With Three Debates Set the GOP Primary is About to Heat Up
- Monday, March 15, 2010, 4:30
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,285 views
- 29 comments
In 85 days, Iowa Republicans will head out to the polls and select the candidate that they want to see go head-to-head with Governor Chet Culver in the general election this fall. Various public and private polls show that Governor Culver is in serious trouble, meaning that Republicans stand a great chance at winning the office.
Since last July, Terry Branstad has led Culver the polls by anywhere from 16 to 29 percent. Branstad’s chief primary opponent, Bob Vander Plaats, has also beat Culver in head-to-head polls since last fall, but by a lesser percentage. Even relatively unknown State Representative Rod Roberts polled well in a matchup between himself and Culver. Roberts trailed the incumbent Governor by only 5% in February, just outside of the poll’s margin of error.
With each new set of poll numbers that are released, Iowa Republicans are becoming more and more confident that they have a real chance to unseat Culver in November. If successful, it will be the first time an incumbent governor has not been re-elected in Iowa since 1962.
Governor Culver’s vulnerability in polls means that the candidate who gives a victory speech on primary night will likely be giving an inaugural speech next January. With just three months until the primary, the Republican gubernatorial race is now in full swing.
The biggest development thus far in the race is that there will be a series of three Republican debates this spring. The debates will be held in Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines. By agreeing to the three debates, Branstad avoids any criticism that he is unwilling to debate his primary opponents, but he also opens himself up to be attacked in front of a TV audience. The gubernatorial candidates have now shared a common stage a number of times, but for the most part, Vander Plaats and Roberts have not used those opportunities to criticize Branstad directly.
All three candidates spoke at the Iowa Christian Alliance event last week, but no candidate took a shot at Branstad. Vander Plaats did criticize Branstad at the Scott County Republican convention a week ago Saturday, but beyond that, there have not been as many sparks flying around in the primary as some had expected.
As the primary campaign enters into its final stage, it’s once again time to see how the Republican gubernatorial primary has evolved over the last year. For much of 2009, Bob Vander Plaats focused on one issue – gay marriage. Vander Plaats’ entire campaign last year centered around the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 3rd decision that opened the doors for gay marriage in the state.
Vander Plaats has vowed to put a check on the Court’s power by implementing an executive order that would put a stay on gay marriage until the people of Iowa have an opportunity to vote on the matter. Vander Plaat’s stay on gay marriages might have to last through his entire first term in office, since the process of passing a constitutional amendment is a difficult one in Iowa.
Some of Vander Plaat’s most ardent supporters have taken Terry Branstad to task for his pick of Joy Corning to serve as his Lt. Governor during his last two terms in office. Corning supports homosexual rights. Yet, at the Iowa Christian Alliance event last week, Vander Plaats chose not to talk about Branstad’s past and instead focused on jobs and the economy.
Vander Plaats is already identified as the socially conservative candidate in the race, so one might understand why he made the decision to talk about other issues at the event. However, his decision to not draw a stark contrast between himself and Brastad in a room packed with social conservatives and the media seems like another missed opportunity for his campaign. The closest Vander Plaats came to criticizing Branstad was a vague reference to gambling, which got its start in Iowa while Branstad was governor.
Branstad, on the other hand, used his time behind the lectern to tell those in attendance that he shares their values and has fought for them as governor. He talked about the Defense of Marriage Act that he signed into law, legislation that allowed parents to educate their kids at home, and statistical reporting, parental notification, and banning partial birth abortions.
As a former high school basketball coach, Vander Plaats should realize that the end of the game is drawing near, and while he’s still in the game, he’s going to need to hit some three pointers to pull off an upset. Thus far, he is playing like the looming primary is just halftime.
While Vander Plaats has a dedicated group of supporters across the state, you can now start to see the differences between the Branstad and the Vander Plaats campaigns.
