Behind TWO 8-balls: Monday Meanderings

I had a quiet afternoon at work today, which gave me some time to check and comment on some blogs, and in the process, I was led to ponder the candidacy of David Loebsack.

This post from John Deeth led me to think about it.

Weeks ago, slightly before the filing deadline, I e-mailed someone from Loebsack's campaign to ask to be included in their press releases. I recognize I'm probably not tremendously high on anyone's priority list, but I'm a registered Dem who works for a gub candidate and writes a mildly well-read political blog, so I figured I'd at least merit a response.

Nothing. No "sorry, but no," no press releases, no response at all.

Then the filing deadline came and passed, and Loebsack failed to meet the criteria. He's the only Democrat running, so he shouldn't have problems with voters supporting other candidates, and he's been running for a while, so it's not like he had a short period to work with. Selden Spencer in CD4 hasn't even built a website yet, but he was able to do it.

Loebsack needed to gather 1,716 signatures, and exceed 2% of the 2004 Democratic vote in 8 of the district's 15 counties. Granted, CD2 includes Linn County (Cedar Rapids) and Johnson County (Iowa City), but it also includes 3 counties with less than 1750 Democratic voters (Wayne, Van Buren and Davis) and 6 more counties with less than 5000.

Here's what I said in the comments on the before-mentioned Deeth post:

"When Sal Mohamed, frequently considered a "cold day in hell" candidate, can generate 3,709 signatures and over 1% of the Democratic vote in 10 counties, and Loebsack can't do it in eight, with 15 counties to choose from, it sounds like he either a) dropped the ball, b) never left Iowa City, or c) hasn't built any name recognition in 9 of 15 counties while running against a 14-term incumbent.

None of those would be a good sign."

Then tonight, to do my homework before this post, I went to Loebsack's website to see if I could remember which staffer I had e-mailed. I didn't recognize any of the names on the contact page, and didn't recognize any of them. So I went back and found the e-mail. The e-mail address I mailed to isn't listed on the page anymore.

So now, looking back, Loebsack's staff was ignoring my media request, then they blew the filing deadline, and now they're rotating staff.

Not good signs, considering a lot of Democrats I know would already vote for Leach over Boswell.

KL

REACTION/META: Early Loebsack reactions

Two reads on Loebsack have popped up since I wrote my first post this morning:

First, Blog for Iowa has a post up with a picture of the Johnson County DFA members who accompanied Loebsack on his trip to Washington.

On the substantive side, though, Popular Progressive notes that Loebsack's opinions on the war seem to have taken a pretty drastic shift since he was elected two months and a day ago. To say that's concerning is a massive understatement. If I were a Loebsack voter or donor, I'd be pissed right now. Congressman Loebsack, if you or someone from your staff is reading this, listen closely because I'm only going to say this once. You were narrowly elected over a popular 30-year incumbent based largely on your views on specific issues, one of which was the war. If you intend to walk back to the middle on this, then you shouldn't get too comfortable in Washington, because you'll be back in Mt. Vernon before you know it.

Popular Progressive earned a spot on the sidebar by bringing this to my attention.

KL

More unethical practices: One (maybe two) push polls

Over the past few days, I've received two related emails, both on the topic of push polling. I'll start with the one I know for sure: Lamberti is still push polling against Boswell.

I received an email from a poll recipient over the weekend, and more information this morning. Here's the list of questions the Economic Freedom Fund asked on that race: (I have numbered and added bolding.)

1) Would you like your taxes not raised and if possible cut?

2) Do you believe that frivolous and abusive lawsuits cost us all too much money?

3) Leonard Boswell has support from liberal trial lawyers who make it a habit to sue little league baseball and pee-wee football teams.

4) Do you want liberal female California Nancy Pelosi and her supporters to take total control over the US house of Representatives?

5) Does knowing that Boswell voted for liberal Pelosi (either two or four) times make you less likely to vote for him?

6) Do you believe that America has an illegal immigration problem?

7) Would you support the argument that only a marraige betweeen one man and one woman is legal and binding?

8) On the issue of abortion would you consider yourself pro-life?

9) Do you support a law that allows the self-employed, such as farmers and small business owners, to deduct health care costs such as health insurance and doctors bills from their taxes?

10) Do you consider yourself a Republican?

11) Are you a man?

12) Do you have a favorable opinion of Bush?

This is terrible. It's misogynistic, misleading and it only tells half the story. It's exactly what one would expect from Jeff Lamberti, who by all accounts should leave a slimy trail behind when he walks.

