The Short List – Who Will Be Branstad’s Running Mate?
- Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:24
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 3,155 views
- 95 comments
As the Republican nominee for governor, Terry Branstad is now faced with an important decision that will have a major impact on the future of his campaign. Branstad now needs to pick someone to be his running mate.
Branstad’s selection is critical because it will set the tone of his general election campaign. Selecting the right running mate can also energize the ticket and unite the party behind his campaign. Making a poor selection could hinder his campaign and widen the divide that exists in the Republican Party.
A running mate can be selected for a number of reasons. Some potential candidates are considered because of geographical location. Other candidates enter into the conversation because of their gender, fundraising ability, or political philosophy. Another reason why certain people will be considered is because they would help the nominee shore up an area of weakness.
While Branstad won the Republican primary by a substantial margin, Tuesday’s election results exposed where his campaign is weak and needs the most help. Everyone knows that Branstad needs a strong social conservative to be on his ticket, but his biggest area weakness is located in his home turf, Central Iowa.
Branstad won 74 of Iowa’s 99 counties on Tuesday. Branstad dominated eastern Iowa. He received 71% in Clinton County, 69% in Dubuque County, 67% in Scott County, 63% in Muscatine County, 61% in Johnson County, and 58% in Linn County. Branstad doesn’t have problems in that part of the state, and picking a running mate from there would do nothing to help him fill the weakest part of his campaign.
Branstad also faired will in western Iowa, the most conservative part of the state. He won 26 of the 32 counties in the 5th District, and he won counties throughout Northeast Iowa. In all, Branstad went undefeated in the 1st District, lost only four counties in the 2nd District, and lost seven counties in the 4th District.
Branstad struggled mightily in the 3rd Congressional District, where he lost seven of the twelve counties that make up the district. Not only did Branstad lose a majority of the counties in the 3rd District, he also lost the overall popular vote there. Bob Vander Plaats won the 3rd District over Branstad by almost a 3000-vote margin.
Branstad only won Polk County by a mere 133 votes. He won Poweshiek County by just one vote, Monroe by 22 votes, Keokuk by 26 votes, and Benton by 78 votes. Terry Branstad very easily could have been swept in every county in the 3rd District. That’s not a good sign for any campaign headed into a general election campaign.
Branstad’s problems are not just confined to the 3rd District. His campaign has a central Iowa problem. In the nine counties that include and surround Polk County, Branstad only received 50% of the vote in one of them. Branstad won Boone County, which is where he lives, 50% to 45%. He won Polk County (47% to 46%). Dallas County (48% to 45%), Marshall County (46% to 43%), but lost to Vander Plaats in Story, Jasper, Marion, Warren, and Madison Counties.
What was the root cause of what ailed Branstad? Probably the 50,000-watt blowtorch called WHO Radio. For months, Branstad took a beating during the afternoon drive show. While it’s easy to blame radio personality, Steve Deace, Branstad never once sat down with the morning show anchor, Jan Mickelson.
While people might not like how Branstad was treated by Deace and his guests, being governor is a tough job, and dealing with an ornery radio show host is nothing compared to what he will have to go through to fix Culver’s budget mess.
Throughout the primary, many speculated that Branstad would select a running mate from eastern Iowa. While it would give the ticket some geographical balance, it would do nothing to help Branstad with his central Iowa problems. He needs to select somebody who can help him shore up central Iowa.
The ideal running mate for Branstad would be someone know is well known in central Iowa. The person also needs to be a strong social conservative. His potential running mate should also be someone who can reach out to people who might not have voted for Branstad, which means the person has to be extremely likable and outgoing. The final thing on candidate’s wish list is finding somebody who has the ability to raise money for the campaign.
That set of criteria points directly to two people, Jeff Lamberti and Jim Gibbons. Both are former congressional candidates in 3rd District, and both are also strong Catholics who are solid on social issues.
Lamberti ran against Boswell in 2006 and did very well in what turned out to be a terrible year for Republicans. Lamberti campaigned hard all around the district and built up a lot of good will among Republicans. The problem with Lamberti is that he’s almost too similar to Branstad, and doesn’t do anything to bring new people into the process. Having two attorneys on the ticket isn’t ideal either.
While Gibbons was unsuccessful in his recent attempt to win the Republican nomination, he is probably better suited to help Branstad than Lamberti. Branstad struggled in Story County. Gibbons would be a very attractive addition to Branstad’s ticket because of his natural tie in with Iowa State athletics.
Brad Zaun might have defeated Gibbons by almost 15 points, but it would be silly to write off Gibbons just because he was unsuccessful in Tuesday’s congressional primary. Gibbons ran strong outside of Polk County. In fact, if you take out Polk County, Gibbons garnered 42% of the vote in the rest of the district, while Zaun and Funk tied each other with 24%. He also won four of the seven counties that Branstad lost by significant margins.
Gibbons also proved himself to an astute fundraiser, a trait that he shares with Lamberti and one that very few other potential running mates would bring to Branstad’s ticket. Gibbons could also meld right in with the Branstad campaign. Many of Branstad’s donors also backed Gibbons. This is more important than you might think. Jim Nussle’s selection of Vander Plaats didn’t sit well with Nussle’s donors. That decision marked the beginning of the end for Nussle’s campaign.
Gibbons, who is age 50, would be a nice contrast to Branstad, and he would also bring decent name identification and an impressive resume of his own to the ticket. His history at Iowa State University is already well documented, and he has an Ag degree from ISU and served as a financial advisor for 17 years. Having managed the 401k’s for a number of large employers in central Iowa, Gibbons has a lot of unique connections that other candidates don’t bring to the table.
As for the WHO Radio problem, it’s doubtful that Gibbons could fix it, but he could sure help. Gibbons seems to have built up a good relationship with Mickelson. For the most part, that’s because Gibbons was solid on issues like immigration and social policy, and he could speak with credibility on fiscal issues. He also had a rapport with Deace. His background at ISU and his views on gay marriage and abortion obviously appealed to Deace.
While Gibbons and Lamberti seem to be natural fits for what ails the Branstad campaign, there are other people who are likely on the short list. The list would probably include.
Jeff Bullock – President of Dubuque University.
Bullock’s name was tossed around over a year ago when Doug Gross was looking for potential candidates. Bullock is an impressive guy. Last fall, I attended a small dinner, which he and his wife attended, and I walked away being very impressed. Bullock might be difficult to pry away from Dubuque University.
Mary Andringa – President of Vermeer Manufacturing
Andringa has served as the Chair of Branstad’s campaign, and like Bullock, was someone who Doug Gross tried to recruit in 2009. She would obviously bring a lot of business experience to the ticket and is from the area in which Branstad struggled, but it’s doubtful she could help fix the problems Branstad has in the area. Despite being his campaign chair, Branstad only managed 30% of the vote in her county. It’s also possible she is not interested in the position.
Carmine Boal – Former Legislator from Ankeny
Boal has played a significant role in the Branstad campaign, where she served as his Policy Director. She is a solid social conservative and was an outstanding legislator. While she would be a great pick, she might not be able to help Branstad with his central Iowa problems.
Steve Sukup – Former Legislator, Businessman
Sukup ran for governor in 2002 and lost the in the primary to Doug Gross. In 2006, Sukup backed Vander Plaats, so selecting him might be perceived as extending an olive branch to the Vander Plaats supporters. Sukup is an Iowa State Alumni and has an extensive background in agriculture and industry. Sukup is also a solid social conservative and is strong on labor issues. Like the others, he probably wouldn’t help Branstad in the 3rd District or with WHO Radio.
Scott Raecker – State Representative from Polk County
Reacker is a dark horse, but if Branstad is going to select a current legislator, it’s going to be somebody from a safe Republican seat. Raecker is somewhat of an undiscovered talent in the Republican Party. He leads up the Character Counts effort in Iowa, and you would be hard pressed to find a nicer, more respectful person with political experience.
Raecker is the Republicans’ budget hawk, and as former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Raecker is an expert when it comes to the budget. He can also deliver one heck of a speech. Raecker probably isn’t as strong enough for some social conservatives, so he might not help fix Branstad’s problem with the base of the party. That said, he is a Grinnell College grad, so he does have deep roots in the 3rd District.
Marti Rodamaker – Banker from Mason City
Rodamaker is a longtime political donor and president and CEO of First Citizens Bank in Mason City. Rodamaker comes from a very well connected family. As a banker, Rodamaker would be strong on fiscal issues and economic development. She would also provide a unique perspective since she doesn’t come from a large metropolitan area. A solid Republican, her stances on social policies would need to be vetted. She also probably would not help Branstad with his Central Iowa problem.
Doug Reichardt– Des Moines Businessman
Reichardt is the former CEO of Holmes Murphy & Associates, an insurance company based in Des Moines. Reichardt is personally wealthy and well connected. He is also rumored to be politically ambitious. Having retired at a relatively young age, he would devote a lot of time and energy to the campaign and would give Branstad a sharp business mind within his administration. Like many of the others listed, he’s from the right area of the state, but he might not help Branstad reach out to dissatisfied Republicans.
Rod Roberts – Former Gubernatorial Candidate
Roberts conducted himself in a classy manner throughout his campaign. Many people believe a Roberts selection might help unite the Republican Party for the general election. Having won only one county and finishing with less than 10% of the vote, the case for Roberts is a little more difficult to make. Had he done better in the areas where Branstad struggled, it would make a lot of sense. That said, Roberts’ political future remains bright. If he is not on the ticket, he will probably find himself somewhere in the administration if Branstad wins.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae21a55e-a24d-4e5e-9e0c-1d9b451e4f4c)
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.
95 Comments on “The Short List – Who Will Be Branstad’s Running Mate?”
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.
I think it’s a safe bet of who he won’t pick. BVP has burned too many bridges so his supporters need to get that idea out of their heads. A couple suggested Bill Salier on Mikelson yesterday, he is disqualified for the same reasons.
I do think Roberts would make a good choice, most of his supports aligned closer to BVP but couldn’t support him for a myriad of reasons. I don’t think chosing a running mate by region is necessary, but chosing someone to his left would be pretty dumb. Whoever he choses needs to be a team player and should have the qualifications to become the Governor in 4 years when they are likely to become the nominee.
As far as Branstad’s performance in the 3rd District, I don’t think the amount of cross-over voters should be overlooked. I have heard many liberal dems say they wanted BVP to run against and considering the Rob Tully ad campaign, it would be very plausible!
If he picked Lamberti, they could go after the porn-’stache vote!!!
Maybe Culver has to worry about central Iowa, too. The dynamics change after the primary. Those Independents and even Democrats who are disaffected with Culver and the Democrats will also be votes for Branstad.
I’d like to see Branstad hit this universal preschool issue head on–like Christy from NJ.
The truth about preschool is that is it a giant waste of money. Studies show there is no long-term benefit from preschool.
Branstad probably had no preschool. Most people over the age of 50 did not have preschool.. Among some of my older friends, some didn’t even have kindergarten.
There’s nothing wrong with preschool but if a parent wants it for their child, they should pay for it.
We have to start someplace to solve this economic crisis and preschool is a good place to start. No universal preschool!!
Branstad is probably wise to pick someone like Jodi Tymeson for his running mate. She was the campaign manager for Vander Plaats, has run successfully for political office, has solid conservative credentials and a military background. Since she is from Madison County, she would avoid the eastern vs. western Iowa split which would happen if Vander Plaats was chosen as his running mate. She would also shore up the support for Branstad among central Iowa voters.
While your picks seem OK, your logic is wanting. You are writing this as if what Branstad needs in the general is to appeal to the primary voters who didn’t go for him. Don’t you understand that he needs to appeal to independents and democrats? The socons who love Deace could be dwarfed by independent voters and democrats without strong party identification that don’t want Culver. And you give Deace too much credit. How many people who aren’t bedrock social conservatives can listen to his negative drivel day after day on drive time? Or are that interested in local Republican political issues that they prefer that to national news?
I agree with anonymous that you give Deace too much credit. We know there was a huge amount of party-changing in Polk County alone. I’m betting it was a stealth Mike Kiernan effort to try and topple or weaken Branstad by having Dems switch to GOP and vote BVP.
As for lieutenant governor, my money’s on Christian Fong. He’s young, engaging to even moderates, strong business experience and is the same age as Branstad was when he was running for lieutenant governor. It might engage young voters as well. Craig’s thoughts are all still thinking GOP only-a Fong pick is more of a general election decision.
And Deace Voted for… is correct. Branstad needs to hit that preschool with a counter-charge. Culver’s trying to look all warm and fuzzy reading to preschool kids while K-12 schools are struggling. Bring up the Register’s article on East High in DM that gets no help while other “hipper” schools like Roosevelt get the attention. ”While Chet Culver Wants to Divert Education Money To Pre-School, Your High School Kids Aren’t Getting A The Education They Deserve” sounds like a great slogan to me.
I just read that Branstad has said he opposes paying for universal preschool. That must be the reason Culver is doing this. Branstad can ping pong that ball right back at him.
The rest of us can help.
Culver has no interest in solving his economic problem. He will only continue to make it worse and this is proof.
I think everyone on this list would be appeal to general election voters. If you want to ignore the fact that Branstad performed poorly in central Iowa that’s fine, but that is where he is the weakest. The numbers don’t lie. I have no doubt that he will run strong in other parts of the state, and has appeal to no-party voters, but he is weak where WHO’s radio signal is the loudest.
I think a new face like Gibbons would help him in a lot of ways. Not only was he gracious and pledged his support to Zaun, so did the support that KCCI interviewed. Gibbons also never attacked his opponents, looking back that might have been an error on his part, but means there are no hard feelings in the 3rd.
Given TEB’s perceived problems in Central Iowa, I am thinking that no one east of Hwy 63 is probably in contention any longer. Please note perceived problems.. Gibbons would be a good choice, but I think that someone with legislative experience would better serve. No matter who it is, the Lt. Gov. ina Branstad administration is definitely the heir apparent.
More on the crossover issue. Did anyone see the DMR results page yesterday? Wapello, Jefferson, Davis, and Van Buren Counties were BVP governor wins and MMM congressional wins. Not to take anything away from MMM, she won..no question. But doesn’t that appear to be just a bit…..dare I say….schizophrenic? After all, MMM’s 2008 rival Peter Teahen was BVP’s campaign director. I would be hard pressed to believe that he was promoting her under the radar. Also, over 4000 GOP ballots voted in the People’s Republic of Johnson County…practically equal to the Dems. 4000 GOP ballots in Johnson CO equals 25% of the registered Republicans. Not sure that there was that much motivation.
It’s unfortunate that the state of our government has degraded to the point of what appears to be an election for the high school homecoming king. (Or queen). There are 98 counties in Iowa who are starting to understand just how “Polk” county “rules” over our political system and if TEB makes the “institutional insiders pick” for LtGov. then you might be surprised just how many social and fiscal conservatives will rebel against the resurgence of “the good ol days,” complete with smoked filled rooms and a handful of financial backers and other political wannabes who think they have their hands on our government. Craig, you have great political insights, but you went off the reservation with this post. This isn’t about winning the election, it’s about governing. I challenge you to re-write this post and think about the names you omitted along with using the paradigm of “skills and competence.” Using your logic, it seems Deace is the best option for TEB, putting him on the ticket will silence the WHO effect, which certainly exists, but you’ve given it far too much consideration and weight.
I agree with Iowanews, you missed Christian Fong on your list and I understand he’s already on the “short-short” list. Who else? Certainly, you hear the “whispers” and I find it interesting that our state auditor “endorses” for the first time EVER and somehow his name is awol on your list?
Inquiring minds want to know!!
Picking a Lieutenant Governor to curry favor with WHO’s on-air personalities would be a fool’s mission. It would be impossible to find a candidate that you can be sure would meet their approval. Deace would require a candidate to have complete obeisance to his social agenda and feature that agenda prominently in the campaign.. The mere office of Lieutenant Governor would not be enough of a draw to overcome his emotional tendency to hold a strong grudge. Yet emphasizing a strong social conservative stance would alienate a larger part of the voting public who are more concerned with economic issues.
Des Moines people are funny. You really do think that the world revolves around you. The likelihood is still with someone from E. Iowa. Christian Fong and Matt Dummermuth are two names that TEB should (and probably will) strongly consider.
He needs someone outside that insulated bubble of Des Moines, to appeal to people who see him as an incumbent in an anti-incumbent year. Fong and Dummermuth both fit the bill. Neither have held elective office, which is a plus not only this year, but doubly so because TEB served for so long. Dummermuth has the added benefit that he’s managed a semi-political office and done so in the face of real public scrutiny (Agriprocessors). He is tested.
It’s not going to be Roberts. Roberts is already reviled by the BVP people because they think he was a spoiler.