The Vander Plaats campaign consists of a core group of five or so paid staffers. The Branstad campaign has more field staffers than Vander Plaats has paid staff. This allows Branstad to have a presence at various Republican gatherings across the state, not just where the candidate is visiting. I noticed this in Cedar Rapids last Tuesday. The only campaign to have a representative at the Five Season’s Republican Women’s luncheon was Branstad. These little things make a difference in the outcome of a campaign.
Last fall, Branstad was criticized for not attending county GOP events like the other candidates. While it’s likely that some are still bothered by his early absence, Branstad has traveled the state and hosted his own events. By doing so, he has been able to identify more supporters for his campaign than just those who regularly attend GOP meetings and events.
If Vander Plaats wants to win the GOP primary in June he’s going to have to be more aggressive and show a willingness to attack Branstad. The three upcoming debates provide him with an opportunity to do just that, but if he wants to build his case against Branstad, he needs to start making those arguments now.
As this campaign progresses, it is becoming more and more like the Republican gubernatorial campaign of 2002. Instead of Doug Gross joining the race late, we have Branstad. Instead of Steve Sukup being the candidate who many expected to win the primary until Gross’ late entry, you have Vander Plaats. Then there is Rod Roberts, who while nobody gives him any chance of winning, he will stay clear of the negative attacks between Branstad and Vander Plaats, and find himself as the fresh-faced alternative in the race, much like Bob Vander Plaats was in 2002.
While the sparks have yet to fly, the Republican gubernatorial primary will provide plenty of fireworks before it’s all said and done. How good or bad the fireworks display will be this year is up to Vander Plaats. Thus far, Vander Plaats’ allies have been the ones attacking Branstad. That might get some people talking, but if Vander Plaats wants to be the Republican nominee, he must be willing to draw the stark distinctions between himself and Branstad.
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
29 Comments on “With Three Debates Set the GOP Primary is About to Heat Up”
Trackbacks
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kind of a a strange article. There was little if any mention in the article about Rod Roberts. While I understand that the article is about “front runners”, I would think that the Roberts camp would be affronted by the claim that BVP is the “socially conservative” candidate. Also, I think that Mr. Robinson may overstate the impact of debates. It is soon to be spring in Iowa – a time of graduations, planting, gardening. Not everyone will be watching these debates – in fact, much of the true base – good Republicans who have a lives beyond politics – will be otherwise occupied.
I am far more interested in our candidates showing me how they plan to attack Culver than attacking each other.
Anon..
The folks who tend to vote in primaries tend to be your base Republicans who do get involved politically and are watchers of the political scene. Plus, these debates will be heavily covered by the media in Iowa. A major gaffe by any of the candidates will be blasted across the state so fast your head will spin.
So yes, these debates could indeed have a big effect on the state of the race. BVP has to go on the attack on Branstad sooner rather than later. However, that’s a strategy that could backfire upon him if he appears shrill.
Roberts however, does stand to benefit the most. If he can start presenting himself as the “alternative” to BVP, a better all-around conservative he could start cutting into BVP and Branstad’s base of support.
BVP still hasn’t been able to shake off the “single-issue” candidate label..and allying himself with organizations like IFPC hasn’t given his campaign the boost that he thought it would.
Why would he want to shake the “single issue?” I’m disappointed he hasn’t talked about it lately. He almost seems afraid to bring up marriage on the stump any more and it’s very disappointing.
It’s over and Bob, Deace and the IFPC need to realize it.
I have to laugh now every time Deace talks about this new “grass roots movement!” that is “causing ‘the establishment’ to quake in their boots!” What’s going to happen is that this “grass roots movement” is going to have their candidate lose by 20+ points in 3 months. He has vastly overstated their numbers and has likewise been lying to other members of that group by overstating their influence.
Are you really the “grass roots” if your candidate can’t even close within 20 points of the guy who (according to Deace) only draws his support from 15-20 people “South of Grand”? The reality is that all manner of Republicans (including, yes, social conservatives) support Branstad. Deace and the IFPC do not speak for all social conservatives in the State. Unfortunately for them, they’re about to be on the outside looking in, and they have only themselves to blame.