The second possible push poll is more speculative. I received a press release today from David Loebsack's campaign:

Great news! The Dave Loebsack campaign has released a poll, and the numbers are great. I hope you have seen today’s Cedar Rapids Gazette page 3-B, but if not, here is what all of the buzz is about:

Only a paltry 38% of Iowans polled said they would vote to re-elect the Republican incumbent Jim Leach.

After the Iowans polled hear a brief biography of Dave Loebsack, the numbers jump to: Dave 52%, Leach 28%.

Now, I'm not an expert, and I certainly wasn't in the room when these calls were made, but how great would that "brief biography of Dave Loebsack" have to be to drop Leach's rating by ten points? I've emailed the Loebsack campaign to ask. I'll let you know what I find out.

KL

Let's let the voters decide:

State 29 produced an almost obscenity-free post yesterday in response to my claim that Dave Loebsack's win was among the biggest upsets of my lifetime and the biggest turnaround I've ever seen.

State made a fair point: Vilsack's 1998 win was also a pretty major upset.

I'd have to say that Tom Vilsack's defeat of former Iowa Supreme Court justice Mark McCormick in the 1998 Democratic goobernatorial primary (52% to 48%) was huge. McCormick had a 20 point lead in the polls just a couple weeks before the primary.

Couple that victory with Vilsack's come-from-behind-and-ass-slapping defeat of two-time loser Jim Ross Lightfoot in the general election later that year and this particular double-shot multi-orgasm has to qualify as the biggest political turnaround in Iowa that I've ever seen.

I'll try to narrow this down to bullet points:

Vilsack (1998):
Overcame double digit deficits in the polls in two different elections.
Won with no coordinated campaign and an Iowa Democratic Party that was bankrupt.
Defeated a Republican with high statewide name recognition due to previous runs for office and a former Iowa Supreme Court justice.

Loebsack (2006):
Overcame a failure to gather enough signatures to appear on the primary ballot.
Was only seen as the third-best Democratic prospect in his own state.
Defeated a 30-year incumbent.

Which upset was bigger? I don't know. I think I'll let you decide. Here's the poll:

Which was the bigger upset? Vilsack (1998) Loebsack (2006)    Free polls from Pollhost.com

I'll post something on the results eventually.

KL

An election roundup, part 1: Congress

I intended to write yesterday, but the day after Election Day turned out to be a little busier than I expected. Actually, that may be a good thing, it's given me a day to think about my reaction to Tuesday's events. Some quick thoughts:

Congressional races: No surprises in the first, fourth and fifth. Well, actually, one surprise. I was expecting Roy Nielsen to do better in the fifth, maybe even becoming the first independent candidate in recent memory to beat a major party candidate. My mistake.

In the third, I'm mildly encouraged by the events of the last few days. I've been hard on Boswell for running nasty negative ads that any progressive should be embarrassed by. He won by a relatively wide margin. Whether the ads were necessary or not is something we'll never know. But I do feel like one step in the right direction has been taken.

Two years ago, I stood on the floor at the Iowa Democratic Party's election night party when we found out that America faced four more years of W. About the same time, Leonard Boswell took the stage to give his victory speech. He used it to announce that he was running again. That was the point when I stopped voting straight-ticket. I had knocked doors for more than half a dozen candidates, Boswell was the only one who had won, and instead of telling us what he hoped to accomplish in his next two years, he told us he was launching his next campaign.

Fast forward to Tuesday night. Leonard Boswell has just won handily, partly by raising more money than any congressional candidate in history, and he's coming to the podium. I cringe, expecting to be infuriated again. Instead, he says we need to change the way campaigns are run. I couldn't agree more, and I'll be watching to see if he takes a step to make it happen. I'm still skeptical, but it's significantly better than what I expected.

Moving on to the second. At the very least, I'm pleasantly surprised. I wrote Dave Loebsack off in March, and in September when the first polls showed he was close, I accused his campaign of push polling. It turns out I was wrong on both counts.

Make no mistake, Loebsack's victory is one of the biggest upsets of our lifetime, but it's also the biggest turnaround I've ever seen. Just eight months ago, Loebsack's campaign wasn't even organized enough to get him on the ballot in the primary. Today he's a Congressman-elect who defeated an incumbent who started serving almost a decade before I was born. Impressive, to say the least.

KL

READS: Tuesday, January 9 is...

Commonwealth Day (N. Mariana Islands)

After this post, I'm adding the Northern Mariana Islands to the list of places I'd like to send State 29 on a permanent basis. Admittedly, I did laugh at the last part. I think it's worth noting, though, that I'm hardly a representative of the progressive movement as a whole. I know some people and I'd like to think I'm a decent analyst, but in the grand scheme I'm a blogger, not a movement. So if you arrived here this morning via State to check what the "regressive movement" is up to, I'd recommend broadening your base a little.

Common Iowan, the Register, Dave Price and others all have the news this morning that Selden Spencer has formed an exploratory committee to look into a potential second run for Congress. The timing seems a little early but I think it's a good idea. Spencer's last campaign started too late to build enough momentum to topple Latham, but 2008 could be different for three reasons:

1) The party situation in Congress. In 2006, the party and their money entered with just one Democrat in the house and were largely focused on re-electing Leonard Boswell and electing Bruce Braley. They didn't even open the pocketbook to help Dave Loebsack, much less Spencer. In 2008 they'll enter with three D's in the house. The only viable pickup opportunity remaining will be Latham's seat.

2) Experience. It's true Spencer lost by 14 points, but for someone who had never run for public office before, you can't overvalue the experience he gained and the things he learned. Without having spoken to him about this run, my guess is he'll handle several things differently this time.


3) A better starting point. In 2006, Spencer launched his campaign in March with no name recognition, no website and limited financial backing. Today, he launches a campaign with 22 months to do what he was unable to do in eight months in 2006. He already has a web presence, name recognition and presumably some donors. He's not starting from zero this time. He's starting from 43%, the number of fourth district voters who voted for him last time. And he could move up significantly from there.

With the Iowa Legislature underway once again, this morning we've got two sets of challenges to consider: David Yepsen covers the ones we all remember, and the Register Staff covers one I'd forgotten.

Admittedly, the phrase "Blue Thong" in the headline of this story caught my attention. It's not as exciting as I had hoped.

Finally, since it appears Michael Gartner will not resign from the Board of Regents, Nick Johnson has compiled a list of seven ways he could be removed. One can only hope one of them will come to pass.

KL

Can I suggest a compromise?

Two distantly related stories have come up over the last two days:

a) Jim Leach has been handing out fake Native American headdresses at parades throughout his district. I have no idea why one would do that, but he seems to think it's fun. Jacki Rand, history professor at the U of I, is thoroughly unimpressed.

b) According to an AP report, The University of Illinois is thinking of retiring their long-time Native American mascot, Chief Illiniwek.

If Dave Loebsack can beat Jim Leach, can we convince Illinois to keep the Chief and let Leach fill the role on a permanent basis?

KL

Tidbits this morning:

Here are the things in my reading list this morning that were worth mentioning but didn't merit their own post:

It appears my post on, among other things, Aaron LaCock's letter to the Register about the dangers of anal sex drew the notice of Aaron LaCock himself, who commented. Before I could get back from Wisconsin and reply, Heather Youngblut made the point I would have made. Go check out the exchange, and as an aside, welcome back to the blogosphere, Heather, I'm hoping this means you'll be blogging again sometime soon.

While I'm on the subject of Aaron LaCock, a related note: Sometimes the wonders of the internet allow you to share the spotlight with sites with names like "Fields of Poopy." On that google search, I'm right below Poopy and above the Register. That seems about right.

About an hour and a half ago, someone got here by Googling jim leach opponent. I'm glad David Loebsack is taking the time to walk around in all the counties in his district and raise name recognition, but really, he should've been doing this while he was collecting all the petition signatures he didn't collect this spring.

On the subject of livestock, the Register has a good piece this morning combining the views of Iowa Farm Bureau, Iowa Network for Local Control, Iowa CCI, the Iowa State Association of Counties, a farmer from Inwood and Ed Fallon. Instead of interviewing all five, they published letters from all five together. The Register should do this more often: gathering opinions via letters means Tom Beaumont doesn't get to decide who gets more space.

That covers the small stuff. Now on to bigger things.

KL

So I didn't go see Evan Bayh

But I got a quick feel for him from this Daily Iowan article and video. The video is higher quality in production than one would expect from a college paper, but the content is about what one would expect.

Bayh doesn't start speaking until about halfway through, but before that, they do talk to a local party activist who's supporting Dave Loebsack because "we need to beat Jim Leach." I'm going to get a welt in the middle of my forehead if I keep seeing that.

Hat tip to John Deeth for alerting me to the coverage.

KL