Obviously I think Branstad needs to pick someone from Perry like myself or even Gibbons. I do have to laugh heartedly at the post by Mr. Failor above touting his client Christian Fong. Fong was pushed out of Aegon for announcing he was running for Governor without having talked to his bosses at the time. In addition, while Fong is young, that is the extent of his accolades. Again, Perry is the breading ground for leaders. Go with a Perry pick!
I liked Jim Gibbons and did vote for him Tuesday, but I don’t think he is a good choice seeing how he was beat solidly by Zahn.
Fong? Are you kidding me? Follow the money on who is promoting him. Branstad’s numbers are so solid he could pick Joy Corning again and still sail back to Terrace Hill. He doesn’t need to pander to any wing of the party or geographical region. He needs to pick someone who is qualified to be governor on day one, not 15 years from now. Cross Fong off your list and get serious people.
My picks would be someone who like Vaudt or Northey who has actually won statewide office in their own right and has executive experience. The Lt. Gov spot should not be a grooming job with training wheels, Branstad himself knows what a mistake that is with his pick of Corning. I dont see him making the same mistake twice.
Fong and Dummermuth would both be horrible picks.
Dummermuth would be an excellent choice. He can unite all wings of the party.
http://wcfcourier.com/news/regional/article_2e5efbb1-3daa-5f92-9851-b63a55e1f730.html
While it may be silly to solely try to appease WHO, it is not silly to pick a social conservative. Uniting the party is important, and that would help toward that end.
I’m also seeing the same old lies develop that a social conservative can’t also be good on fiscal issues or have a business background.
Why can’t we have both? I think Gibbons fits the bill pretty well.
I think an even better article is to feature the ever growing list of folks who want you to think they are on the short list. Who are they? Just go to any major TEB campaign event and watch to see who is tripping over themselves to give the apperance of perceived influence. Take notes and when the TV camera arrives, they all mysteriously position themselves….well, you get the point. Do us a favor and send Davidson out with his camera, this would be too much fun!
This time, there is more to it than just picking a candidate who appeals to the most voters. This time, it could very well be a stepping stone to the governorship so we need someone we would want to become governor.
“Dummermuth would be an excellent choice. He can unite all wings of the party..”
Correct, DVFO. He also ticks off nearly everything TEB needs. Plus, to be honest, he’s likely to be a more competent manager than most of the people on Craig’s original list.
He appeals to social conservatives, he’s a Harvard Law grad, appointee of President Bush, not a politician, and was universally praised by those who witnessed his management of the Agriprocessors episode.
He’s about as exciting as a rock.
Exciting isn’t what TEB needs. He needs a young, bright, articulate and competent manager that appeals to both wings of the party. If you want exciting, go attend an Obama rally and weep at the talk of unicorns and rainbows.
Why do I feel this election is a repeat of 2008 with McCain. McCain had to pick a young social conservative to appease the base; however, that backfired. Branstad will just be pandering. Even if Branstad picked BVP, that still will not help because every conservative knows the only reason why Branstad got in was because he was the only person the GOP establishment could put up against BVP. Seriosly, you think Mrs. Andringa, Jeff Lamberti, or that Dubuque guy would have beaten BVP this year. Nope. Branstad was the only person that had name ID that could beat BVP. BVP voters will not automatically vote for Terry this time. Branstad’s pick will be a token to the so-cons like McCain’s was and I don’t think we will fall for it.
Don’t overlook Christian Fong. I have been saying for months that he’ll be the next Lt Governor.
Why do all of these BVP people make Branstad out to be a raving liberal on social issues?
This is the guy who signed DOMA, parental notification, etc. etc.
Here is what a Register columnist had to say about Branstad being not moderate enough to fit Doug Gross’ bill in 2009:
****
Gross has been helping former Gov. Terry Branstad, for whom he served as chief of staff, explore a run. But Branstad, still undeclared, showed himself while in office to be only a hair less ideologically driven than the others. During his 16 years as governor he staked out a territory squarely on the side of social conservatives. He aligned himself with Bill Horn, who was sent here in the early ’90s by the Springs of Life Church to block gay rights. Horn was behind the effort to oust gay former Des Moines school board member Jonathan Wilson and to derail a Des Moines school curricular proposal to teach facts about homosexuality. Branstad even wrote a fundraising letter for Horn, whom he met at the Christian men’s group, Cross Trainers. In it, he called Horn one of the “staunchest defenders” of traditional family values and love of God.
Since that was a local school issue, Branstad had no reason to stick his nose into it. He even publicly sided with Horn against his own lieutenant governor, Joy Corning, when Horn stirred up controversy over an upcoming workshop in her annual conference on diversity. It dealt with workplace discrimination and included a gay mayor. Branstad announced he didn’t approve of the workshop and hadn’t been consulted.
Public officials represent constituents of many faiths or none at all, and should keep their religious views private. But Branstad often blurred the lines.
He marched and spoke at a March for Jesus, declaring, “It is God in Jesus Christ who governs the universe, not us.”
As the party moved rightward, Branstad never dissociated himself from its platform or goal to lift restrictions on school prayer and pass a human-life amendment to the constitution. He signed several laws restricting abortion rights, including one later found unconstitutional in federal court. He sought to get rid of Iowa’s no-fault divorce law.
And in a repudiation of moderate Republicans and his own lieutenant governor, he supported conservative Jim Ross Lightfoot over Corning in the race to succeed him.
If there is something good about seeing “my guy” lose Tuesday, and seeing the issues I care about abandoned by the “Republican” party (like both fiscal and social conservatism), it is that I don’t care much anymore about the outcome in November. So I can spend time reflecting on the “bigger picture.” All the neo-cons at ITR have been so focused (and still are after the primary) on defeating that nasty, dastardly, evil Bob Vander Plaats, that I think you have lost sight of the bigger picture. Even Deace thinks it is a foregone conclusion that Culver is hated so much that he is toast. But I am not so certain about that just yet . . .
For example, in the 2006 gubernatorial race, which without question was driven to the Democrats by voter frustration with “Republicans” just like Branstad that had a propensity to tax and spend and regulate, the total vote count cast to either major party, according to the Iowa Secretary of State, was 1,036,446. Culver took 55% of the votes at 569,021, Nussle took 45% of the votes at 467,425. Given the tide of frustration now with Democrats (oh how that pendulum does swing – but always for the same reason: politicians that screw the people, whether “Republican” or Democrat), let’s assume (conservatively I think) that the pendulum has swung fully in the opposite direction, and a “normal Republican” now commands 55%, and Culver 45%. So far so good . . . but now we have to factor in several things that Nussle didn’t have, or at least had in smaller doses, working against him:
1)The Doug Gross factor. Given Tuesday’s primary outcome, it is clear that the memory of the average Iowan is about a micron long, and so they have long forgotten about Doug Gross. However, if the Democrats have a brain cell working (which I know is debatable), they will as quickly and expediently as possible trot out the virtual (and now “legal” in Iowa I would add, because the courts have passed that law), same-sex marriage between TEB and Doug Gross . . . Because just as sure as there are cigarettes being smoked on public property in Terrace hill, it is axiomatic that both Democrats and conservatives in Iowa hate the very ground that Doug Gross walks on . . . Democrats for the very good reason, besides the too obvious fact that he is just another shyster lawyer, that Doug Gross hates individual property rights and wants to see fascist associations of big government and big business have the ability to take anyone’s property anytime they want to for commercial and/or “government” development. And of course, Christian conservatives dislike (we’re not allowed to hate) Gross simply because he hates us and everything we stand for . . . and he has made that pretty clear. In fact, Branstad is apparently so confident that he can beat Culver without the support of Christian conservatives in Iowa that he sent Doug Gross out to “stick it in our eye” on Tuesday night . . . good for you Terry and Doug!! Keep it up!! . . . for the “Doug Gross factor,” let’s conservatively take 2% away from the vote count just for those who lean Democrat (it is probably much more). Now Branstad has a 6% lead at 53% to 47%.
2)The Terry Branstad tax and spend factor. Yup! . . . sorry, but any way you slice it, Culver has a more “fiscally conservative” record than Terry Branstad, which is all the neo-con’s pretend to care about. A large majority of people in Iowa have no tolerance for any government excess right now. If the Democrat’s are successful in continuing to attack Branstad’s poor fiscal record, which will come under greater scrutiny in the days ahead, Culver can capitalize on this with both Democrats and true fiscal conservatives. The neo-cons chose to ignore Branstad’s record as “lies of the Democrats” . . . there is no such tale to weave that has any meaning when dealing with the Democrats, and possibly even independents who don’t just blindly trust any politician in Iowa. For this sin, let’s penalize TEB only 1%: Now we have TEB with a “commanding” lead of 4% at 52% vs. 48% for Culver.
3) Branstad’s laissez faire record on second amendment issues. The NRA has already donated $2,500 to Culver’s campaign, ostensibly as a payback for signing the CCW reform bill into law. This will be a really awkward year for NRA types in Iowa; the NRA has a strange and inconsistent record of who they support and/or endorse in major political races. Often times, in a race of “liberal vs. liberal,” as we have here, the NRA will simply demure and not endorse. However, on many occasions, the NRA will actually endorse candidates who are more liberal on other issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.), if they perceive that their issues have been addressed. Culver has done that, and it is possible that he will get some kind of recognition from the NRA, up to and including an endorsement. Branstad, however, had a 16 year run in which the issue of unfair “may issue” CCW laws in Iowa never bothered his thoughts. Branstad also had a general “nanny state” mentality as governor as demonstrated by his statement that “Iowan’s drive too fast already” when the legislature was contemplating a change in the speed limit. Here again, it took a Democrat to get more freedom by raising the speed limit in Iowa. Take note of that all you neo-cons who claim to have “constitutional purity” with Branstad. He’s as much a “nanny state guy” as you claim BVP is. Let’s only take 1% for this disparity in Branstad’s character. We are now at Branstad 51% vs. Culver 49%.
4) The “evil corporation” monger. Yes, this is clearly a very liberal, Democrat attack issue. Even BVP made the mistake, in my opinion, of saying that one of the most important things we need to do (which is absolutely true) is cut corporate income tax rates, without mentioning the cutting of personal tax rates. Culver is already contrasting himself as one who wants to “do more for Iowans” by expanding pre-school state-wide (yuk!), whereas he is casting Branstad as the guy who wants to cut the taxes of out of state corporations, which will result in higher taxes on Iowans. Neo-cons don’t like to hear this line . . . but it plays with left leaning Iowans . . . and it plays well. I won’t penalize Branstad for this . . . let’s call it a “wild card.”
So, all in all, at a realistic (as in NOT DMR polls which were proven useless on Tuesday night) estimate of where things really stand, we have Branstad at 51% and Culver at 49% . . . but wait! We have not factored in the 3000 lb elephant in the room: Conservatives that Branstad, and subsequently Gross, and all of the neo-cons at TIR, continue to bash and disdain after the primary is over. So, for sake of argument, let’s assume that only ½ of those who voted for BVP will refuse to vote for Branstad. And here-in lies the rub. BVP managed a respectable ~ 93,000 votes from conservatives on Tuesday night. And many of them are not at all happy about being “dis’d” by Branstad, Gross and the neo-cons, who continue to do so. So ½ of those votes is 46,500 votes in the general that simply won’t be there for Branstad . . . or worse, there may be many like me, who yesterday left the “Republican” party, and who realize that if the campaign is boiled down to fiscal only issues, as this one is, we are really better off with Culver because he has proven that he can be driven to the fiscal right by popular demand. I doubt that Branstad can. So, even if these ½ of BVP voters only sit out, and do not vote for TEB, that represents 4% of the total vote count. We won’t add these to Culver, but we have to take them away from TEB. To be mathematically correct, we have to take these votes out of the count, and then recalculate the percentages. This results in 989,946 total vote count, with 507,859 going to Culver (49% of 1,036,446), and 482,087 votes for Branstad (51% of 1,036,446 = 528,587, minus 46,500). Final November results: Culver 51%, Branstad 49% . . . Culver wins.
So what is the moral of this long winded diatribe? There is a good possibility that it isn’t a winning philosophy to continue to rip, shred, attack and ignore the conservative element in the State of Iowa when you need all the votes you can get. Will Branstad and his ilk win back all of these conservatives? Well, first he . . . and his compatriots . . . would have to try. Let me know when hell freezes over, won’t you?
Get your own blog you jackass. this is the comments section not an editorial board.
WW wrote:
“Get your own blog you jackass.”
Q.E.D.
Real_Republican. Thanks for letting us know you “don’t care” then proceeding to post a 1000 word essay indicating otherwise. If you don’t care, you have an odd way of showing it. My believe is that you’ll whine for a few months then realize how silly it is.
correction: “belief”
Mr. Hawk wrote:
“My believe is that you’ll whine for a few months then realize how silly it is.”
Today’s forecast in hell: Warm and sunny with occasional fireballs
Guys, R_R is part of that phony “Iowans for Responsible Government” They didn’t get their goal accomplished Tues so now we know they’ll continue to throw gasoline on the fire to get Republicans split so Culver will get elected.
These people are working for Culver. Don’t be fooled.
2)The Terry Branstad tax and spend factor. Yup! . . . sorry, but any way you slice it, Culver has a more “fiscally conservative” record than Terry Branstad, which is all the neo-con’s pretend to care about.
Uh, you might want to look at the records again, “Real” Republican. Acording to the Tax Foundation, the tax burden for Iowan’s dropped during Branstad’s tenure. We went from 16th to 33rd. Under Demoratic governors, Iowa has went backwards to 31st.
You also might want to compare the spending under Democrats since ‘99, verses the spending under Branstad from ‘83 to ‘99 here. Democrats have been on a binge since Terry left the governors office.
RR,
You’re piss’n in the wind.
Bumstead won, and the Neo-cons here don’t give a damn what happens now, because they won.
I tried weeks ago to say exactly what you were saying and they replied with crap about me being a traitor to the cause.
Check out how many ballots were left blank on the vote for governor in 2002. Just about exactly the amount of votes cast in this primary for BVP. But the neo-cons don’t need out help, so **** em.
HL , so the other states in the union raised taxes even more than Bumstead, what the hell does that matter in Iowa. The question is, were all tax rates higher when Bumstead left office than when he started his government sponsored theft programs?
Craig, with all due respect TEB doesn’t have a Central Iowa problem. He may have during the primary, but that’s a different beast than the general election.
There are independent and Democrat votes to be had in Eastern Iowa. There is dissatisfaction with how Culver managed the floods (or didn’t manage them). And yet TEB may not be enough to get them – he’s the establishment guy, the same GOP old white dude.
In my opinion, his top criteria should be someone from Eastern Iowa that was visible during the flood, and someone that isn’t the traditional establishment “old white guy.” And someone that is socially conservative to try to mend some fences there as well. But in that order.
Christian Fong fits the bill, meeting all three criteria.
I think Branstad naturally attracts ndependent and Democrat votes in Eastern Iowa. I think he and Grassley will help the entire ticket in that respect. With that being the case he should use his Lt. Governor pick to shore up his problem areas.
Scott M.-the examples you gave were in the 90’s. In this campaign he didn’t define himself as the conservative he was/perceived in his younger years. I am one that voted for BVP, Branstad could have had my vote but he staked out moderate positions throughout the campaign. I don’t take the approach I won’t support him in the general election, but Terry Branstad didn’t seem to appear near as conservative as he was 20 years ago.
PipeDaddy’s right, Craig. We need to forget the primary politics now and look to defeat Culver. The rest of the state already thinks Polk County gets too much attention and Republicans never win in Polk in statewide elections anyway. Branstad won’t look to a Polk Countian…he’ll look to Cedar Rapids or Sioux City or even Carroll.
Commonsense,
He didn’t run with a focus on those issues 20 years ago either, but that’s how he governed. There is no reason to believe it will be different now. In fact ,I think there is reason to believe he would govern more conservatively now because there are more social issues on the table (i.e. gay marriage, which wasn’t on anybody’s radar 20 years ago.
Bumstead won, and the Neo-cons here don’t give a damn what happens now, because they won.
Do you even know what the definition of a neo-conservative is, naturaliowalover? Here is a hint: It has nothing to do with politics at the state level.
HL , so the other states in the union raised taxes even more than Bumstead, what the hell does that matter in Iowa. The question is, were all tax rates higher when Bumstead left office than when he started his government sponsored theft programs?
So, you can’t win the tax burden argument, so it’s time to shift the goalposts, right? This one is easy too. Were all tax rates higher when Branstad left office? No. Income taxes went down. The corporate taxes were unchanged. What did change were taxes on tobacco products, the fuel tax, and usage taxes. And even then, when comparing Branstads performance with his successors, the http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/TaxHistory.html” rel=”nofollow”>difference is stark.
By the way, which programs of “state sponsored theft” did Branstad initiate? Pleas be specific.
H.L. Hawk,
In case you missed it, the latest BVP/Deace talking point is that the $900 million surplus Branstad gave us was actually “theft” because that money should have gone back to the taxpayers.
Don’t you love the logic. Brandstad leaving a surplus is theft. BVP leaving OU with no money, that was responsible leadership
Well I guess I was wrong Craig’s man crush on Jim didn’t end after he lost. At least with all that money he can furnish a pair of kneepads.
The Robinson/Gibbons bromance continues…….
Actually, I like Jim Gibbons. As long as Jim doesn’t bring along his horrible campaign management team this isn’t an all bad idea.
mirage brings up a good point here! Nick Ryan–> 2 major races+ lots of money = big butt kicking
Gibbons will not be the Lt. Gov nominee. Good grief, people. There is zero chance that happens.
I hereby nominate WW to be in charge of everything. Your response above to Real_Republican’s post was absolutely brilliant. I hope you all recognize this. I wish I could communicate how much I appreciated your delivery. You said what needed to be said, and in the funniest, and most succinct way it could possibly have been said. That is a rarity. The only people I am aware of who could do that with any consistency were the guys from Monty Python, so you’re in good company. Many thanks.
I am truly concerned that we are going to have a much tougher race. Then anyone on here truly realizes. Many on here do not want to admit that we have a big problem and Craig is right! Sure we can point out that Vanderplutts got rejected by 59% of the people, but our winner was rejected by nearly 50%.
We have got to figure out a way to restore the unity of the party and combat the IFPC & Deace wing that will be hell bent on ensuring Branstad is not successful in the general. There is little to no chance of finding someone they would accept and I have heard that as late as of today that BVP is privately seeking advice on a running as an Independence.
Short of Branstad picking someone deeply entrenched in that camp he will risk either having BVP be a spoiler or the constant assault of the those groups. There is only a couple people that would truly have a chance of uniting that fraction of the party.
I don’t think Brandstad can appease the hard core BVP wing of the party. He should pick the person who he feels best helps him in the general election. My personal choice would be a young conservative from Eastern Iowa. Not saying it has to be Fong, but someone of his generation.
Most BVP supporters aren’t fanatics, they will vote for Brandstad over Culver. I hope BVP does not run as an independent. He had a great year to run. Anti-establishment feeling was high. Gay marriage had electrified his supporters. His Dutch heritage and religious affiliation was a huge help in NW Iowa and in Marion, Mahaska and Jasper counties. If you can’t win with those conditions, the only thing you can do as an independent is help Chet Culver.
Craig, I don’t know how the GOP can unite when you have Michael Steele sending out a survey for the 2010 elections with one question stating, “Should the GOP continue to focus on social issues?” Seriously, I think I will register as an independent tomorrow and I bet when all the election information comes in, you will see that the majority of independents who registered as Republicans voted for Bob Vander Plaats this past Tuesday, and the GOP is celebrating all these new people comming back into the party; however, they will switch back and register as indpendents just as fast.
So..the GOP shouldn’t gather information from its members about what issues they’re concerned or focused on Stacia?
Look at what you’re complaining about here Stacia..a question asking “Should the GOP CONTINUE to focus on social issues?” Now if that question was phrased “Should the GOP NOT focus on social issues”…then you might have something resembling a point.
I’d love to hear from the BVP die-hards as to why Branstad won 26 of the 32 counties in the 5th District–Iowa’s most CONSERVATIVE district….yet Branstad also dominated in Eastern Iowa as well…
If Branstad was such a “RINO”…then why would Republicans in Steve King territory go and support him?
CVN, you are dead on. There simply isn’t that much of a difference between Branstad and the other two candidates in terms of fiscal responsibility and the size of government – the issues that are most important by far in this election.
I’m not sure why the 3rd district wasn’t as on board, but I don’t think he has a “problem” there. Deace energized the BVP voters in the 3rd district, and there was probably quite a bit of crossover voting going on.
Branstad can win without the Deace crowd. He may have to. To do that, though, he needs to choose the right LG – not try to choose someone to appease Deace (which will never work anyway).
CVN 76 wrote:
“I’d love to hear from the BVP die-hards as to why Branstad won 26 of the 32 counties in the 5th District–Iowa’s most CONSERVATIVE district….yet Branstad also dominated in Eastern Iowa as well”
Glad to oblige CVN; the answer is simple – in fact it is the same answer as to why Branstad won the primary at all: contrary to the opinions of even Steve Deace, Iowa is a left-of-center state, even in the “Republican” party. This is easily demonstrated even here in the postings of TIR, where many claim “constitutionalism!” . . . and then vote for a candidate like Branstad who says that decisions of the supreme court of the united States are the “law of the land.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the SCOTUS granted the power by “we the people” to create law of any kind. A similar condition exists in the Iowa constitution. “Republicans” in Iowa clearly no longer see our Constitutional documents as defining the limits of government. They only voted for “name recognition,” who had the most money, “experience,” etc, etc, etc.
The “Republican” primary, as is very clear even from your challenge above, is nothing more than a popularity contest to a majority of “Republicans” in this state, which is exactly what it is to Democrats . . . fundamentally, most Iowans of either party are “constitutionally ignorant” . . . further . . . they could care less.
R_R sez: “The “Republican” primary, as is very clear even from your challenge above, is nothing more than a popularity contest to a majority of “Republicans” in this state, which is exactly what it is to Democrats . . . fundamentally, most Iowans of either party are “constitutionally ignorant” . . . further . . . they could care less.”
My gosh Man, you really have low regard for your friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
Looks to me like you’re the one with the personal problem.
Mebbe it’s best that you _do_ take your toys and go off into the wilderness and pout.
One thing I would genuinely like to hear from die hard Branstad supporters is exactly how you see Branstad as being “more conservative” than Culver? Seriously . . . Culver has reduced the size of government in Iowa . . . yes . . . because he was FORCED to I will agree, but this is still counter to what Branstad did in his 16 years. I don’t question for one second that Culver is a disaster as a governor, but I also think that if Branstad doesn’t take real steps to reduce the size of Iowa’s government, as he has promised, we are headed for serious economic trouble in this state.
Truthfully, if I, as a BVP supporter, could believe that TEB would really take steps to reduce the size and scope of government, I would be more than willing to vote for him . . . but nothing he as done in the past, nor anything he has said on the campaign trail, has convinced me that he has changed his ways. Anyone here can “dis” my attacks on Branstad all they want . . . that really doesn’t affect me at all. But if TEB doesn’t prepare himself to make some very serious and difficult decisions for Iowa’s future, we are all in “deep doo-doo.”
Conservative Demo wrote:
“My gosh Man, you really have low regard for your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Looks to me like you’re the one with the personal problem.”
I have a very high regard for my friends, neighbors and co-workers, because most, if not all, of them were numbered in the 93,000 Iowans that voted for BVP and who know that politicians of all stripes have ruined the state of Iowa. So I am in good, solid company, and not at all concerned about your thinking that I have a “personal problem.”
The people I do have a low regard for are people like you, who have helped the politicians to squander Iowa’s proud heritage of being a hard working, independent, self-less and industrious people, and turned us into needy, dependant serfs who look to government as our god to solve all of our problems.
That, to me and many others, is the personal problem that you have.
letsjustwin wrote:
” . . . I have heard that as late as of today that BVP is privately seeking advice on a running as an Independence.”
Lets: as much as I love Bob, I would be the first to help his campaign . . . HOWEVER, part of the reason that Bob is loved is because he is a man of honor: he has already said that he is not planning a run against TEB, so I doubt very much that your fears are well founded. Also keep in mind that Branstad is not particuarly counting on BVP folks to support him. He said just yesterday that while he is “interested in listening to the conservatives in Iowa,” he also “will not take any steps to distance independents and Democrats” (big surprise on that one!) . . . I think the greater fear that you need to consider is how well Culver and his handlers are able to manage a good campaign . . . I’ve already provided some numbers above . . . if Culver can effectively expose Branstad for the weasel he is, and the middle buys it, then he has a SMALL chance of pulling this out. But small though it is, the chance is real. Branstad, I believe, is going with the conventional wisdom that he can take more votes from the left than he can from the right.
R_R,
Did not Culver and the Democrats increase state spending by 15% or more in their first two years of control, while looking a sure recession in the face? Is that how Culver “shrinks” the size of government?
I am confident that any of the three GOP candidates would have done better. Aren’t you?
Your comparison of Branstad to Culver is laughable.
Folks, Real_Republican is a REAL DEMOCRAT!! He’s part of that wonder group calling themselves “Iowans for Responsible Government!!. Ignor him.
Deace voted:
“Guys, R_R is part of that phony “Iowans for Responsible Government” They didn’t get their goal accomplished Tues so now we know they’ll continue to throw gasoline on the fire to get Republicans split so Culver will get elected. These people are working for Culver. Don’t be fooled.”
Actually Deace, I am considering working for Culver’s campaign . . . which of these do you think sounds better:
“Conservatives for Culver”
Or
“Republican’s for Culver?
Doing the “Republicans for Culver” thing is really not truthful and misleading though, since I dumped my 36 year long membership in the “Republican Party of Iowa” on Wednesday . . . so . . . in total honesty and full disclosure, “Conservatives for Culver” it is!!
Thanks for helping me work through that!!
“Folks, Real_Republican is a REAL DEMOCRAT!! He’s part of that wonder group calling themselves “Iowans for Responsible Government!!. Ignor him.”
DVFO, How do you know this?
For everyone.
Branstand won’t win if he tries to cater to the BVP fans of the GOP and ignores the Independents and Democrats. It’s simply mathematically impossible.
“needy dependent serfs who look to government as our God to solve all of our problems”?
Sort of like Bob “elect me to the Governor’s office and I can make everything alright again” Vander Plaats? Is that the sort of overreliance on government you’re talking about?
PipeDaddy wrote:
“R_R, Did not Culver and the Democrats increase state spending by 15% or more in their first two years of control, while looking a sure recession in the face? Is that how Culver “shrinks” the size of government? I am confident that any of the three GOP candidates would have done better. Aren’t you? Your comparison of Branstad to Culver is laughable.”
Absolutely right! 15%. So we have Culver with 15% growth in 4 years, and Branstad with growth from 2 Billion state budget at the beginning of his tenure to 4.5 billion at the end after 16 years. Check my math, but this should translate to a 2.5 billion increase/ 2 billion basis = 125% in 16 years . . . dividing by 4 to get his average single term increase, this = 31.25% per term!!! . . . Culver has reduced the number of state employees only slightly (let’s call it even), Branstad grew the number of state employees from 9,000 to 20,000 in 16 years, or 77% . . about 19% per term. Please keep in mind that all of this budget and size growth took place with a slight net DECREASE in Iowa’s population.
Of course, I AM confident that BVP would have done better . . . he campaigned against TEB’s poor fiscal record . . . that’s a major part of the reason I voted and campaigned for him.
You are right about one thing: my “comparison of Branstad to Culver is laughable.” . . . it is laughable because it shows how far from its roots the “Republican” party has come . . . and how gullible are its adherants . . . but thanks for asking . . .
Russ from Winterset wrote:
“needy dependent serfs who look to government as our God to solve all of our problems”? Sort of like Bob “elect me to the Governor’s office and I can make everything alright again” Vander Plaats? Is that the sort of overreliance on government you’re talking about?”
How does relying on a candidate in an election equate to relying on the govnernment? Excuse me for pointing this out, but you make absolutely no sense. Bob campaigned on reducing the size of Iowa’s government (among other things) . . . reducing the number of and streamlining departments (like the Department of Ed, etc). How could you possibly twist either what he or I said into the idea that this is relying on the government?!? It is relying on a public official to follow his Constitutional and moral duty to bring the out of control government back under reasonable fiscal control “reliance on government to solve our problems?” If you do think that . . . you’ll have to help me to understand your logic.
VastVariety wrote:
“DVFO, How do you know this?”
Vast – better leave Deace alone . . . he might be right . . . with Culver’s record so much better than Branstad’s, i.e. less spending, no tax increases, signed CCW reform into law, etc, I am seriously considering supporting Culver. Don’t think I will register as a Dem because I can’t support their social positions on abortion, marriage, etc, but since these are more-or-less the same with Branstad, and I am a constitutionalist – conservative, I figure the “evil of to lessors” in this race is Culver . . . so let Deace go ahead and call me a Democrat . . . I am ok with that . . .
VastVariety wrote:
“Branstand won’t win if he tries to cater to the BVP fans of the GOP and ignores the Independents and Democrats. It’s simply mathematically impossible.”
I love this website . . . first I am accused of being an evil Democrat by the TEB crowd . . . then they tell everyone the way to win is to cater to evil Democrats!!
Too funny!! – No where but Iowa!!
Real, I’m a registered Independent and I’m not telling the candidates to cater to Democrats. I’m simply detailing the math.
There are 577,462 active registered Republicans in the state.
There are 670,923 active registered Democrats in the state.
There are 706,740 active registered voters with no stated party affiliation (who tend to break in elections in similar percentages to the registered parties voter totals).
There are approximately 1,600 registered voters from 3rd parties.
It’s simply mathematically impossible for a GOP candidate (regardless of if it was BVP or TEB) without convincing some independents and Democrats (but mainly independents) to vote across party lines.
VastVariety wrote: “It’s simply mathematically impossible for a GOP candidate (regardless of if it was BVP or TEB) without convincing some independents and Democrats (but mainly independents) to vote across party lines.”
Certainly . . . . I am not arguing, nor have I, that this isn’t true . . . what I am not sure that I believe is your implied argument (or at least that of Branstad’s) that there are more votes to be had (beyond those normally attained) from the ranks of “others” than there are of those who used to be “idealogical brethren” (BVP supporters) within the “R” party. That was the jist of my analysis above – it may be entirely possible that disgruntled BVP voters will change the outcome – to think otherwise, as TEB appears to do, seems pretty arrogant and foolish to me . . . 93,000 votes is nothing to sneeze at; yes, many of those folks WILL vote for TEB because they too will see him (erroneously I believe) as the “lessor of two evils.”
I, for one, sadly have to see Culver as the lessor of two evils (with both of them being pretty disgusting) for the reasons outlined above and elsewhere. Do I really like the thought of Culver for four more years . . . no . . . I think that is repugnant. Do I like the thought of TEB as governor for four years . . . an emphatic “no.” Either way, I think Iowa has some very tough days ahead.
By the way Vast – no insult intended to you, but you have to admit that it is pretty funny that the TEB purists here are attacking me as being a Democrat, and you commented that Branstad needs Democratic (or at least independent) votes to win. I agree with you on that . . . it just shows the level of disdain for conservatives within the rank-and-file of the so-called “Republican” party . . . unless I say “I love Terry Branstad” (and ignore the truth of his lousy record as governor), then I must be an evil Democrat. And they hate Democrats as much as they hate conservatives (well . . . maybe not THAT much) . . . there is a lot of hatred in the TEB camp to go around!
R_R, your last (1350) post seems to imply that while you realize you (collectively) aren’t large enough to directly elect a governor, you (again, collectively) believe you _are_ at least large enough to demand the right of swinging the gubernatorial election to the result that you wish?
Is my synopsis a fair representation of your point?
Oops, sorry R_R, I meant your 1340 post.
Ok, then lets continue to look at the math.
In an average year (all things being equal) the 706,740 Independents will break approximately 379826 to Dems and 326914 to Republicans.
If all 93000 BVP voters can’t come to terms with the fact that they lost then that means Branstad gets 484462 Republican votes, with 93000 staying home twiddling their thumbs. Add to that the 326914 Independents Republicans normally get and Branstad is at 811376 votes with Culver at 1050749 votes.If all those BVP voters that stayed home actually went and voted for Branstad he would still only get 904376 votes to Culver’s 1050749.
In order for Branstad to win he needs to move 146372 voters from voting for Culver to voting for him. If the BVP folks stay home then he needs to move 239372. So can the BVP folks staying home cost Branstad the race? Absolutely. But if they all come out and vote for him will he win? Not a chance.
So the question becomes does he court the BVP voters and thus alienating the independents and Democrats which will mean another term for Culver, or does he court the independents and Dems in order to actually have a shot at moving back into Terrace Hill? There are far more Independents and Dems that are potential Brandstad voters than what he will loose from BVP supporters staying home. Sure it will make his job that much more difficult, but not impossible.
Real, I don’t think they hate Social Conservatives, they are just reacting to how the BVP voters can’t seem to get behind their candidate in order to unseat the person who they see as the greater problem, Culver.
