Iowa Defense Alliance

An alliance of Iowans determined to defend traditional Iowa values.

So Much For Inevitibility

In the wake of the off year caucus it would not be unreasonable to assume that all of the Republican Party’s declared candidates would have garnered the required number of signatures. However, that does not seem to be the case. On two consecutive days this week I have received emails from two prominent campaigns asking for help in acquiring the signatures needed. This indicates to me that these campaigns have failed to garner the required signatures. Now I admit that they could simply be trying to gather more signatures than is needed, however I couldn’t see them going through the added expense of generating an email to do this.

The first candidate that I spoke of is 3rd Congressional candidate Jim Gibbons. In the email that the Gibbons camp sent out it specifically mentions an increased number of caucus goers this year over previous off year caucuses. I find this comment especially interesting considering Gibbons appears to not have garnered enough signatures at the caucuses to get his name on the June primary ballot. In fact the headline of the email sent out is “Next Step: Get Jim on the Ballot.” This clearly points to a feeling among the party base that Gibbons is not their guy.

The second candidate that appears to have failed at getting nominating signatures has been promoted as the inevitable gubernatorial nominee. In an email sent out by the Branstad campaign they are soliciting their supporters to get out and promote him. However the tool that they are using to do this is the nominating paperwork. It would seem that Terry Branstad has failed to garner the required number of signatures at the various caucuses around the state. Another thing that I find interesting about the Branstad campaigns effort is that they felt the need to “bribe” people into getting the papers signed. This would indicate to me that not only is the prospect of another Branstad administration not appealing to the base of the party, but his supporters are not all that thrilled to go out to do the dirty work to get their guy nominated. It is clear that contrary to what Branstad’s supporters want you to believe, his ascension to Governor is anything but a foregone conclusion.

There is little doubt in my mind that both of these candidates will manage to acquire the required number of signatures to file with the Iowa Secretary of State. However what is in doubt is how they would fare against their competitors. Both of these gentlemen should have been able to gather their required signatures last Saturday, but they failed at that endeavor. So much for inevitability.

January 29, 2010 - Posted by Al Bregar | Abregar, Politics | , , , ,

15 Comments »

  1. Your writing here is of interest to me as I attended the caucus with my wife. When we left the caucus we discussed the signature push by those in charge of the caucus. We were strongly encouraged to sign all the forms “whether we liked the candidate or not.”

    Not liking this concept and not knowing what each other was doing, neither of us signed papers of candidates we would not support. Other caucus attendees must have had the same decision making process.

    If bribing voters to sign nominating forms is indeed occurring it is a sad day for Iowa politics. It is also a signal of desperation!

    Comment by A Voter | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  2. This fully validates the point that voters are not feed up the Demoncrats per se. They are feed up with non-conservatives, both GOP and Demoncrats alike. The GOP leaders continue to fight the push of the people towards conservatives.

    I have said before that the “powers that be” are not worried that someone like Bob would win the June primary. They are worrid that someone like him would win in November.

    I predit that we’ll be seeing more RINO’s shot down in the primaries in coming elections as well as this year.

    Comment by RightOf Reagan | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  3. A Voter, the same push came at my caucus! The nominations were passed around and they all started with me. I only signed those I wanted and then passed them on. The lady after me made an announcement that we should sign all as it only helped them get signatures, not that we supported them. I continued to only sign those I wanted. Then I read the “polls” from the counties and I thought our precinct would have been misleading if used in the same way.
    Maybe that practice has always been done in the same way but you kind of wonder if it is a process that needs to be uniform in every precinct .

    Comment by SWI Reader | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  4. I was in a Polk County Caucus (you know, the eastern part of Polk County that overwhelmingly went to Huckabee in 2008, thus propelling him to win the entire county) and we were not pushed to sign every petition. We were just encouraged to find two candidates we liked and sign those and then signing more would also be greatly appreciated. The only two petitions with absolutely no names on them were TB’s and someone I have never heard of.

    TB’s stayed blank until the end when a gentlemen looked at it and turned to a group of people nearby and smirked, “Branstad doesn’t have any signatures” and then did sign it (perhaps out of sympathy). Rants and Roberts had over half of a page filled, Bob VP had a page and a half, and TB walked away the clear loser with four signatures where the people who signed used ditto marks so those signatures aren’t even going to count.

    Seems to me that someone with the highest name recognition in the room should garner a few more signatures. I believe what I witnessed was a flat out rebuke of a TB candidacy.

    Comment by AnyoneButBranstad | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  5. so then Vander Plaats was able to get all his petitions signed and ready to be filed!?!?

    you people are hilarious. everyone’s going to get on the ballot and just because their sheets weren’t signed is not a flat out rebuke of anyone’s candidacy.

    get. a. clue.

    Comment by alicia | January 29, 2010 | Reply

    • You know Alicia, I don’t know if Vander Plaats was able to get all of his petition signatures. However what I do know is that I have yet to see his campaign scrambling to solicit those signatures the way Branstad is doing.

      I acknowledged in the post that he would most likely be able to get the minimum number of signatures required, but his campaign has had to resort to enticing people to sign the petitions with items such as campaign buttons and shirts.

      The fact that he was unable to garner enough signatures at the caucueses is a pretty clear indication that he does not have the support of the base of the party. It is also very clear that if he does not win 35% in the primary it is very likely that he will lose the nomination.

      Comment by Al Bregar | January 29, 2010 | Reply

    • Just so you know, I was also at that Polk County caucus. It was a flat-out rebuke. People were laughing at TB’s blank sheet. Yes, we realize all of these candidates will get the signatures needed but the coronated winner of the GOP primary should not have blank sheets leave the caucus room.

      Comment by DannyBoy | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  6. Did you see Branstad’s campaign is now “rewarding” his supporters now with “prizes” for getting his name on the ballot? They must be desperate now. Good grief!

    Comment by Buck | January 29, 2010 | Reply

  7. Hey guess what guys, this is what campaigns do to solicit more email addresses, more supporters, more volunteers. Check with any major campaign like Huckabee, Obama, etc.

    I would wager this is NOT because they don’t have the signatures, rather, it’s a way to get more people involved in their campaign. Which Vander Plaats has done nothing to reach out to NEW people.

    And PS danny boy, it’s a little contradictory to say it’s a rebuke but you think he’ll get the signatures anyway. That whole post makes no sense.

    Comment by alicia | January 29, 2010 | Reply

    • Alicia,
      I am afraid that you have it wrong. They don’t ask for signatures on the nominating petition unless they actually need them. So please don’t try to turn this into an indictment of any other campaign. And the lack of signatures at the caucuses was a huge rebuke. It demonstrates that Branstad does not have the support of the party base..

      Comment by Al Bregar | January 29, 2010 | Reply

    • Nope. Bob VP’s campaign has done nothing new to reach out to new voters except for that small little detail that he was endorsed by the leader of the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP who is now his campaign co-chair. Please look up the last time someone from the NAACP endorsed a Republican. Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it…………

      Comment by Iowans Rock | January 30, 2010 | Reply

    • Also, you might want to sign Branstad’s nomination petition yourself (I heard he needs signatures) because then you would see that there is nowhere on there that an email address is required.

      Comment by Iowans Rock | January 30, 2010 | Reply

  8. RIP Branstad keep your memories and past buried we had you once, but i sure don’t want you now for Iowa’s future. Iowa needs new ideas not recycled 1980s ideas that are so out of touch with society as we know it now. Please keep TB out in the pasture.

    Comment by iowanforabetteriowa | February 1, 2010 | Reply

  9. Look what I found:

    “Jim Knapp, a Sacramento based Tea Party activist, went even further, telling TPMmuckraker via email: “Most of the anger by Tea Party supporters is directed at the effects of special interest money.”

    Knapp continued:
    I believe that campaign finance reform is the most important political issue facing America. I would even go so far as to say that this issue is even more important that our current financial crisis and jobs. Everything in American politics is affected by special interest money. From who controls our monetary policies in treasury and the Fed to regulation of Wall Street. I would also venture to say that it was special interest money which precipitated the current economic crisis.”

    Let’s talk about this. Everyone else is commenting on it–why not this blog?

    Comment by Jerry | February 3, 2010 | Reply

    • There are multiple reasons for my lack of comment on the subject. I have not had as much time to blog as my frequency can attest to because of my academic endeavors. Additionally I have not been able to follow the story as much as I would like to. However if you would like to have my comments on it, I will do a little research to develop a position on it.

      Comment by Al Bregar | February 3, 2010 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »