There is a saying when it comes to state legislative politics: “The governor proposes and the legislature disposes.”  Given such limitations on executive power, why should we care about Governor Branstad’s “Condition of the State” speech next Tuesday?

Iowa’s rosy fiscal condition has been well documented the last few months; notably the $800 million in “surplus” or “rainy day” funds (or $1.5 billion according to the Des Moines Register).  But don’t expect the governor to talk about spending widely on various programs.  Rather, as Kathie Obradovich reports based on conversations with Branstad’s chief budgetary officer, David Roederer, the governor will use the speech as an opportunity to talk about giving back to Iowans (through property or income tax reductions).  Indeed, Republican Speaker of the House Kraig Paulsen has been quoted as saying, “We don’t have a surplus. We have overpayment by taxpayers.”

And therein is the fundamental point of contention for the 2013 legislative session.

Will Democrats be able to convince Iowans that a long-term approach (i.e. “investment”) to public policy is sensible?  Or, will Republicans’ tax-cut and save approach be more appealing?  Tuesday’s speech is the biggest stage either party will have to take their message to the public.

In an interview with the Des Moines Register (video is included in the link), Governor Branstad is quoted as saying his performance in office receives an “incomplete” at this point.  In other words, he has and is working on several projects, but has not finished what he set out to accomplish.

With the 2014 election now just 20 months away, and more importantly, just two legislative sessions away, look for Governor Branstad to use Tuesday’s speech to put more pressure on the legislature, specifically the Iowa Senate and Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that the state of Texas is in a similar financial condition as Iowa, with excess money floating around.  But the battle between Democrats and Republicans there over how to spend such money has already begun (and is probably more intense given that Texas has biennial legislative sessions; one of just four states to do so).  According to the article, Texas Governor Rick Perry has taken an equally conservative approach to Governor Branstad regarding the use of excess funds in the hopes of preserving the state’s fiscal footing should he run for reelection in 2014.

As discussed many times in the last two months, Governor Branstad is still looking for that “signature policy achievement” on which to run in 2014, or on which to cement his legacy in Iowa politics (if he hasn’t already) and pave the way for his successor.  Legislative victories on tax cuts and property tax reform in 2013 (and possibly education reform), and an unemployment rate below 5 percent in early 2014, would present a very formidable challenge for any Democrat seeking residence on Terrace Hill.

Posted under Uncategorized

There is a general rule of thumb when it comes to public opinion and politics: as the level of government decreases, approval of government increases.  That is, approval of government tends to be highest when measuring attitudes toward local government, and decreases as you move up the government scale.

However, the overwhelming public angst toward dealings between Congress and the president on the “fiscal cliff” has the potential to upend this maxim and spill over to other levels of government.

The last thing state and local lawmakers want is to be compared to Congress when it comes to perceptions of legislative efficiency.  As Iowa legislators prepare for the 2013 session, they would be wise to avoid a repeat of the prolonged 2011 session when lawmakers adjourned in the waning hours of the final day of the fiscal year.

Americans seem to have reached a tipping point in their tolerance for bickering and budgetary politicking, and no level of government is immune from the backlash.  Expect little patience from citizens should state governments be perceived as engaging in the same kind of political brinkmanship as the federal government.

Posted under Uncategorized

Everyone knows about the upcoming “fiscal cliff,” and everyone but leaders in Congress and the president can agree on what they want to see happen: compromise and move on.  Numbers released by Gallup this week not surprisingly show the American public (approximately 70 percent according to the poll) wants members of Congress and the president to make a deal.  The public has a strong distaste for politicking; they want something done.

So if this describes the politics of deficits and debt, what should we expect regarding the politics of surplus?

Fortunately, we can look to Iowa for the answer.  The Des Moines Register reports that the Revenue Estimating Conference (REC), Iowa’s three-person panel of budget gurus who make quarterly assessments on incoming revenue, projects state revenues to grow by just over 3 percent this fiscal year and the next.  According to the Des Moines Register and the REC, revenues increased more $35 million from the previous estimate made in October of $6.483 billion.  The Legislative Services Agency and others also report that Iowa’s cash reserves (so called “rainy day” funds) are full at well over $600-700 million.

Reporting good news about a budget at any level of government has been a rarity the last four years.  For elected officials, however, being especially optimistic about the current economic climate is politically dangerous.  Why?  Basic psychology tells us it is best to promise a little and then exceed expectations; to do the reverse is to invite serious backlash and harsh criticism.

At the moment, Governor Branstad is hedging his bets, arguing that the state’s fiscal condition, while sound, is inextricably linked to the federal government’s finances (i.e. the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, and the stopgap spending measure due to expire in March).  Indeed, the fiscal cliff is a great lesson in federalism; how state budgets (as well as local budgets) are tied to the federal government.  However, the political posturing at both levels is also linked and makes you wonder if anyone ever gets excited about budgets.

At the moment, Governor Branstad is among a group of governors rated by Governing Magazine’s Lou Jacobson as “not currently vulnerable.”  If appropriate, expect giddiness and self-appraisal about Iowa’s finances to be reserved for the campaign trail in 2014.

Posted under Uncategorized

This is a follow up to a previous post on the geopolitics of the state.  Here I consider the whether we can discern any trends in political leadership and geography of the state.

If we divide the state into four quadrants using Interstate 80 and Interstate 35, we would expect the upper-right (northeast) quadrant to be the most Democratic.  Below are the lists of newly elected leaders in the Iowa House and Iowa Senate.  The underlined cities are those that fall outside of the upper-right quadrant.

Surprised?  Perhaps we shouldn’t be.

Democrats tend to do better in more urban areas, and this quadrant is certainly the most urban (includes Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Davenport, Waterloo, and Dubuque).  Iowa Senate Democrats lost some of their geographic diversity with the retirement of Senate President Jack Kibbie (Emmetsburg).

One correction to note to this posting.  I should clarify that while there are clear population differences in terms of the hometowns of Democratic and Republican leaders in the Iowa House and Iowa Senate, the size and shape of legislative districts for each chamber are determined by the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) through a nonpartisan process that does not consider partisanship or incumbency status (Iowa is quite unique in this regard).  A full report by the LSA for new district lines can be found here.  In the case of the Iowa House, the ideal district size (as determined by the LSA) is 30,464 people.  Importantly, the average deviation from this number for all house districts must be less than 1 percent, or about 300 people (the largest and smallest districts must differ by less than 5 percent, or  approximately 1,500 people).  So while the hometowns of House leaders may vary widely, the size of their districts is approximately equal.  The point is that the surrounding area of their districts varies considerably.  For the Iowa Senate, the ideal population is 60,927 and the same deviation rules apply.  In other words, all Senate districts (leaders and non-leaders) are approximately 60,000 people.

Posted under Uncategorized

We often hear about the rural versus urban (or east versus west) divide in Iowa politics as a shorthand reference to the geopolitical makeup of the state.  The eastern part of the state, particularly northeast Iowa, is considered heavily Democratic while the west and northwest are strongholds for Republicans.  But to what degree do these parts of the state differ from each other?

I was recently asked to speak on Iowa Public Radio concerning partisanship in Iowa counties; specifically how “red” are counties out west and how “blue” are some of Iowa’s more urban counties.  That conversation can be found here.  Below I discuss more in-depth some of my findings.

Take three counties: Sioux County in northwest Iowa, Black Hawk County in northeast Iowa, and Johnson County in eastern Iowa.  Sioux is a rural county, while Black Hawk and Johnson are obviously more urban, with Waterloo and Cedar Falls in Black Hawk and Iowa City in Johnson County.  Is Sioux, as expected, more Republican than Black Hawk and Johnson, and is Johnson more liberal than Black Hawk?  To answer these questions, I use data from the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office for the years 2000-2012.

First, on party identification.  From 2000-2012, the average percentage of registered voters who identify as Republican in Sioux (S), Black Hawk (BH), and Johnson(J) Counties are as follows: 72.07%(S); 26.08% (BH); and 19.85% (J).  So, and to no surprise to native Iowans, Sioux is solidly Republican while the other two lean heavily to the left.  But what about voting patterns?

In the four presidential elections since 2000, the average percent two-party vote going to the Republican candidate in each county was: 84.31% (S); 41.63% (BH); 33.10% (J).  But do we see similar patterns with other statewide races?  In other words, do Republicans always receive 85 percent of the vote in Sioux County, while Republicans running in Black Hawk and Johnson Counties receive on average two-fifths to one-third of the vote?

There is actually more variation than expected.  Take, for example, the seven U.S. House elections from 2000-2012.  In Sioux County, the Republican candidate never got below 82% of the two-party vote.  In Black Hawk and Johnson Counties, however, the Republican candidate, got the majority (greater than 50%) of the two-party vote three times (in 2000, 2002, and 2004).  And in both cases, it was a moderate (at the time) Republican who did it: Jim Nussle for Black Hawk County and Jim Leach for Johnson County.

If we take this a bit further, looking across all federal and statewide elections since 2000, three numbers stick out as indicators of candidates with strong statewide appeal: 85, 45 and 36.

In Sioux County, when the percent two-party vote for the GOP candidate dips below 85 percent, it is indicative of a particularly strong Democratic opponent (and/or a left-leaning wind going into the election).  The following candidates were able to accomplish this feat: Obama/Biden (U.S. President: 2012 and 2008); Harkin (U.S. Senate: 2002 and 2008); Christie Vilsack (U.S. House: 2012); Vilsack/Pederson (Governor: 2002);  Michael Fitzgerald (State Treasurer: 2002); and Tom Miller (Attorney General: 2002 and 2010).

In Black County, the number is 45 percent.  That is, when the percent two -party vote for the GOP candidate in Black Hawk County is above 45 percent, chances are we are dealing with a very strong Republican candidate.  Or, put another way, the Democratic candidate is in real trouble.  In addition to Nussle, the following Republicans managed to breach the 45 percent barrier in Black Hawk County: Grassley (U.S. Senate: 2004 and 2010); Ben Lange (U.S. House: 2010—only Republican to lose despite receiving greater than 45 percent of the two-party vote in BH); Branstad/Reynolds (Governor: 2010); Schultz (IA-Secretary of State: 2010); Vaudt (State Auditor: 2002 and 2010); Northey (IA-Secretary of Agriculture: 2006 and 2010).

Finally, in Johnson County, the golden number for Republican candidates is 36 percent.  A Republican able to muster 36 percent of the vote in Johnson County stands a good chance of winning the election.  In addition to Leach, the following candidates were successful at doing just that: Bush/Cheney (U.S. President: 2000); Grassley (U.S. Senate: 2004 and 2010); Miller-Meeks (U.S. House: 2010); Branstad/Reynolds (Governor: 2010); Vaudt (State Auditor: 2002 and 2010); Michael Fitzgerald (State Treasurer: 2002); Northey (IA-Secretary of Agriculture: 2010); John Askew (IA-Secretary of Agriculture: 2010).

So, to sum up.  Sioux County is reliably Republican, and Johnson, and to a lesser extent, Black Hawk County, are reliably Democratic.  Put another way, if we only knew the percent GOP two-party vote in Sioux, Black Hawk, or Johnson County for a particular candidate, we could make a fairly accurate prediction about that candidate’s chances of winning.

I intend to map all 99 counties and will try to provide regular updates along the way.  I look forward to your comments.

Posted under Uncategorized

On Monday, Gallup released the first post-election approval numbers for Congress.  The result: 18% approval, 75% disapproval.  To an outsider, such disgust might be perceived as a sign of trouble for the American political system.  But we know better.

The real question is: Why do we keep measuring congressional approval?

Despite alarmingly high disapproval ratings, members of Congress are reelected at surprisingly high rates, often exceeding 85 percent.  This phenomenon of hating Congress but apparently liking your individual member of Congress is known as “Fenno’s paradox,” after the political scientist Richard Fenno, and is about as close to scientific law as there is in political science.

What is perhaps most shocking is the remarkably low level at which congressional approval has stabilized at over the last five years.  According to Gallup, in the last 18 months, approval has peaked above 20 percent just twice (October 2012 and May 2011), and not since September of 2009 has congressional approval been above 30 percent.

In fact, the yearly average in three of the last four years has been less than 20 percent; 2009 was a banner year in that the 12-month average was a whopping 30.08 percent.

Approval from less than a third of the American public is hardly something to write home about.  Going back even further, approval has not breached the 40 percent mark since February of 2005, a span of more than 7 ½ years, two presidential elections and four congressional elections.  The breakeven point of 50 percent approval was last reached in June of 2003!

Some have argued that approval of Congress does matter.  Political scientists David Jones and Monika McDermott demonstrate that the American public does seem to respond to shifts in party control in Congress, and that members of Congress do pay attention to the whims of public opinion.

But with such little movement in the numbers, particularly since 2010, I question whether such metrics now matter.  The current debate over the looming “fiscal cliff” will do nothing but keep approval numbers in the teens, if not lower.  But I guess that’s okay.

Posted under Uncategorized

Yes, the 2012 election just ended, but come on, did you really think anyone would wait to begin the 2016 presidential election chatter?

Looking across the political landscape, 2016 is setting up to be the year of the governor, for both Democrats and Republicans.

Let’s begin with the out-party.  There are potentially six Republican candidates currently serving as state executives.  These include:

Chris Christie of New Jersey (his interest among party faithful may have peaked this year)

Bob McDonnell of Virginia (considered on the short-list for VP candidates this year)

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana (like Christie, interest in his candidacy may be fading)

Mitch Daniels of Indiana (once considered a possible candidate for 2012, he could be very popular again in 2016 should the economy continue to sputter)

John Kasich of Ohio (like Daniels, a well-known fiscally conservative Midwestern governor, but also carries the weight of a significant battleground state)

Nikki Haley of South Carolina (wildcard candidate, but could potentially help the GOP among female voters—not that women only vote for women)

For you Iowa faithful, I think Governor Branstad’s possibilities are limited to Iowa.  Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is also probably out.

Among Democrats, where the task of continuing the party’s hold on the presidency will be difficult given historic trends toward voting against in-party candidates following eight years in the White House, three current governors stand out.

Andrew Cuomo of New York (certainly has name recognition)

Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (well-known and respected within the party; will be retiring as governor in 2015)

Martin O’Malley of Maryland (very popular and current chair of the Democratic Governors Association)

And finally, let’s not overlook the fact that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be in Iowa next week to celebrate Governor’s Branstad’s birthday.  We didn’t even make it to Thanksgiving this time around…

Posted under Uncategorized

In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned on “hope and change” and an end to partisan bickering in Washington, D.C.  In 2012, Mitt Romney is campaigning on a similar theme; that Obama was not able to cure extreme partisan conflict but that he (Romney) is the man to do it.

Regardless of who wins the presidency, gridlock most likely will continue, and with it, the further erosion of public trust in government.

The U.S. Senate currently sits at 53 Democrats (including an Independent and Independent Democrat who caucus with Democrats) and 47 Republicans; meaning Republicans would have to pick up three seats if Romney wins (tie-break would go to Vice-President Paul Ryan), or four seats if Romney loses.

Republicans face competitive races in Indiana and Massachusetts, will most likely lose a seat in Maine, and now face an uphill battle in knocking off once vulnerable Democratic incumbents in Montana and Missouri.

If Romney wins, he is unlikely to have the Senate in his favor (complicated further by the increasing use of the filibuster to conduct all matters of Senate business).

In the U.S. House, the division is 193 Democrats and 242 Republicans; most analysts agree that Democrats are unlikely to win the necessary 25 seats to take control of the chamber, meaning if Obama wins he will still have to contend with House Republicans.

Existing research suggests unified (or one-party) control of government is not a guarantee cure for gridlock, nor does divided government necessarily result in bad governance.  Instead, it can cause factions within a party to push harder for more extreme policies, causing conflicts with more moderate members and leading to less productive government.

But while the governing process may survive, positive public sentiment toward government may not.

The latest numbers from Gallup show that approval of Congress has increased 11 percentage points over the last two months.  The optimism behind such an increase quickly fades when looking at the raw data; approval of Congress stood at just 10 percent in August, and now registers at a whopping 21 percent.

Survey research tells us that disapproval of Congress is largely the result of the perception of constant bickering and an inability to compromise to get things done.  Don’t expect this to change after Election Day or over the next four years.

Posted under Uncategorized

Just in case you missed anything, media organizations, forecasters, journalists, and prediction markets continue to report an extremely competitive race for the presidency, but also that Obama has a slight edge when it comes to the electoral math.  While a statistical tie in national polls is exciting, we don’t elect the president based on a national popular vote.  Thus, state polls in key “swing” or “battleground” states are crucial for predicting the winner come November 6 (or whenever the ballots are finally counted).

Two of the more accurate and well-respected forecasting models, Nate Silver’s blog for the New York Times and Intrade’s prediction market, suggest the following:

1.)        President Obama will be reelected with less than 300 electoral votes

2.)        President Obama will win the popular vote with approximately 51.0 percent

3.)        President Obama will lose at least two (and possibly five) states he won in 2008 (most likely NC and IN, and potentially CO, FL, and VA)

For undecided voters, very little seems to be left in the way of notable or unscripted campaign events.  The final jobs report is due out Friday, but the irony of course is that for an election focused on jobs, the impact of the final jobs report will be diminished significantly due to an increased number of early voters in key states.  As I commented in the “Room for Debate” forum, for undecided voters in Iowa the only suspense surrounds where Obama and Romney will make the next “unscheduled” stop as they traverse the Iowa landscape this week.

It is a bit surprising that the Obama campaign continues to be caught off guard by the jobs argument.  Governor Romney has been running for president for at least six years and his main strength has always been his “business acumen.”  No one doubted the 2012 campaign would be centered on jobs and the economy, yet the Obama Administration has struggled with its message.

On other matters, college students can have a potentially outsized impact on the presidential race here in Iowa.  If 50 percent of undergraduates at the three public universities vote (according to the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office, turnout among registered 18-24 year olds was 57.5 percent in 2008), and if we assume that just over 60 percent of those voting will be registered Democratic and voting as such (college students tend to be more liberal than the rest of the population), that approximates a split of 18,000 and 12,000 votes for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

Consider that in 2000 Gore defeated Bush in Iowa by just over 4,000 votes, while in 2004 Bush defeated Kerry by 10,059 votes.  Obama’s 9 percentage point victory in Iowa in 2008 was more of an anomaly than the norm.  Recent polls overwhelming show 2012 to be more like 2000 or 2004, rather than 2008.

UNI, Iowa, and Iowa State are also located in three different congressional districts, two of which favor Democratic incumbents (Bruce Braley in the 1^st and Dave Loebsack in the 2^nd), but a large student turnout could potentially swing the 3^rd district to challenger Christie Vilsack.  At this point, based on party identification and a presumed incumbency advantage, the race leans toward Republican Representative Steve King.

Posted under Uncategorized

As a Bears fan, I was not excited about having to switch from the game to a presidential debate.  But rest assured, I watched the debate wearing my Neal Anderson jersey.

Foreign policy was the topic, and both candidates early on spoke to the seriousness of threats facing the United States.  Not surprisingly, Governor Romney used the first question to talk about the Administration’s handling of the events in Benghazi, while the president quickly noted policy successes; e.g. ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama Bin Laden.

On the second question, Romney argued his general approach is to get the “bad guys.”  Obama used his time to go on the offensive, telling Governor Romney, “The 1980s are calling to get their foreign policy back” and “You have not been in a position to execute foreign policy.”

On some issues, it was difficult to discern policy differences between the candidates.

On Syria, President Obama talked about helping “moderates” while Governor Romney spoke of working with “responsible parties.”

On Egypt, Romney spoke of recognizing earlier on the growing revolt in the Middle East, but in the end agreed with the Administration’s cautious approach to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

On Iran, Romney spoke of “crippling sanctions,” which are currently in effect, but that such sanctions should have been in place earlier.

Shortly after 8:30 CST, the debate shifted entirely to domestic issues, with arguments about the deficit, tax cuts for the wealthy, investing in education, Romney’s record in Massachusetts, and jobs.  Apparently all of our foreign policy issues were resolved (I’m glad I missed the Bears game to watch a repeat of the second debate).

On the size of the military, the president was as harsh as he has been in any of the debates, suggesting that Romney’s approach to military expansion is akin to “a game of battleship.”

The physical intimidation we saw in the second debate was absent, but the tone was no less aggressive.  If the president’s assertiveness from the last two debates had been present in the first debate, my guess is we would be speculating about forgone opportunities for Governor Romney.

But, the first debate set the narrative for the month of October: the president has a serious fight on his hands and this election will be competitive and the outcome will be close.

As a final observation, this was the president’s strongest performance.  But does it matter?

If you are in the Obama camp, your best hopes for November 6 are that undecided voters are subject to “recency effects” (that information presented later on is recalled more accurately than earlier information).  You also hope this applies to the ever-shrinking portion of the electorate that hasn’t voted.

For the Romney campaign, your hope is that such voters are subject to “primacy effects” (that their decision on Election Day is based on remembering earlier campaign moments; i.e. the first debate).

At 9:35 p.m. CST I fired up the DVR: Go Bears!

Posted under Uncategorized