Rod Roberts would make an excellent nominee, by the way, and if he had another 6 months, he’d certainly finish ahead of BVP and potentially could challenge Branstad.
If these guys start attacking each other, they will lose my (and a LOT of others’) support very quickly. ‘02 proved that these attacks do not work. All the candidates are fine individuals. The first one to get into the mud will crumble quickly.
I don’t think BVP needs to attack Brandstad. All his media allies have done that. What BVP does need to do is take this opportunity to show he can govern the state. If he comes out with specifics about economic growth and job creation he may be able to move the needle away from his core supporters.
I still think Roberts can make a move. He needs to shine in the debates. I think there are a lot of folks like myself, who won’t vote for BVP but aren’t that fired up about Brandstad.
Yeah, where’s the discussion of Rod Roberts?
Nimitz…that’s just it.. BVP DOESN”T have specifics…if he doesn’t have specifics now..not too darn likely he ever will have them.
Heart Iowa–Why would he want to shake the single issue label? Tell me the last single issue oriented candidate that’s ever won in Iowa?
Mr. Hawk–IFPC has done more to HURT the marriage issue for conservatives. Instead of being focused on building a grass roots support base to demand a vote by the Legislature, they’ve chose to get involved in the primary..and then start making idiotic statements like Chuck Hurley did last week saying that homosexuality is worse than people smoking.
I went to that http://www.chuckhurls.com website because I can’t stand IFPC and what they are doing to what I thought was a decent and legit organization. TELL ME THEY ARE NOT GETTING TAX DOLLARS OR GRANTS FROM THE TAXES I PAY!!!! Who the hell do I need to contact to cut them off? The link to the 990’s tax form says that they received almost 600K in government assistance in 2008. Tell me this is wrong. I’M SO MAD I CAN’T TYPE ANY MORE!!! COME ON TEA PARTIERS BAND TOGETHER TO STOP THIS!!!
IFPC – just another group that gets paid to be Christians. If they’re getting federal funds, the least they could do is at least act like Christians too.
Bryan English – PLEASE GET ON HERE AND TELL ME THIS PUBLIC MONEY IS NOT TRUE AND THE SITE WITH THE LINKS TO YOUR 990′S IS MADE UP!!! BRYAN?
Hmm yes, do tell.
These debates – and this race – in my opinion are the bellwether for Iowa GOP politics and will be the tip-off to how the other crowded primaries in the state will play.
We have three candidates that in my opinion represent the 3 current factions in the state GOP: 1) The old-guard fiscal/business conservative emphasis, represented by Branstad, 2) The IFPC/ICA social conservative emphasis represented by BVP, and 3) the three-legged, constitutional conservative emphasis, represented by Roberts.
The biggest test here is for BVP. Make no mistake social conservatives – this is for all the marbles. If he gets blown out by Branstad I see this wing of the party severely diminishing in prominence. As of right now it’s Branstad’s race to lose and BVP is going to have to make up a long stretch of ground.
Which brings us to the debates. BVP is going to have make his hay here and completely destroy Branstad and his record while building a credible case as to why he should be governor. He’s completely painted himself as the social conservative candidate and I don’t see how he’s going to steal Branstad voters. He will have to heavily emphasize the fiscal side of things, and I’m not sure the his obsessive-compulsive supporters will like it that BVP isn’t preaching that old-time religion on a semi-daily basis. But, BVP isn’t a stupid man and if he takes the gamble he might just pull it off.
Branstad – well, he just has to not screw up real bad. His game is fight to a stalemate. If his opponents can’t sharply distinguish themselves and trash his record in the debates then I see Branstad as inevitable. I don’t see this as the end of the world for social conservatives, quite frankly B has been touchy when his record gets jabbed, and I think that leaves him opened to be pressured to move in a right direction. If the social conservatives are smart they’ll hedge their bets and maneuver to get a good pick for Lt. Guv and elect solid conservative candidates in a GOP majority, then push their issues the next 4 years. I don’t think B would fight them if they got their issues thru the legislature.
