Iowa poised to lose congressional clout

Source: Des Moines Register

Iowa's footprint in Congress and its impact as a fall presidential battleground are expected to shrink after the state's congressional maps are redrawn next year.

The release of the 2010 census figures on Tuesday will bring Iowa an all-but-guaranteed cut from five congressional districts to four. That likely will mean two of the state's incumbent U.S. House members will be staring at the same chair in a game of political musical chairs.

Iowa's delegation has steadily lost members over the past 80 years. But this time, another factor will amplify the loss of clout: Iowa has a relatively junior delegation, without the 30-year senior member it has featured in recent decades.

<snip>

Iowa last lost a congressional district 20 years ago, after the 1990 census showed the state's population had shrunk in the wake of the farm crisis.

Read more: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101219/NEWS09/12190329/-1/BUSINESS04/Iowa-poised-to-lose-congressional-clout

---

hmmmm....

funny how those trickle down theories don't work for rural america

This is just fine in that there are too many religiously insane crazy fucks out there whose dogma they wish to impose on others rivals most well known crazy fucktards. It seems there are more of these types than sane ones.

Iowa is probably the most progressive - outside of Vermont and California - state in the US.

What are you talking about?

Just redraw his district.

Democrats only control the Senate and they have a republican House and governor

it would be nice though

usually college towns. The rest of the state IMO is not. I shudder when I think of the power they hold in the primaries.

that Iowa deserves to lose representation?

BTW 3 of those judges were voted of the bench

is a lot more progressive than say .... Alabama.

and effectively kick his ass out.

It's the industrial East that's likely lost population.. King is from the West .. We'll hope not more Democratic bad luck in this crucial census year.

Looking at the vote totals from the 2010 Congressional elections the district King lives in cast by far the fewest number of ballots. And that makes sense. Iowa has a lot of towns in the 4-9,000 population range, especially in the west, and those towns have struggled for decades. My guess is that King's district will expand the most by adding a big chuck of southern Iowa. That move would likely move Ames into the same district as Des Moines and that would probably cost the Republicans a seat. Such a move would leave King's district super safe with 2 competitive districts and 1 fairly save Democratic district with the competitive Waterloo district possibly flipping Republican in 2012.

removing unwarranted clout in determining the front runner in the Presidential primaries.

The rule that the Iowa caucus is the first primary every Presidential year allows for political and media manipulation of the candidate field. I remember the Dean moment in Iowa, and the later destruction of the front runner in preference to Kerry's all but dead campaign. Before the New Hampshire primary a week later, all of the front runner's momentum had been savaged, and the Kerry coronation all but finalized.

Giving such a puny part of the electorate so much clout in effect is an insult to other more populous and politically diverse states, and doesn't actually tally percentage of votes cast and assign delegates, but rather uses the clout of political insiders who greatly influence caucus results.

Put Iowa where they belong within the political influence spectrum.

1000s of runs of the "Dean Scream" - which was, in actuality, nothing but a directional mic moment - as soon as Dean said he would take on the media and work to get the Fairness Doctrine back, they had one goal - kill Dean's campaign.

The repeat of the Dean Scream 1000s of times is an exaggeration, and only part of the reason.

The major networks and cable played the Dean Scream more than seven hundred times in the week leading into New Hampshire. There is no doubt, this finished off any chances of regaining momentum after a surprise trouncing in the Iowa caucus. But the fact is the damage had already been done when Kerry received 20 delegates and Dean just 7.

How did this happen, with Dean just a week earlier having a commanding lead in the polls across the media and nation, while Kerry's campaign was all but dead? Kerry even mortgaged apart of his life to fund his flagging campaign.

It was not just the media and the fairness doctrine at work here, political insiders and the DLC and the DNC wanted Dean out because he threatened their hold on power. He would not conform to their party line and practice, he was a maverick.

So what happened two weeks before Iowa? Remember William Pitt's article on Truth Out, 'The Trial of John Kerry'. Briefly, there was a meeting in Al Franken's apartment attended by editors of major mainstream press, The New Yorker, Time, News Week, columnists from the New York Times, WAPO, The Nation, TV ... MSNBC and CNN were represented as well as other free lance writers of name. All were there in this special gathering to question John Kerry on his Iraq War vote, his other positions foreign and domestic. They left that meeting intending to become king makers and king makers they were. Kerry's campaign was stumbling in the polls around 7% for months, but the spotlight changed to him as Dean was savaged daily by the media in two weeks prior to Iowa, no matter what he said. The words 'elect-ability and anger' were repeated over and over, and again.

Then came the perfect forum for usurping the front runner, a caucus heavily influenced and controlled by insiders. Wealers and dealers, local and national vie for position with power and influence, lacking only the smoky back room. Easily swayed are the delegates by massive show of political force and favors promised, and a clear front runner becomes an also ran, over night in Iowa.

Was it a vote of the electorate? No. Was it a shift in sentiment of everyday voters in the days leading into Iowa? No. Was it a fair representation of the candidate field leading into the caucus? No. Was it a politically motivated side show, easily manipulated, to install a new front runner more acceptable to not just the press, but the democratic party insiders as well? I thought so then and still do, so we will have to agree to disagree.

Political momentum in the primaries is too important to allow manipulation in a caucus forum in a small state that does not represent a diverse cross section of the national public voters.

edit, for spelling

Would it not be "threatened with" or "likely to" or something like that?

- personally, I just adored yesterday's headline of

"murder/suicide leaves one dead"

ahhhh - shouldn't murder/suicide leave TWO dead?



oh so funny for me - but not so funny for the ONE person who died