Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

An Absurdly Early Look at the 2012 House Races in Iowa

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM EST


(From the diaries - promoted by DavidNYC)

The U.S. Census Bureau confirmed this week that Iowa will lose a Congressional district following the 2010 census unless we experience unprecedented (for Iowa) population growth in the next two years:

During the past eight years, Iowa has gained as many people - about 76,000 - as states like South Carolina and Virginia gained between 2007 and 2008 alone.

To retain the congressional seat, the state would have to gain nearly twice that number by 2010, according to projections by Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that analyzes the impact of demographics on politics.

So, Iowa will be left with four Congressional districts. No one knows what the new map will look like, but it's likely that the 2012 race in the new third district will determine whether Iowa Democrats (who now hold a 3-2 edge in U.S. House seats) gain a 3-1 advantage or have to settle for a 2-2 split.  

desmoinesdem :: An Absurdly Early Look at the 2012 House Races in Iowa
Note: A non-partisan commission draws up the new Congressional map after each census in Iowa, so Democratic gerrymanders will not take place, even if Governor Chet Culver wins re-election in 2010 and Democrats hold their majorities in the state House and Senate.

However, if the Democrats maintain control of the legislature, they have the option of rejecting the first and/or second map produced by the non-partisan commission. Republicans in the Iowa legislature rejected the first map proposed after the last census.

Most of what's now the fifth district, represented by Republican incumbent Steve "10 Worst" King, is likely to become the new fourth district. It makes no difference whether the new counties added to IA-04 come from the current third or fourth districts--that is going to be a safe Republican seat.

Given the voting trends in eastern Iowa, I assume the new first and second Congressional districts will still be relatively safe for Democrats. (Remember, fewer than 10 Republicans in the whole country represent districts with any kind of Democratic partisan lean.) Either Bruce Braley or Dave Loebsack may need to move if the new map throws Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the same district as Mount Vernon (Linn County), but that should not present much of a problem.

The big question mark is what happens to IA-03. Polk County will remain the largest county in the district, but it won't be as dominant in the new district as it is now. A majority of the votes in the current third district come from the county containing Des Moines and most of its suburbs.

In which direction will IA-03 expand? If the counties added to it come mostly from the southwest, Republicans will have a better chance of winning the district. One reason Greg Ganske beat longtime incumbent Neal Smith in the 1994 landslide was that Smith's fourth district had lost Story and Jasper counties, and gained a lot of southwestern Iowa counties, following the 1990 census.

If IA-03 includes more counties from the southeast, Democrats would be better positioned to hold the seat, although it's worth remembering that Ottumwa resident Mariannette Miller-Meeks carried seven southern counties in her unsuccessful challenge to Loebsack in IA-02 this year.

Speaking at an Iowa Politics forum in Des Moines last month, Miller-Meeks said she was leaving her ophthalmology practice at the end of 2008. She strongly suggested that she will run for office again. Whether that means another bid for Congress or a run for the state legislature was unclear.

Miller-Meeks has little chance of winning a district as strongly Democratic as IA-02, but I could easily see her taking on Leonard Boswell if Wapello County ends up in IA-03 after the next census. The Des Moines Register has endorsed Boswell's challengers before and would back any credible Republican opponent against him.

The Republicans' best chance in a third district stretching to the south, though, would be to run someone with strong Polk County connections to keep down the Democratic margins there. I don't have any idea which Republicans have their eye on this race.

If IA-03 expands to the north, it's good news and bad news for Democrats. Story County and Marshall County are reasonably strong territory for the party. On the down side, current fourth district incumbent Tom Latham lives in Story County. Latham is a mediocre Republican back-bencher; what else can you say about a seven-term incumbent whose big achievement on health care, according to his own campaign, was co-sponsoring a bill that never made it out of committee?

However, Latham has obviously used his position on the Appropriations Committee to build up a lot of goodwill in the district. He just won re-election by 21 points in a district Barack Obama carried by 8 percent, and he even carried Story County.

I don't care to run Boswell or a non-incumbent Democrat (in the event of Boswell's retirement) against Latham in a redrawn IA-03. I'm not saying Democrats couldn't hold the seat in those circumstances, but I feel it would be a tough hold.

We would be better off electing a new, ambitious Democrat to Iowa's third district in 2010, so we can run a rising star in the majority party against Latham, if it comes to that. Actually, we'd have been better off if Boswell had retired in 2008, allowing someone new to compete for this seat as a two-term Democratic incumbent in 2012. But what's done is done.

Anyone think there's a chance Boswell will reconsider his promise to run for re-election in 2010?

If Democrats still control the state legislature after 2010, should they reject the first new Congressional map suggested by the non-partisan commission if that map puts Story County in IA-03?

What kind of map would give Democrats the best chance of holding the third district?

I look forward to reading your absurdly early speculation about the 2012 races in the comments.

For those who are interested in the national implications of the post-census reapportionment, DavidNYC created a chart showing which states are likely to gain or lose Congressional districts.

Chris Bowers has already created a 2012 electoral college map, and even with one fewer electoral vote, Iowa will remain important to Obama's re-election chances. You should click over and read the whole post yourself, but the good news is that Obama has a clear path to 270 electoral votes in 2012 even if he loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina.

UPDATE: Iowa blogger John Deeth looked ahead to the 2012 Iowa races in this post last week. He concluded that in order to win three out of the four Congressional districts, Iowa Democrats will need to 1) beat Latham in 2010, and 2) get Boswell to retire in 2012. Click over to read how he reached that conclusion.  

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Great summary
Good to hear that the democratic legislature might have some input in the process by being able to reject a map or two.  That should help.

Do you think Boswell is even likely to run by 2012?  He's a bit old and not in the best health.  I could see him just retiring if the new 3rd district isn't very favorable to him.


Would Ed Fallon be good for another run?


Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
Ehh... depends on how the district looks
If a redrawn 3rd district is evenly split to slightly repub leaning Fallon probably isn't a good pick to run.  Only if the district has a decently democratic lean would Fallon be a good pick.

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't advise him to run
I think there is very little chance of Fallon getting through a competitive primary. I think he recognizes this too, which is one reason he decided to challenge Boswell this year rather than wait for Boswell to retire.

Also, I don't think Fallon would be our strongest candidate for a general election.

I can think of at least a dozen Democrats who might run if Boswell retires. A few of them would have my serious consideration in a primary, and most of them would have a decent shot at winning the seat (if they don't have to run against Latham). I wish one of them would start raising money aggressively to nudge him along, but no one wants to make waves.


[ Parent ]
he'll run until they have to carry him out
Truthfully, his health hasn't been great for a while now, but he shows no interest in retiring.

He isn't delivering much for the district. Maybe he is hanging around to try to get an earmark for a new road we don't need in northeast Polk County, which would benefit a relatively small number of developers. Background on that here:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c...

Boswell serves on the Transportation Committee, and the highway bill is up for reauthorization in 2009.


[ Parent ]
Yikes...
Well, I hope Boswell is hanging on for a good reason. If he can take on Latham, go for it. But if not, he needs to rethink running again in 2010.

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats

[ Parent ]
I agree
Boswell is far from my favorite Dem, but he's a political survivor who always seems to win hard fought races and is the only Iowa Dem to hang on to a seat for a long period of time.  Latham would be hard to beat in a new 3rd district with someone less known than Boswell.

[ Parent ]
Yeah...
If Boswell can do it, I say let him run again. He's far from my favorite Congresscritter, as well. The only major decision I remember agreeing with him on in the last year was endorsing Hillary Clinton last December. hehe ;-)

Anyway, I am concerned. Boswell is no spring chicken, and I don't want him running if he isn't up for some hard campaigning. But if he can hold a newly configured IA-03 for us in 2012, then he should go for it. As lukewarm as I am toward Boswell, I prefer him over Latham for this seat.

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats


[ Parent ]
He Always Underperforms....
....even this year his margin wasn't where it should have been given the Democratic coattails he enjoyed.  I suppose you could say he's a survivor, but in truth most Democrats would have been perenially safe as incumbents in Boswell's district.

[ Parent ]
in 2004 he overperformed Kerry
but his opponent was weak.

Against a somewhat stronger Republican in 2006, Boswell massively underperformed Chet Culver.

Almost any new Democrat could have held this seat this year, given the huge voter registration gains for Democrats in Iowa.


[ Parent ]
I Sure Hope Not!
The best-case scenario would have been Boswell retiring this year, giving a new Democrat the opportunity to win the district in this heavily Democratic year and have two terms of incumbency when he/she inevitably faces off against either Tom Latham or Steve King in 2012.  The longer Boswell sticks around, the more difficult it will be to hang onto three Democratic seats in Iowa rather than a 2-2 split.

[ Parent ]
So I guess Nevada's gain...
Means Iowa's loss. Damn. Hopefully, it'll at least be an "even trade" in losing IA-03 to gain a likely NV-04 that perhaps stretches from Washoe County (Reno) & Carson City down to Nye County (Pahrump) & outer Clark County (Vegas exurbs).

But anyways, back to Iowa. I'm really hoping we can find a way to pick up that NV-04 seat in 2012 while also holding onto a newly configured IA-03. Is Boswell not open to rethinking retirement in 2010? And do we have a good bench in the area?

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats


I am persona non grata
with Boswell folks because I supported Fallon in the primary this year, so I have no idea. In its ridiculously lukewarm endorsement of Boswell, the Des Moines Register editorial board said he should immediately announce plans to retire in 2010. So, right after the election he immediately said he will run for re-election again.

I haven't heard any rumors about Boswell's plans to retire, but I'm not close to anyone who is close to Boswell.

We have a decent bench in IA-03, but it could be such a crowded primary that I have no idea who will run and who can break away from the pack. If no one gets 35 percent in the primary, the nominee would be selected at the district convention.

There will be a strong push by some to get Democrats to nominate a woman so that Iowa can finally break the curse.

Some possible candidates include:

former Lt. Gov Sally Pederson (may not be interested)

John Norris or Jackie Norris (John ran for Congress in IA-04 in 2002. They are headed to Washington, where Jackie will be Michelle Obama's chief of staff)

former first lady Christie Vilsack (plans to continue charity work in Iowa even after her husband becomes Secretary of Agriculture)

former candidate for Lt. Gov. Andrea "Andy" McGuire

State Representative Janet Petersen

State Representative Geri Huser

State Representative Kevin McCarthy

State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad

State Senator Matt McCoy

State Senator Jack Hatch

Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie

former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party Gordon Fischer  


[ Parent ]
Thanks for the 411.
At least we're not lacking for candidates if Boswell changes his mind. I just hope he can hold this seat for us if he decides to run again. Could this be why he's pushing for those transportation projects? To perhaps build up his record of "bringing home the bacon"?

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats

[ Parent ]
Nevada redistricting
So that means we'll have two Clark County seats, one Washoe County (Reno) seat, and one gigantic-rest-of-Nevada seat?

Which could give us a chance at picking up that new Reno seat, but would cause the rural seat to be practically Idaho or Wyoming lite (i.e. very hard to pick up).

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...


[ Parent ]
Washoe wouldn't be big enough
For a seat of it's own.

The thing that people keep missing though is that Clark County is going to be f'ing huge in 2010, maybe around 2.1 million out of around 2.9 million people statewide, making it almost big enough for hold 3 of the four congressional districts statewide.
Maybe the County could be split 4 ways with the current NV-01 and NV-03 safely Democrat and wholly contained with in the Clark County, then one district could stretch from Washoe County down to Nye County into hopefully some more liberal suburban Clark County areas, and then a new NV-04 could go from rural Clark County, through the more conservative, Mormon-heavy suburbs, and then up into some of the more impossibly Republican upstate counties like Elko.

In any event, the problem with drawing a "Dem-leaning" Reno-based seat is that Dean Heller lives in Carson City (which would pretty much have to come along), and unless Nevada Dems can get particularly crafty, a Reno-to-LV seat would still be pretty swingish and he might be able to hold on, and then meanwhile we'd have no chance in the the new, Elko-and-Mormonland seat.  We'd have two safe Clark County Dem seats, and entrenched Republican in a swing, Reno-based district, and an impenetrable Republican hell.  Then again, he might not be so strong if he's, say, in a D+0 district, as opposed to now where the "new" PVI is probably still around R+5, so who knows.


[ Parent ]
I don't know...
If Heller can hold onto a new NV-04 district with mostly Reno & exurban Las Vegas. Heller has run to the right to consolidate the hard-right base in the "Cow Counties", but he can't be hard-right to fit in a seat that no doubt will be in a district that Obama won & where registration is about even (with perhaps even a small Dem advantage). I guess we can still blow it here by having our 2012 candidate run a Jill Derby 2008 like campaign that failed to take advantage of the HUGE Dem year. But even against a weak Dem candidate, Heller can't get away with being radical right uber-Republican in a swing/Dem-leaning district.

However, I know NV Dems aren't stupid. I'm sure they're learning from the mistakes made this year, and they'll make sure we have a candidate in the new NV-04 Reno to LV seat who can actually do as well as Obama did in this district.

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats


[ Parent ]
Yeah, pretty much...
Except that ALL of the NV seats will at least have a little Clark County in them. NV-01 (Berkley) & NV-03 (Titus) will remain all Clark (Las Vegas). Perhaps NV-01 can remain a Downtown Vegas & Strip based district, while NV-03 is confined to the inner Vegas suburbs from Summerlin to Henderson, perhaps dropping Laughlin & Mesquite & the outer exurbs. Maybe North Las Vegas can be split between NV-01 & NV-03, or perhpas one district can take all of North LV as the other district takes more of Eastside Vegas.

The new NV-02 can be the "Lil' Utah" GOP seat, stretching from the "Cow Counties" into NE Clark County, probably Mesquite & Overton. This would leave the brand new NV-04 seat as a swing to Dem-leaning seat stretching from newly blue Washoe County (Reno) & Carson City through the still red "Cow Counties" bordering California to still red Nye County (Pahrump) to the newly blue southern Clark County exurbs, all the way down to Laughlin.

If we play our cards right, we'll hit the jackpot with 2 safe (D) seats, one (D) tilting seat, and 1 safe (R) seat. :-)  

C4O Democrats: A Place for All Democrats


[ Parent ]
I don't see any hope for a Washoe Dem district
Two huge out-state districts would look ridiculous, and be basically unnecessary anyway.  Three Clark districts, with one taking in as much of out state as it needs would lean Dem, while Heller's would be red.

Putting any of Heller's distrcit in Clark just to run a tiny corridor up the California line to Washoe from Clark doesn't gain anything, and would look ridiculous.  Up as far as Carson City maybe to get enough population in that new district, but even that would run through Nye, so nothing much gained.

Unless population increases a lot in two years, the geography just can't be made to work to connect the two most didtant parts of the state and still leave enough red population for one super-red district.


[ Parent ]
some thoughts
1.  Jeff Lamberti (2006 candidate), Robert Brownell (Polk County Supervisor), Michael Mahaffey (1996 candidate for old 3rd district), would be good 2010 Repub candidates.  I am not sure about Miller-Meeks ever getting anywhere near Congress, I think she is way overrated by the Iowa blogosphere.

2.  I agree Boswell should retire, doesn't look like he will anytime soon, though.   There is not an obvious successor, although I know a lot of people who would like to try.  Former Lt. Gov. Peterson or John Norris would probably get my vote.