Roberts – Roberts and those like him – Fong, Behn, Rants, McKinley, are the future of GOP politics. The drama that you are seeing play out between the Good-Old-Boys and the Deace crowds won’t be on the stage much longer. Fusion candidates like Roberts et al are where the trend is headed. I strongly believe that the silent majority in the Iowa GOP are the balanced conservatives that care about a range of issues, not just one leg of the stool.
Roberts can make hay in the debates if he knocks it out of the park. I really like this guy and he has a future. He also needs to hedge for Lt. Guv as the compromise candidate. To accomplish both he needs to do what he’s been doing, hitting on social, fiscal, and constitutional issues and show some good disagreement with B’s record. I see him as having the most to potentially gain from these debates.
And the other multiple candidate races need to pay attention to how things play out, because it will be a factor in their own. Make no mistake – I see this as a heavily voted primary and all three groups will be out in force. Anyone who leaves that out of their calculations will come up short on election day.
Roberts just needs to continue doing what he’s doing. His negatives are very very low. He can easily be the dark horse here.
Mud slinging does not work in Republican primaries. Too often Republicans bloody each other up during primaries and then turn into pussy cats when it comes to Dimocrats. It ought to be the other way around.
Craig, your recap of the ICA event and the speeches are not the same report that I got back from people. It was said that Branstad would have probably walked away with third place had there been a poll taken. His “shared values” along with his personal story was seen as pandering from someone who has been floundering in that arena. And you said, “The closest Vander Plaats came to criticizing Branstad was a vague reference to gambling, which got its start in Iowa while Branstad was governor.” First of all, the reference was more than vague and why can’t you admit that Branstad brought gambling to Iowa? It had more than just a “start” under Branstad. You are yet to face this guy’s record. You have written about anything but that which is weird since it pretty much defines his candidacy because he has a record 16 years long.
I heard that Rod Roberts displayed horns and a tail. I heard that Bob Vander Plaats fainted while on stage. I heard Terry Branstad juggled. Geez Craig, why can’t you report on what people hear rather than what you actually saw and have on video tape? This is just completely irresponsible writing!
I heard Iowans Rock is a loser.
IR
Its not me that you should be calling out, its the candidate that you are supporting. its not my job to define the differences between Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats, it’s the candidates job. Bob could have very easily said in his remarks that Branstad brought gambling to the state and that he picked a runningmate that now supports gay marriage. Those things are both true, but instead of drawing a stark difference between himself and Branstad, Bob does everything with a wink and a nudge.
I have always encouraged all candidates to critique their opponents directly. If you want the job you should be willing to at least do that. This is why I had a soft spot for Rants. He didn’t hide or depend on his supporters to attack his opponent, he did it himself.
Thank you, Mr. Green, for a thoughtful article. Since I’ve been following Republican primaries since before a lot of you were born, I don’t need the sanctimoniousness of those like Mr. Oxford Heights telling me that only the “base” is going to vote this time. I agree with Matt that this is going to be a heavily voted primary. And it is going to be the real base – the good responsible Republicans who believe they have an obligation to vote when they have the opportunity. They may not read TIR or know what the IFPC is, but they will vote. Mr. Oxford Heights, if you wanted to see a primary where only the “base” voted, you need to go back to 1978 – the three-way primary between Terry Branstad (the conservative candidate) and two others.
Anon..
What part of my post to you was “sanctimoniousness”? Go look at voter records for yourself…the folks who consistently vote in primaries tend to be your base Republicans who get involved politically and watch the political scene. They WILL be watching these debates.
You’re trying to argue these debates aren’t going to make much of a difference…and you’re completely incorrect. This isnt 1978…its 2010..where you have a 24 hour media cycle, the Internet..social media… The debate between these three will be diced, sliced and cut up three ways to Sunday.
