If Harkin is still up 10 after the taping scandal, I think we could write this one off once and for all were it not for seeing how the coattails would work.

Don't write Iowa off yet for Harkin. That would be unwise, at best. They say that the Harkin's lead usually dwindles in the final days of his campaigns. His last re-election was close, so he's not off the hook, at least not yet.

He's not ahead by 20 points, this poll shows. So let's be practical about this race.

Well, here are the results:
Vilsack-50
Gross-40
Others-3

The last poll from this group had these results:
Vilsack-48
Gross-43
Others-4

That's a 2 point gain for Vilsack, and a 3 point loss for Gross.

Now, the Senate race:
Harkin-51
Ganske-42

Last poll from the group:
Harkin-52
Ganske-40

Harkin lost a point, Ganske gained 2. That can probably be attributed to the taping scandal. However, the poll also had these results:
Have you heard of (the taping scandal)?
Yes-84
No-16

After hearing of it, are you more or less likely to vote for Tom Harkin?
No Effect-56
Less-17
More-13

That 17% shifting from Harkin to Ganske is probably the reason why the lead fell. Still, Harkin does lead by 9, and if the taping scandal has no more effect, he will win.

As for the House races, a poll back in July had these results for the Hutchinson-Nussle race:
Nussle-49
Hutchinson-43

Meanwhile, Leach's internal polls have him in a dead heat with Thomas. As for Norris, he's probably the longest shot of the three, but if he can get coatails from Vilsack and Harkin, he has a shot.

Here's some good news for Democrats:
Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report Poll-October 1-3, 2002

Bush's Approval Ratings:
Approve-63
Dissaprove-33

The last poll from IR/CPR:
Approve-66
Dissaprove-31

Reelect poll:
Reelect Bush-45
Consider Someone Else-27
Vote for Someone Else-25

Last poll:
Bush-48
Consider-25
Other-24

Right Track/Wrong Track
Wrong Track-50
Right Track-44

Last poll:
Right Track-51
Wrong Track-42

There has been some movement in the last two weeks in favor of the anti-Bush, wrong track movement, and away from Bush/Right Track. With the networks still concentrating on Iraq, why is this happening?

Thanks for the poll summary's Mr. Liberal. Has there been any poll numbers on the Norris - Latham contest? IF this can develop into a moderate Dem vs a rightwinger contest. There are lots of votes for Norris to use to that extent.

Yeah, a Tarrance Group poll back in June. It had Latham up 57-25 over Norris. Using what I call the "Liberalizer", Latham leads 51-31. Still, it was a Republican poll, so the lead is probably smaller. Norris actually raised as much cash as Latham up to June 30th (811,000 vs. 804,000), and had more individual donations. Norris can win-but Latham is favored right now, in my book.

With regard to the polls, I've been wondering if the Bush administration has just plain overplayed its hand on Iraq. That's all they've got, and, even though the corporate media is trying its best to drown out everything else, it just ain't gonna work.

That could be, Oregonian. Say, I have a question for you. What's Congressman David Wu like? Would he be a good candidate statewide? (That is, if Smith wins reelection, Wu could challenge him in 2008.) Is he popular? I happen to like him because he's broken new ground in American political history, and he's the only Chinese American in Congress. My high school is 30% Asian American ( alsoabout 15% Jewish, and 20% Irish American-you can see we're diverse),and many of them are political. When they ask, "Who's representing Asian-American interests in Congress?", I say, "David Wu". Is that accurate? Thanks.

Here's some news from Idaho. I went to the website of Jerry Brady, the Democratic nominee for Governor there, and the website had poll results from July. The pollster was independent.

Governor Dirk Kempthorne-42
Jerry Brady-38

(Note: This was after positive descriptions were made of both candidates. The website didn't say what the original gap was. However, it did say that Kempthorne's reelect number is 32%. That's monstrous for an incumbent, right?)

If Idaho goes Democratic, hell will freeze over. Then again, there IS global warming down at the poles... :)

So Leach is going to vote "no" on the Iraq resolution. Interesting.

This election is reminding me of 1998. Remember how the Democrats thought the Monica Lewinsky would drag them down to defeat despite poll after poll showing that most American's had no stomah for the impeachment nonsense? Had Democrats stood up for Clinton they would have won back the House. Well it's the same way with Iraq.

Most Americans outside the south show only superficial support for the Iraq invasion. Yet Democrats are petrified that, despite the polls, they vote against the war at their own peril. Wake up, guys! Americans DON'T want to spend $100 billion on an ill-advised invasion that will cost American lives and commit us to years of rebuilding a post-Saddam regime. Containment has worked fine up until now, and there's no evidence to suggest that Saddam's regime won't continue to rot from within like Fidel Castro's.

Unless there's a smoking gun that Saddam helped plot 9-11, there Americans don't want to do this. All Democrats have to do is make a case, if they have the guts.

P.S. - Leach accurately realizes that the upper Midwest is antiwar and will probably save his seat. I bet the issue also gets Paul Wellstone through a tight race.

On that Latham-Norris Republican poll from a few months back, I believe the 57-25 came after the pollsters read positive messages about Latham. I remember reading internal questions on that poll like "Would you be more likely to vote for Latham if you knew ..." There's no way it's a 32 point deficit. I am originally from this district and Norris has out-fundraised and out-worked Latham. I agree it's not as promising for the Dems as the Leach and Nussle districts, but Latham has only previously represented 40% of the new district and picked up some Dem-leaning areas. It will be very close.

As Badgerhead suggests, Leach voting against the Iraq resolution is a straw in the wind -- indicating he, at least, perceves a pro-Bush vote to be toxic. Yet the press, clueless as ever, chants it's Dems should be terrified.

The specter of 1998 indeed hovers over this election: a press corps that has dramatically miscalled two election cycles in the GOP's favor once again tells Dems what trouble they're in, and all anecdotal evidence (letters to the editor, calls to Congressional offices) suggest they're fundamentally wrong.

The only remainin problem is getting more DEMOCRATS to understand this. Too often they're the heaviest consumers of GOP/media propaganda.

Mr. Liberal - Thanks for the Idaho numbers. I can't think of how often I've been ridiculed for saying that Dirk Kempthorne was in trouble.

As for Iowa, the party registration numbers are kind of misleading. Many Iowa Republicans are willing to vote for Dems on some levels. In 1983, the three CDs with the highest % of Republicans had Democratic reps, and the three with the lowest % had Republican reps. On economic issues, these voters are willing to vote for Dems. Also, in 1988, Bush won Lousisiana, where over 90% of voters were Dems at the time, while losing Iowa where Republicans were a majority of voters.

Georgia Senate Independent Poll (for Atlanta Consitution)-October 1-3
Cleland-51
Chambliss-42
Undecided/Other-7

Bigger than the Public Opinion Strategies poll, but much smaller than the Garin Hart Yang poll in February. Here are some other results:
Among White Men:
Chambliss-59
Cleland-38

Among White Women:
Cleland-48
Chambliss-43

Among African Americans:
Cleland-80
Chambliss-7

Among Independents:
Cleland-53
Chambliss-36

Voter Registration:
Republicans-36
Democrats-31
Independents-30

Among "Certain to Vote" Voters:
Cleland-47
Chambliss-46

Among the other voters in poll:
Cleland-53
Chambliss-40

Eeek. I thought that Cleland would win easily. But he's in a dead heat among "certain" voters-and if turnout is low, he could easily lose. GADem, if you're reading this, what's your reaction to this?

I think the poll numbers in Georgia look excellent for Cleland. Here's why: Cleland appears to be getting, by my estimate, 43% of the white vote (38% from white men plus 48% from white women divided by two). If he gets that great a share of the white vote, he'll win by close to double digits, because the black electorate is usually between 20% and 25% of the vote, and Cleland will get at an absolute minimum 85% of the black vote.

Another factor strengthening Cleland is the fact that there is a Libertarian running, and in Georgia Libertarians routinely take 4% to 6% of the vote in statewide races (almost entirely from right-leaning whites in the Atlanta suburbs). So this means that Cleland only needs 48% to 49% of the vote to win (the post-general election runoff that did in Wyche Fowler in 1992 has been repealed). So all in all, Cleland only needs about 35% of the white vote to win, which I think he has locked up (with a little help from Zell Miller).

This is why I think Cleland will win--The GA GOP is split into two factions. You have one that is Atlanta and the other one is the rest of GA. What happens is that what motivates the South GA GOP to come out and vote causes the Metro Atlanta GOP to sit home. I live in Metro Atlanta and Saxby Chambliss is not inspiring any of my GOP friends to come out and vote. You can't do well in one part of the state and not the other. The reason why the Democrats always seem to win statewide is that Democrats are the same throughout the state. The only person who ever seemed to unite the GOP was Paul Coverdell. The person running for Governor is Sonny Perdue and he is a real goober. My husband laughs everytime he is on TV!

So, since this was a thread on Iowa elections, lets hear predictions for the Iowa house races. Numbers and names, folks. :)

Iowa Predictions:

I'm more worried about Vilsack, but feel fairly comfortable predicting:

Harkin 54-46
Vilsack 53-47

The House races are much more in flux than the Gov and Senate races. It's frankly too early to try to predict them. At this point, I'll say that Leach will lose, 52-48. While I'm hopeful about Nussle and Latham and I think they'll be held under 53%, I can't predict they will lose (yet). Boswell wins 56-44 and Steve King (the "Bob Barr" of Iowa (well, Barr was from Iowa City) who seems destined to replace Barr on the talk show circuit) wins 59-41 in the 5th CD. Keeping him under 60% will be a moral victory.

Regarding Democrats and the possible war, one of the commentators on the McLaughlin Group predicted as many as 100 Democrats in the House would vote against the war resolution. He said the momentum on the Democratic side is to be in opposition to the war.
I think one of the posters here made the best point: a lot of Americans think war with Iraq will be quick and easy, and Bush has done nothing to make them think it would be anything but.
If the U.S because either bogged down in the war, or more likely, bogged down during the years of "nation building" it will take in Iraq, Bush could suffer greatly for not explaining to the American public the real effort involved.

This war is chimpy's, pure and simple. If all goes well, he'll get the credit. if things go to hell he'll get the blame.

No one's gonna care which Senators or Congresscritters voted for or against, beyond the immediate election. No one blames a Senator when a war goes to hell.

I think that's true. Did anyone in the House or Senate lose re-election because of their Gulf War vote? I can't think of any offhand.

Democratic Senators Terry Sanford (NC) and Wyche Fowler (GA) come to mind as being adversely affected by their vote against the Gulf War. They both lost re-election. Also Fritz Hollings also got taken to the wire, much of that due to his anti Gulf War vote.

Oops, stated that badly. I meant that a Sen wouldn't suffer for 'yes' vote if a war went to hell.

IIRC, the only two Senators to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution(both Dems) both lost their seats in the next election, one lost his primary!

Jeb Bush a divider not a uniter:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/4215448.htm

Jeb can't stand the fact that Florida finally realizes the education system is going down the tubes. Voters are fed up with his faulty alternatives so they unleashed a cap size on classrooms. Now he wants to destroy this amendment by dividing the old vs the young. Face it Jeb- voters know you haven't made a significant impact on solving the education problem so we have to solve the problem ourselves. If the small class size amendment passes I think this alone spells "Governor Mcbride"!

One thing not to overlook in Georgia is the increasing number of African-American voters in the state. Barnes put together a huge GOTV campaign in 1998 and black voters made up 29% of the electorate. The same thing will happen this time. If Cleland is pulling 40% of the white vote he will crush Chambliss.
Iowa is a GOP pipe dream. Vilsack and Harkin will win by 6-9%. Repubs will lose more farm votes this time because of the economy, and will lose one of their House seats, though I'm not sure which one it will be.

It is looking more likely that at least one Iowa Republican will lose, although they have a tendency to hold on when everyone says they're finished (see Chuck Grassley in 1986, Jim Ross Lightfoot in 1992, Jim Nussle in 1992, and Jim Leach in 1996). Of the three Republican incumbents, I think that Jim Leach is the least likely to lose. He has an appeal among voters that isn't evident in funds raised or polls. Jim Nussle has had trouble breaking 55% of the vote, and Tom Latham has not had an easy time when his challengers are credible. That is the case in the old 5th, which was more Republican than the new 4th. It's a tossup, but I think that Jim Nussle is slightly more likely to lose than Tom Latham is, not because of the presidential numbers, but because Nussle has had a harder time holding off challenges than Latham has. In the 3rd and 5th, Leonard Boswell usually outperforms expectations; many pundits thought he would lose in 1998, and he won rather easily. The 5th might be one to watch. Western Iowa is not as Republican on the federal level as it is made out to be. Neal Smith and Berkley Bedell (Dems) represented the Council Bluffs and Sioux City areas in the 1980s. Steve King is an idealogue, from what I've heard. If he is seen as too ideological, and Paul Shomshor is running a good campaign, then an upset is possible. At this point, Tom Vilsack and Tom Harkin seem to be on track for reelection, although I'm not totally confident on Vilsack. Does anybody know what could happen with the state legislature?

"Steve King is an idealogue, from what I've heard."
They don't call him the "Bob Barr of Iowa" for nothing.

Unfortunately Paul Shomshor has zero money. I dont think he'll even be able to have one tv ad. So, even though Steve King might rub people the wrong way (even in the 5th), Shomshor's campaign is way too weak to mount much of a challenge.

Watch Iowa. Bush is perhaps the most unpopular in Iowa and Illinois. His drumbeat for war is not very popular in Iowa. If something gives, it is Iowa.

JoeyJoeJoe: In response to your question about the Iowa Legislature, the conventional wisdom is that Dems have a 50-50 shot at taking back the House but won't take back the Senate (although they will gain seats). Because legislative redistricting was like congressional redistricting in Iowa (i.e., paid no attention to where incumbents live and threw many incumbents into new territory), it is very, very hard to predict what will happen with the Iowa Legislature.

As I have said before, watch Iowa on election night. Also watch Vigo County, Indiana. This county has predicted the election outcome every year since 1970.

Where in Iowa is Vigo County?

Vigo COunty is in the Indiana 8th. It had been in the old 7th. Terre Haute is in Vigo County. One correction; it went for Bush in 2000, so it got that one wrong.