERALL OUTLOOK: Gubernatorial races are looking to be the most fluid of elections in 2010, between term limits and a bevy of possible game-changing decisions by big names. With Democrats likely to stay firmly in the driver’s seat on Capitol Hill, Republicans would be wise to look for rebirth in governor’s mansions, as the gubernatorial map runs far less favorable to the Democrats in 2010, at least upon first glance. While the GOP will likely make a big sacrifice in California, and may be forced to defend Florida seriously should Crist seek the Senate seat, the Democrats will be playing major defense in New York, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, three key states for redistricting (Ohio is not yet in the bag either). Meanwhile, plenty of sitting governors sit on less than fantastic approval ratings, and many seem primed for an electoral scare. Of all offices being contested in 2010, governor’s mansions are, at this early date, on track to host the most volatile, crowded, and unpredictable election fights…and considering the implications (governors’ future high profiles, the role states as laboratories for national policy, and the more pedestrian question of redistricting), we should all be paying attention.

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.