3.  Good comment about rejecting the map.  Many don't know Repulicans rejected the first 2002 map, which would have put Boswell's farm in a safe D district containing Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, and would have created a competitive district with Des Moines, Ames, and surrounding suburbs.  The map subsequently adopted slashed the Des Moines metro area into pieces, but worked very well for R incumbents (at least until 2006).


Miller-Meeks should run for the statehouse
I think she is a solid R candidate (unlike Kim Schmett or Dave Hartsuch). Don't know whether she would have any chance against Senator Keith Kreiman in Iowa Senate district 47, but that makes more sense than running against Loebsack again in D+7 IA-02.

[ Parent ]
Well, whatever she does,
She'll have the support of the eye doctors!

Bill Posey is not half-alligator...and is outclassed by Davy Crockett anyway: http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...

[ Parent ]
on Norris
I've always thought John would definitely run when Boswell retires, but some people think Jackie, not John, would run for the seat.

Either of them would have a lot of support from activists and major donors, but either of them would also be opposed by quite a few activists (who aren't happy about how Jackie ran the GOTV and how John voted to give a permit to a new coal plant) and major donors (of the Clinton-supporting variety).

If neither Christie Vilsack nor Sally Pederson is interested, then the Vilsacks might get behind John Norris. I'm not sure even that would clear the field in the primary, though.


[ Parent ]
Census data
Currently, an Iowa with four House seats will have districts with an average of 747,012 people.  Working offf of District 1 (Braley) and 2 (Loebsack) as anchors here would be one scenario of how it might play out (roughly).

Braley's counties have a population of 586,879.  Loebsack's counties have a population of 608,267.

For Braley:

Add Allomakee, Wyneshiak, Chickasaw, Howard, Mitchell, Floyd and Grundy, Monroe, Benton, Iowa, Keokuk for a population of 746,010.  Adjust depending on population growth from 2007 to 2010.

For Loebsack:

Add Lucas, Marion, Poweshiak, Jasper, Maheska, Clarke, and Union.  This district is a little large at 750,719.  

What's left for the 3/4 battle is one county from Boswell that will still provide the majority of the district's population: Polk (418,339).  The remaining 320,000 will come from Latham's district.

King's will have to grow substantially to make it's quota.  Add at least 160,000 and probably more.  It will probably be more moderate but contain enough Republicans to re-elect the guy with his vote down to the high 50% range (57-59%).


One solution
Take the counties nearest Des Moines from Latham's old district.  Marshall, Warren, Story,Dallas, Poweshiak, Worth,Cerro Gordo, Franklin, and Hardin add to 745,690 with Polk.  Wait 3 years and adjust.

Iowa has 99 counties and just under 3 million people. No county in Iowa is even close to being a CD of its own for the 2010 redistricting.  Polk has 418,000 people and only five more have 100,000 or more people.  Four have from 50,000 to 99,000 people.  The median county has 15,000 people. Adams, at 4,096 is the smallest population county.

Somebody like desmoinesdem would be able to sort these out.  Story (Iowa state) and Poweshiak have student populations.  I would suspect that the new IA-1 and 2 will lean Democratic but a little less than presently, 3 will be close to even or a very slight D lean and 4 will be Republican but less so than in its current incarnation as Steve King's Iowa 5.  

A good candidate will beat Tom Latham but a bad one will lose.  The other three House members should be re-elected.


[ Parent ]
I would hate to add Poweshiek and Jasper
counties to IA-02, which is already the most Democratic CD in Iowa. Poweshiek has the student/faculty population of Grinnell College, and Jasper has Newton with a lot of current and former union members.

I think Polk's population will be closer to 450,000 by 2010, but I could be wrong.

Adding the far northeastern counties to Braley's district makes sense. He's been far more visible on the Postville/Agriprocessors issues than Latham, even though Postville is in Latham's district.


[ Parent ]
the National Popular Vote bill
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states.  Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states..  Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.  Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.  Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators - 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes - 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...    



Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

SSP Race Ratings

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox