Scroll up.

PPP will be polling Iowa this weekend - http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/iowa-and-ohio-question-suggestions.html

Nice.

Couldn't think of a better container to post these thoughts in. This has baffled me for a long time. Why Iowa is a swing state while neighboring Nebraska is hardcore Republican? Both states have essentially one major city (Des Moines/Omaha) surrounded by vast expanses of rural nothingness. They're both based on mostly agrarian economies, are overwhelmingly white, and the Evangelical Church has a strong foothold in both states. Wisconsin and Illinois at least have some leftover industrial and urban elements to explain their Democratic inclinations, but as far as I know, Iowa does not. Is there something amiss, or is my characterization of one of these states incorrect?

Iowa has a more urban areas than Nebraska and those urban areas are unionized.

Anyone else?

Iowa seems to have more Catholics too

Most breakdowns of Iowa have a distinct side of the state that leans blue and one that leans red. The side that is beside Illinois is blue while Nebraska's side is red. It also seems that the blue has the larger cities (think Loebsack and Braley prior to reistricting).

Couldn't think of a better container to post these thoughts in. This has baffled me for a long time. Why Iowa is a swing state while neighboring Nebraska is hardcore Republican? Both states have essentially one major city (Des Moines/Omaha) surrounded by vast expanses of rural nothingness. They're both based on mostly agrarian economies, are overwhelmingly white, and the Evangelical Church has a strong foothold in both states. Wisconsin and Illinois at least have some leftover industrial and urban elements to explain their Democratic inclinations, but as far as I know, Iowa does not. Is there something amiss, or is my characterization of one of these states incorrect? I asked a similar question in March 2006. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/NewsDetail.html?NewsID=30222 I only got one response from Blue Wizzrobe: It was soldily GOP on the Pres level until 1988, when the whole farm industry went downhill. Bush did fairly poorly in a lot of northern states that year, including South Dakota and Montana (he won them, but by fairly small margins). Since then, it's pretty much stuck with the national results.

There's a lot of reasons for this shift. For the first 140 years of our states' history, your analysis of us would be pretty much spot on. For most of that time, the Democrats could really only count on about four counties. Polk, because larger cities like Des Moines create urban squalor, the more unionized river towns of Burlington and Dubuque, and the liberal college town of Iowa City. Past that, except for the depression years, there were no places where Democrats had any advantage whatsoever. For decades, Iowa's economy was based on three things: farming, the railways, and the river. But by the mid-80's, the railroads were shutting down one by one, and the river towns were starting to enter a serious decline. Much like West Virginia today, we found ourselves in a posistion where our former livelihood was practically extinct. Then the farm crisis of '87 hit. At that point, the blue dog Democrats who voted for Johnson, but were won back by Nixon's "law and order" promises voted overwhelmingly for Dukkakis. However, the farm industry has improved from that point, and most of the farmers have returned to their natural conservative voting habits. The river towns however, haven't been so lucky. With businesses drying up one by one, most of them have been in a protracted depression since the '80's. Muscatine and Ft. Madison in particular are practically dead. Then there's the matter of college towns. Besides Iowa City, Ames, Dubuque and Cedar Rapids all have reasonably large colleges that lean to the left. In particular, there are far more liberal arts colleges in Iowa than there are in Nebraska. That helps to turn younger voters on to the Dems. On the Republican side, we've got Sioux City and Mt. Pleasant, neither of which are large enough to really help us on a statewide level. Plus, most of the College kids tend to leave the state after they graduate, thereby robbing us us voters who might be turned later in life. And then there's Fairfield. A normal conservitive midwest town for most of it's history, but since the mid-80's it's turned into "The Levitating City". Basically it's a home for every mystical nutjob who doesn't live in California. This has caused it to join the left side politically (when they remember to vote, anyway.). And then there's the reason that is the best news for Democrats in the long-term. Changing demographics. Wikiality likes to call us the 'second whitest state in the union'. When I was a kid, that was true. Then in the late '80's, IBP came along. They brought with them an influx of Mexican workers. This was a major change for us. In my day, everything we knew about Mexico came from reruns of "Cisco Kid". I'd never seen a Mexican resturaunt in my life. Nowadays, I could name you seven within a half hour's drive. It's even affected our local cuisine (mainly through Casey's 'taco pizza'). And the new Hispanic population around the Columbus Junction area has resulted in my county (Louisa) changing from being solidly Republican into a total toss-up. Burlington and Davenport also have a migrant population, but of a different sort. Their's is mostly people who came here from Chicago, Toledo, Detroit and other large cities that are worse off economically than we are (as river towns go, Burlington's still fairly lifelike). These people fall into two categories. There's the blacks, who are becoming an actual minority for the first time in my life (when I was a kid, I thought a black person was something you might find in a zoo), and more commonly, there's the white people who like to think they're black. They speak a laughable 'quasi-ebonic', listen exclusivly to rap music, dress ridiculously, and do a lot of drugs. And they've successfully created a mini-ghetto. Naturally, reflexively voting Democrat comes with the turf. Between all that, it's actually more surprising that the Republicans still have a good chance of stealing the state back. This is mainly because most of the likely Democratic voters tend to be apathetic about everything, while the Republican voters are usually the more civically-minded sort. That and our strong Evangelical tradition, which keeps the base inflamed. But that's only going to carry us so far. The younger generations aren't really church-going. On most Sundays, you can count the number of under-60s attending on one hand. In a couple of decades, the Evangelical crowd will have died out. And Iowa will be in the 'D' column forever.

There's going to be a poll coming out here in the next few days that's going to be total bullshit: you're only allowed to express your support for Obama, Romney, or "Undecided," and if you say "Undecided," they make you say you're leaning toward one or the other. There is no option for "Neither."

And people doubt me when I say Iowa will go Republican.

James E Harris from the Socialist Worker Party filed here.

not sure how many candidates file but get booted in Iowa, but at the very least, Litzel has a previous race

To me this is the most difficult state of the election to predict. Not sure what do to here.

To me this is the most difficult state of the election to predict. Not sure what do to here. When in doubt, predict Obama. :)

Yeah-Iowa is one of the few races that I feel is a true tossup. States like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida may be swing states that either party could theoretically win, but they are not tossups in the sense that either side has an equal chance (Obama is clearly more likely to win all three at this point). Iowa is the only presidential race that I feel is impossible to say one candidate has an advantage at this point.

I still think Romney will win Iowa.

I still think that a state that voted for Dukakis by 10% will vote for Obama.

I think Obama will squeak it out, mainly because of how good the Democratic organization is out here. It is the only state I'm not 100% sure about, though.

Alright. Based on polls and reports from my friend who is a county chair in IA -- I'm changing it to slight Obama.

you mean Jerry Litzel isn't gonna win Iowa?

Based on polls... Great reason to change a prediction. ...and reports from my friend who is a county chair in IA... Terrible reason to change a prediction.

From the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier: Democrats are skeptical about the Republicans' early vote efforts in Iowa. They point to a nearly 8-1 advantage they have in ballot requests so far. Last week, more than 87,000 Democrats had asked for absentee ballots, compared with just 11,700 Republicans. President Barak Obama's campaign said requests from Democrats are up by 36,000 over the same time in 2008, and that its grassroots organization gives it an important edge.