Democrats win Iowa State House special election

[Meeker]

The good news keeps on coming folks!

The Democrats have won the special election in Iowa's 90th House District tonight - 49% to 48%

Republicans had hoped to pick up this seat - but they failed again!

Further support for the Obama agenda and more evidence that America wants change.

Teddy, this one's for you!

[Bacon King]

YES WE CAN
YES WE CAN
YES WE CAN
x20

[Holmes]

Actually, NOM spent $86k and kept airing anti-gay marriage ads throughout the district. And they lost. lololololol

I didn't think we'd win, but we did.

[Meeker]

Actually, NOM spent $86k and kept airing anti-gay marriage ads throughout the district. And they lost. lololololol

I didn't think we'd win, but we did.

Yea, NOM did actually put a lot of effort into this thing to make it a referendum on gay marriage. So it is significant in that respect.

I couldn't resist another opportunity to do the opening post though.

[Holmes]

Maybe it'll teach them to meddle into other states' business next time.

Apart from helping the Democratic leadership from keeping their caucus in line with same-sex marriage, it's also good news for them for 2010. Of course it's not a mandate, but I don't think too many people were expecting a Democratic win here tonight. Can't speak for Culver here, but if the Dems in the legislature keep it up, they can survive 2010(which I'm hearing from people in Iowa that it could be bad for them... same-sex marriage obsessed Republicans + midterm election + recession, and all).

[Verily]

This one actually is big news (but not for Obama). The seat might have voted for Obama, but if it did so it did so very narrowly, no more than a point or two either way. The Republicans campaigned hard against same-sex marriage, making the race basically a (local, obviously) referendum on same-sex marriage in Iowa. I thought for certain that this would be the sort of district to fall for that, but apparently not. Maybe it's officially time to declare same-sex marriage a vote-winner?

[Holmes]

I wouldn't say it's a vote-winner in rural districts like this one (yet?), more like it's not a wedge issue. And Republicans learned that the hard way.

Last time this seat was open in 2002, the Democrats also just barely won by 55 votes.

[Хahar 🤔]

Actually, NOM spent $86k and kept airing anti-gay marriage ads throughout the district. And they lost. lololololol

I didn't think we'd win, but we did.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Perhaps we should have one all-inclusive thread for these state legislative special elections? (The next one coming up is Delaware's 37th House district, on 9/12.)

[SenatorShadowLands]

This was an Obama district, the GOP candidate performed better than McCain did in November and despite the fact that both sides tried to make this about gay marriage their position was the same: "it's too politically hot to say, but we both want a statewide vote" Which, considering the Dems in Des Moines are the ones blocking the people from having a say, would mean that this is a win for the GOP either way if the Dem keeps his word. (Can't say how much faith i put in that though)

[Holmes]

No, the Democrat didn't use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue. $86k is a lot of money for a special election in a small district, and they donated it to the Republican over the Democrat for a reason. And have you seen his ads?

There was that debate where they were asked, but the Democrat basically said "I support a vote, uhh that's it". Not to mention he had a lot of gay groups help his GOTV campaign(which probably won his election), I doubt his vote is solidly in the yes column if Republicans find some procedural way to bring an amendment up for a vote.

I wouldn't mind a massive state legislative election thread.

[Rowan]

The Republican guy looked homeless. Why do we recruit such weirdos?

[Holmes]

He was the county supervisor of Jefferson, the biggest county in the district... Wapello is bigger but there's just a fragment of it in the district.

He lost Jefferson, though.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Was this a D open seat or an R?

[Meeker]

Was this a D open seat or an R?

D. The long-time incumbent got appointed to some agriculture-related job by Vilsack.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Was this a D open seat or an R?

D. The long-time incumbent got appointed to some agriculture-related job by Vilsack.

By Culver you mean?

[Meeker]

Was this a D open seat or an R?

D. The long-time incumbent got appointed to some agriculture-related job by Vilsack.

By Culver you mean?

SwingStateProject says Vilsack. It's either an error or a federal job.

[SenatorShadowLands]

No, the Democrat didn't use same-sex marriage as a wedge issue. $86k is a lot of money for a special election in a small district, and they donated it to the Republican over the Democrat for a reason. And have you seen his ads?

There was that debate where they were asked, but the Democrat basically said "I support a vote, uhh that's it". Not to mention he had a lot of gay groups help his GOTV campaign(which probably won his election), I doubt his vote is solidly in the yes column if Republicans find some procedural way to bring an amendment up for a vote.

I wouldn't mind a massive state legislative election thread.

An independent organization came in because they trust the GOP nominee to oppose gay marriage more than the Dem. That's common sense, the issue was that the Dem supports a statewide vote, which gay marriage is almost guranteed to lose. The Des Moines Dems are blocking any such vote. I pray the GOP finds a procedural way to get marriage on the ballot and give someone other than liberal judges a say on the issue.

[Holmes]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

[SenatorShadowLands]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

[Meeker]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

[Хahar 🤔]

This was an Obama district, the GOP candidate performed better than McCain did in November and despite the fact that both sides tried to make this about gay marriage their position was the same: "it's too politically hot to say, but we both want a statewide vote" Which, considering the Dems in Des Moines are the ones blocking the people from having a say, would mean that this is a win for the GOP either way if the Dem keeps his word. (Can't say how much faith i put in that though)

Nice spin. This is as disingenuous as Newt Gingrich saying that every No vote in the special election in California was a Republican vote.

[SenatorShadowLands]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

[SenatorShadowLands]

This was an Obama district, the GOP candidate performed better than McCain did in November and despite the fact that both sides tried to make this about gay marriage their position was the same: "it's too politically hot to say, but we both want a statewide vote" Which, considering the Dems in Des Moines are the ones blocking the people from having a say, would mean that this is a win for the GOP either way if the Dem keeps his word. (Can't say how much faith i put in that though)

Nice spin. This is as disingenuous as Newt Gingrich saying that every No vote in the special election in California was a Republican vote.

I'm not sure what special election you're talking about but assuming it has something to do with gay marriage, Gingrich has a point in that there is no reason for a minority voter etc to vote with the Democrats because they are a minority when they actually agree with the GOP on the issues.

[Meeker]

And then you end up with a major legal mess, like in California, where there are different classes of same-sex couples in the state of Iowa, and the issue will end up in federal court again. Maybe Bush's top lawyer would help us again.

Either way, even if the Republicans can get a vote in the House where it's a bit closer, it'll be way harder in the Senate. And even then, the earliest it can be on the ballot is 2012, I believe. That's almost three and a half years of same-sex marriage, they wouldn't be able to take it away easily like in California when people were still getting used to it.

It's just as possible that the people chafing under it for 3 years will be ticked off enough in a year that could very well be good for the GOP, will kill it. That's too far out to foresee but history suggests that if it goes on the ballot gay marriage will die. Maine goes on the ballot this November. If a state as blue as Maine kills it that will bode ill for gay marriage in Iowa no matter when it makes it to the ballot.

Or people notice after three years of gay marriage that their lives are not in any way affected and accept it.

But no, you're right, they'll probably be upset because they've been "chafing under it".

You do realize it has to do with a MORAL standard right? no one is saying you'll die or lose your house because gay marriage goes into effect.

And how exactly will be people be affected by a change in the "moral standard".

Furthermore, how will they be "chafing under it".