These debates are going to be BVP’s last chance to be able move this race in his direction. He hasn’t be able to make a major move to gain ground on Branstad. His campaign has been filled with strategic blunders, wasteful campaign spending and an inability to solidify himself as the best candidate to beat Culver.
Actually, Phillip, supplying a video is a great idea. Why isn’t there a video provided of the speeches? There usually is from events like these. And, yes, I am a loser. You figured me out.
Let’s see here IR…you’ve got your own website…Why are you expecting someone else to provide video of the speeches from this event? Aren’t you able to get off your rump and set up a camcorder?
Hell..from your own post..you admit that you weren’t even AT the ICA event…you heard from 2nd hand sources about it. That’s real reliable there.
A loser is someone who complains about someone else’s work..but is too lazy to do the work for themselves.
Nowhere has BVP advocated repealing gambling in Iowa. Just a little nugget to throw out there. Of course, that matters not to his supporters, primarily because they are hypocrites just like Bob.
OxfordHeights, thank you for your kind words. Actually it is not “my website.” It belongs to a group of us who are anything but lazy. Sure we get a kick out of posting under anonymous names, although I’m pretty sure I’m not so anonymous, but it is not where we get our daily jollies unlike most of the comment heros over here. Sorry there wasn’t an opportunity to set up a camera at the ICA event but most of us are busy because we are actively involved in various campaigns on the ground. But that’s what drives you crazy doesn’t it…….we aren’t lazy and we might just get our candidates elected and we could give a flying rip about the Republican brand that so many of your types have damaged. And by the way, second hand information is much more trustworthy than first hand information from a souce that proudly proclaims, “news for Republicans, by Republicans.” Sorry, but I haven’t signed on to the “loyalty oath” and I judge by principles and not party. If that is what a loser is than paint that big “L” on my forehead because I’ll wear it proudly.
Technically, Branstad did not implement gambling in Iowa any more than IFPC should be blamed if there is a vote on whether to define marriage to be valid only if between a man and a woman and it should fail.
At the time, gambling was being touted as economic development for border counties. They wanted the right to vote on it and they got it. This is the result.
Recently while in Ohio the President made the following statement while pushing his healthcare reform bill, “Doing right is more important than politics.” This is both a complex and assumption related statement. It’s perhaps best for anyone desiring to do what is right to define the word. Right is analogous to beauty, often found only in the eye of the beholder. In the definition of this word one needs to know, as Ernest May of Harvard has often observed, the individual’s history in the head. Life experiences can effectively mold an individual’s definition that is critical to identifying one’s underlying assumption.
Is right literally to be found only in the person defining the word, if so it can simply be a restatement of a person’s strong internal, personal, and prejudicial preference. Some leaders literally act as if they know what is right for everyone. However, right can also be externalized in seeking a definition by asking “what do most people conclude constitutes right?”
Right is more important than politics? Right can also be viewed as a complex word. In our democratic form of government the Bill of Rights and the Constitution require of our leaders that they have the consent of those they would seek to govern. As uncomfortable as that mandate is for any chief executive who has fought long and hard for the office he now holds, the political consensus component cannot be excluded from any working definition of right. I am not arguing that the majority is always correct. I do assume however that negotiation and compromise often lead to a broader perhaps more effective definition as to what is truly right.
Perhaps the founders in their infinite wisdom were mindful of the ancient scriptures that state, there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Absent in literature written about democracies is any definition of right based on secret deals and decisions which have not had the benefit of serious public discussion.
What is right? Again, like beauty it may well be in the eye of the beholder. It also could result from any premise validated by discussion, morality, ethics, and reason. Being a Douglas Mcgregor, Theory Y person, I have found evenly distributed among America’s millions of citizens, talented, intelligent, working, freedom loving voters who have great ideas and opinions that can assist any listening Governor in arriving at a definition of right. I am not convinced that all knowledge and correctness is merely invested in one person. Autocracies and dictators don’t work for me, I am an American and one strong virtue of Terry Branstad, he’s a good listener and he will do what’s right for Iowans.
AGP