Oh, and before you begin agreeing with me too much, you should probably know where my biases lie. I’m very much against the Social Conservative position against Marriage Equality, since I am a gay man. However I do consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a supporter of smaller government.
Conservative Demo wrote:
“R_R, your last (1350) post seems to imply that while you realize you (collectively) aren’t large enough to directly elect a governor, you (again, collectively) believe you _are_ at least large enough to demand the right of swinging the gubernatorial election to the result that you wish? Is my synopsis a fair representation of your point?”
Well, no . . . I don’t think so, but maybe I don’t understand your question. I have to assume by they way you have worded your first point that you are referring to a BVP third party run(??). I don’t want Bob to make a 3rd party run, even though I would enjoy the “doing” part very much. In the end, we would not win, and Branstad would likely lose, and Bob would be castigated by a lot of good folks as a “spoiler,” since there is a widespread, but misplaced I think, belief that TEB will be good for the state. I respect Bob more than to have his reputation suffer in that way, and I don’t believe he is going to do this.
As far as “demand the right of swinging the gubernatorial election to the result that I wish,” I have to say that the result I wish for died Tuesday night: that we would move this state back under constitutional, and fiscally responsible government. But you are referring (I think) to the numbers I published above where I imply that TEB MIGHT NOT be able to win without the BVP supporters . . . Obviously I don’t KNOW that is true . . . I simply postulated that it is a strong possibility.
Now . . . a question for you, “Conservative Demo” . . . who will you be supporting this fall if I may be so bold to ask? Also, if you don’t mind, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts as to what it means to be a “conservative Democrat.” . . . and yes, I really am interested to know your thoughts.
1) R_R, you’re correct in that I didn’t word my question well.
2) As of now, I expect I’ll be voting for Culver altho my voting for TEB isn’t an impossibility. A BVP vote from me would have been out of the question.
3) What the heck am I as a “con-dem”, Mainstreet Merchant also asked that the other day? That’s fair to ask, but being honest, that’s more than I want to sit and type right now. Maybe someday if the question comes up at a time I’m up to typing a bunch and the moon happens to line up with Polaris and rises down the row of Radio City Music Hall Girl legs.
To go back to the question of Lieutenant Governor nominee, I think that Rod Roberts would actually make a fine choice–he ran a classy campaign, and I ran across a fair number of people in all segments of the Republican Party who intended to vote for someone else, but who were impressed with him and would have been quite content to have him as the nominee. I think he would have the same effect upon independent and Democrat voters, given that Carroll Co. is something of a marginal district for Republicans, he would have to in order to get elected to the House in the first place.
“…with Culver’s record so much better than Branstad’s, i.e. less spending, no tax increases, signed CCW reform into law, etc, I am seriously considering supporting Culver. Don’t think I will register as a Dem because I can’t support their social positions on abortion, marriage, etc, but since these are more-or-less the same with Branstad, and I am a constitutionalist – conservative, I figure the “evil of to lessors” in this race is Culver . . .”
—
Anyone that pulls the lever for Culver is voting for incompetence at best. Feel free if that’s your thing.
Your line of reasoning (about Culver/Branstad and taxes, the economic conditions of the times, etc.) is skewed so much that a response really isn’t warranted.
wombat, while I think Fong is a better choice for the reasons I outlined above, I could certainly get behind and would embrace Roberts as well. Whether LG or not, Roberts will be positioned well to run in four years because of the things you mention. He may well have been the best of the three.
VastVariety wrote:
“Real, I don’t think they hate Social Conservatives, they are just reacting to how the BVP voters can’t seem to get behind their candidate in order to unseat the person who they see as the greater problem, Culver. Oh, and before you begin agreeing with me too much, you should probably know where my biases lie. I’m very much against the Social Conservative position against Marriage Equality, since I am a gay man. However I do consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a supporter of smaller government.”
Wow . . . this is starting to get interesting . . .
Actually, I think the “Doug Gross wing” of the “Republican” party really does hate “so-cons” . . . primarily because I think the average “so-con” really does believe in truth and fair and honest dealings in government, and the protection of the rights of the “average guy” – case in point being Gross’s involvement in the Clarke county land grab; it just ain’t right for the government to steal people’s land for their own gainful purposes; also, “so-cons” generally hate the use of government for corporate welfare as much as they hate ordinary welfare; Bruce Rastetter’s ethanol subsidies being a prime example (who is squarely in Branstad’s camp). I would think that you, as a fiscal conservative, might disdain that ideology as much as I (are we going to agree again?): that a very wealthy businessman either got that way, or stayed that way, because he is on the government dole at the taxpayer’s expense . . . this, to me, is no less repugnant than someone who will not work and yet draws all of the “entitlements” they can.
As far as your being a “gay man” and us agreeing on things, we may agree on more than you think. First, I have had a lot of gay friends throughout my life. Many of them I can tell you I truly love. I also haven’t minced words anywhere here: I am a Christian (and by that I mean a “fundamental” Christian – I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God in its entirety). What you should understand is that means that I recognize that all men are sinners by nature (trust me – that most definitely includes me), and are in need of a Savior to attain fellowship with God. Do I believe that homosexuality is wrong – yes. Do I believe marriage infidelity is wrong – yes. Now check this out: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” ~ Matt 5:28 . . . guess what? . . . Guilty here! . . . . so here we are, you and I, two sinners in need of grace, at least from my perspective . . . and that is all we are. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, I hope it at least is a basis to communicate, because I really don’t see you as much different than I . . . . what I am interested in is the truth.
Now . . . all of that said, let’s address the “ugly sister” problem we appear to have between us: “marriage equality” as you put it. I, as a constitutionalist, start with the premise that marriage is none of the governments business in the first place. You may or may not agree with that, but to me marriage is one of the most extremely personal things I can think of, and I really don’t want the government having ANYTHING to do with defining marriage. Sadly, we live in an age where the government has already long ago assumed un-Constitutional powers to define marriage. It is in our tax laws, our health care, etc, ad nauseam. And this invasion of our lives that is unnecessary and unwarranted by the government ultimately is what resulted in the ISC decision of “Varnum v. Brien” . . . Which brings us, I believe, to the real message of BVP around the whole issue.
I told you I am a “constitutionalist,” primarily because I believe that we need to have a social contract between us as to what the State (and federal) government can and cannot do, to protect all of us from excesses in government . . . . you may not believe in or want constitutional government, which is another issue, but discussing this starting from that position, here is what concerns me about the “marriage equality” issue: regarding the Jurisdiction of the supreme court of Iowa, the Iowa Constitution says the following:
Jurisdiction of supreme court. SEC. 4. “The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery [aka civil law], and shall constitute a court for the correction of errors at law, under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe; and shall have power to issue all writs and process necessary to secure justice to parties, and shall exercise a supervisory and administrative control over all inferior judicial tribunals throughout the state.”
That is the limit of the authority of the ISC – to correct errors at law. Notice that it does not say that the ISC is the ultimate authority as to what is and is not “constitutional.” They have no such granted authority, yet that is what they did with “Varnum v. Brien,” and went on to say that same-sex marriage is now the “law” (but the legislature never passed such a law). Our State constitution further goes on to say that the purview of law making is in the authority of the legislature, as they are our elected representatives. Now let’s compare this to the infamous “Dred Scott” decision for example . . . Dred Scott was a runaway slave who sought his freedom because he went to states where slavery was illegal, a law that was properly passed in the state legislatures per the state constitutions (just as Iowa’s DOMA law was). But in the decision, the SCOTUS “knocked down the constitutionality” of these laws as they applied to slaves who had crossed state borders. They completely assumed upon themselves the right, which does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, to keep a human being enslaved contrary to lawfully constituted state laws. In other words, regardless of the morality of either Varnum or Dred Scott, the courts overstepped their constitutional authority. So we have one decision (Varnum) that I believe you will say is moral and just, and another (Dred Scott) that I believe you will say is immoral and unjust. What I contend is that NEITHER of these decisions is ALLOWED because they violate the social contract that we long ago agreed to in our constitutions . . . and again, this social contract is in place to protect both you and I from a government that exceeds certain bounds (Hitler, for example, abolished all German constitutions to establish his dictatorship that resulted in the death of millions).
Vast: there are a lot of laws in the State of Iowa that I don’t like (for example, I do not like many of our laws that I believe restrict our second amendment rights), but I also recognize that in general, they were lawfully constituted, and unless they are woefully immoral (let’s say “Hitlerian), I must follow them. Even if the ISC were to “knock down” a law that I don’t like, I owe it to the greater good of society to conform to our social contract in our Constitution, and protect the institutions that we have created for our own good in society. If I want to change those laws, then it is my right and responsibility to do so lawfully through our elected representatives, not by allowing the courts to usurp the political power of the people, just so I can “get my way.”
One more point from the Iowa Constitution:
Duties of governor. SEC. 8. He shall transact all executive business with the officers of government, civil and military, and may require information in writing from the officers of the executive department upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. Execution of laws. SEC. 9. He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
Terry Branstad continuously said that BVP had no authority under Iowa’s Constitution to stop county recorders from issuing same-sex marriage licenses . . . I submit to you, that under our social contract in the Iowa Constitution, based on the above, he would have had not only the right . . . but the duty, as DOMA is still law according to our State Constitution. You may not like all of this from a personal perspective and your position on “marriage equality” . . . but I believe if you think this through to its end . . . you will agree with me: we do all have to have a social contract with each other . . . and we all need to willingly follow it . . . otherwise, our society will self-destruct into anarchy.
Thanks for listening . . . I would be interested in your point of view . . . .
RR
PipeDaddy wrote:
“Your line of reasoning (about Culver/Branstad and taxes, the economic conditions of the times, etc.) is skewed so much that a response really isn’t warranted.”
Yeah . . . we got the same story from Branstad himself, whose only response was: “don’t believe them . . . they are Democrats.”
Don’t worry or feel bad about not responding . . . the points by me are rhetorical . . . I already know there is no defense of his record, and so I don’t expect one . . .
VastVariety wrote:
“So the question becomes does he court the BVP voters and thus alienating the independents and Democrats which will mean another term for Culver, or does he court the independents and Dems in order to actually have a shot at moving back into Terrace Hill?”
Excellent analysis – one thing to add: when one sits on a fence . . . they shouldn’t be surprised if they get splinters!
“one thing to add: when one sits on a fence . . . they shouldn’t be surprised if they get splinters!”
Dad always used barbed wire for his fencing when I was growing up… you learned not to sit on the fence that way.
Don’t worry or feel bad about not responding . . . the points by me are rhetorical . . . I already know there is no defense of his record, and so I don’t expect one . . .
I already pointed out that you were full of it, Real Republican. You can go back and look at the links provided in my responses above. Whether it is spending or tax increases, Branstad is but a shadow of what has been foisted upon the state of Iowa by your Democratic Party.
That is the limit of the authority of the ISC – to correct errors at law. Notice that it does not say that the ISC is the ultimate authority as to what is and is not “constitutional.” They have no such granted authority, yet that is what they did with “Varnum v. Brien,” and went on to say that same-sex marriage is now the “law” (but the legislature never passed such a law)
An “error of law” would be any law that violates the state constitution. Which is why the Iowa Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote
“An “error of law” would be any law that violates the state constitution. Which is why the Iowa Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.”
Sorry, that simply is not true. RR is right. The legislature did not write the constitution, the people did, and only the people can lawfully change it. The ISC has no authority to create a law that says “same sex marriage is legal.” Only the legislature has the authority to create law in Iowa, and even then, the legislature cannot change the Constitution without the consent of the people.
Also, you stepped over the part about “under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe.” he state legislature can constitutionally pass laws that are “off limits” to any kind of “judicial review.” This is even true with the SCOTUS and is exactly what the Democrats did with “Obamacare.” Legislatures, constitutionally at least, have authority over the courts, and can stop “judicial review” any time they want to. The founders of this state and nation made it that way exactly so that courts couldn’t do things like “Varnum vs Brein.” It is an un-Constitutional act. And by the way, even the claim by the ISC in “Varnum” that Iowa’s DOMA law is “un-constitutionl” is unfounded – the only claim they made relative to the constitution itself was that “it violated the uniform laws provision,” This is an absurd contention, as Iowa’s DOMA law does apply equally to everyone in the state, regardless of their sexual orientation.
The ISC has no authority to create a law that says “same sex marriage is legal.” .
You are correct, they don’t. And they didn’t create a law with the Varnum decision.
Also, you stepped over the part about “under such restrictions as the general assembly may, by law, prescribe.” he state legislature can constitutionally pass laws that are “off limits” to any kind of “judicial review.
If you mean that they can amend the state constitution through that process, you are correct. If you mean that the legislature can just pass a law and not have it challenged in court, that would be incorrect.
This is even true with the SCOTUS and is exactly what the Democrats did with “Obamacare.” Legislatures, constitutionally at least, have authority over the courts, and can stop “judicial review” any time they want to.
You realize that the health care bill is being challenged in court by many different groups, including the states? The constitutionality of many parts of the bill are being called into question, and it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to determine whether those parts of the bill stand. Congress can do nothing to stop these lawsuits from continuing, nor could the lowa legislature have stopped Varnum v Brien from moving through the courts.
H.L. Hawkeye wrote
” . . . . they didn’t create a law with the Varnum decision.
You are correct . . . Iowa DOMA is still the law in Iowa. The “same-sex marriage licenses” that are being issued by the county recorders are invalid and illegal.
“If you mean that they can amend the state constitution through that process, you are correct.” Absolutely NOT correct . . . only the people of Iowa can amend the state constitution, not the legislature. The amendment must be passed THROUGH the legislature, but the people must ratify it before it is valid.
“If you mean that the legislature can just pass a law and not have it challenged in court, that would be incorrect.” Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The ISC has no consitutional authority to nullify laws on the basis of “constitutionality” It just isn’t in the document.
Your final statements simply further exemplify the fact that our nation has been taken out of constitutional bounds by corrupt politicians and Judges.
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
By the way, “same sex marriage” was illegal BEFORE Iowa’s DOMA law was passed . . . under the common law, which prevails in the absence of statutory law.
“If you mean that the legislature can just pass a law and not have it challenged in court, that would be incorrect.” Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The ISC has no constitutional authority to nullify laws on the basis of “constitutionality” It just isn’t in the document.
Real… The ISC does have that authority to declare laws unconstitutional and render them void, and it is in the state constitution.
Article XII Section 1
“This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this constitution into effect.”
“By the way, “same sex marriage” was illegal BEFORE Iowa’s DOMA law was passed . . . under the common law, which prevails in the absence of statutory law.”
Prior to DOMA there was no stipulation within the Iowa civil code limiting marriage to a man and a woman. So while it may have been practice of county records to deny same sex couples licensees there was no foundation for it within the law becuase of the ambiguity of the code. Also, before DOMA there was no case history to set precedent within the common law that either banned or allowed same sex marriages. The whole point of DOMA was to remove the ambiguity in the code.
As for the quote from Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson was a strong advocate for the ability of the courts to rule on constitutionality of laws until the courts started to disagree with him while he was president and then he turned completely away from them.
You are correct . . . Iowa DOMA is still the law in Iowa. The “same-sex marriage licenses” that are being issued by the county recorders are invalid and illegal.
No, bans on same sex marriage were found to be in violation of the state constitution. So, DOMA is no longer in effect.
“If you mean that they can amend the state constitution through that process, you are correct.” Absolutely NOT correct . . . only the people of Iowa can amend the state constitution, not the legislature. The amendment must be passed THROUGH the legislature, but the people must ratify it before it is valid.
Uh, how is what you said any different than what I said?
“If you mean that the legislature can just pass a law and not have it challenged in court, that would be incorrect.” Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The ISC has no consitutional authority to nullify laws on the basis of “constitutionality” It just isn’t in the document.
You are saying that individuals don’t have the right to challenge laws in court, Real? Are you dense?
VastVariety wrote:
“Real… The ISC does have that authority to declare laws unconstitutional and render them void, and it is in the state constitution.
Article XII Section 1
“This constitution shall be the supreme law of the state, and any law inconsistent therewith, shall be void. The general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry this constitution into effect.”
Sorry V V, but you lost me with this one . . . where exactly does it say in what you quoted from the Iowa Constitution that the ISC is the organ of determining what is and is not “constitutional,” any more than any other branch of government, or the people themselves?
Ok . . . if judicial review is your standard, then let’s discuss this:
Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson:
” . . . . was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as controlling precedent.” Laws prohibiting “same sex marriage” do not violate the U.S. Constitution according to the SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Well . . . it appears that CR is blocking my comments . . . so I can’t answer to your points.
Real, I wont deny that Baker v Nelson sets a precedent that upholds the discriminatory bans on same sex marriage, but even the courts are not infallible.
Dread Scott would be a great example of the courts making the wrong decision.