It's election day in Iowa, and the Democratic primary between Congressman Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon is one of the highest-profile races in the state.

Both campaigns have expressed confidence about the outcome--Boswell's because of an internal poll reportedly showing him way ahead, and Fallon's because of direct voter contacts by the candidate, his staff and volunteers.

In this diary I will discuss Boswell's closing argument, as expressed in broadcast media advertisements as well as direct-mail pieces.

I will also go over the main rationale for Fallon's campaign and the key events during the final days before the primary.

Join me after the jump for more.

Boswell's closing argument is simple: I'm a loyal Democrat, and he voted for Nader.

I've written in previous diaries that Boswell's campaign communications depict him as a Democrat who is not afraid to take the fight to the Republicans. Several direct-mail pieces have included the tag line, "Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need."

Last week Boswell went up on the air with a tv ad using this closing line: "Leonard Boswell, a trusted Democrat, always standing up for you." A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday mentioned that Boswell has the backing of nurses, teachers and working families because of his work on their behalf.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find You Tube videos or audio files of the Boswell advertisements. If anyone has links to those, please post a comment and I will update this diary.

Accompanying these messages, Boswell's campaign has made sure to remind Iowa Democrats that Al Gore supports Boswell, whereas Fallon supported Ralph Nader for president in 2000. A photo of Al and Tipper Gore, along with a letter from Gore endorsing Boswell, are prominently displayed on the front page of the Boswell campaign's website.

Last Wednesday Democrats in the district received a glossy direct-mail piece from Boswell's campaign that said, "Ed Fallon Let Iowa Democrats Down By Endorsing Ralph Nader." Click the link for a more detailed description of that mailer. It was similar in style to the direct-mail pieces I transcribed here and here.

Last Thursday another glossy mailer from the Boswell campaign arrived in my mailbox. This one focused on Gore's endorsement of Boswell, with a large photo and a letter from the former vice-president. Here is an excerpt from that piece (all bolded passages were bold in the original):

Leonard Boswell, a remarkable congressman and my friend, is facing a serious primary challenge.

Whether the issue is global warming or increasing the minimum wage, making college more affordable or expanding health care to every American, Leonard Boswell is on the front lines of these issues, working hard for Iowans every day.

He stands up to the Republican right-wing agenda, saying NO to privatizing Social Security, NO to banning stem cell research and silencing science, and NO to tax cuts for the rick.

I will never forget traveling across Iowa back in 1999 and 2000 during my presidential campaign with Leonard and his wife, Dody. Few people fought as hard for me as Leonard did, and his hard work helped me win the Iowa caucus.

I'm calling on Iowa Democrats to stand up for someone who has stood up for you time and time again. Please join me in supporting Leonard Boswell.

I do not fault Gore for campaigning on Boswell's behalf. I would only point out that this primary wouldn't be happening if Boswell really had been standing up to the Republican right-wing agenda during his six terms in Congress.

Boswell's television commercial does not mention Nader, but the radio ad asserts that because Fallon campaigned for Nader, we have been stuck with eight years of George Bush, along with a lousy economy and a war in Iraq.

Fallon keeps talking about the need to change Congress and his differences with Boswell on key issues. A press release from his campaign last Friday highlighted his early opposition to the war in Iraq. Click the link to read details from a resolution Fallon offered in the Iowa House before the war began, which predicted many of the disastrous outcomes that have come to pass.

Fallon is less able to put his closing argument in front of voters, however, because he has not had the resources to do district-wide direct mail, let alone radio or television commercials. For that reason, I agree with Matt Stoller that this primary is an interesting test case on whether a grassroots operation can make headway with no paid media support.

Fallon, his staff and volunteers were working the phones intensely in recent days. Quite a few people told me they got these calls. But were these contacts reaching the right voters in large enough numbers? And were the people pledging to vote for Fallon really supporters, or were a large number of them simply too polite to say they prefer Boswell? (Ask any Iowan who has worked on a campaign--voters' reluctance to tell you they don't support your candidate interferes with efforts to figure out where you stand.)

As for the mainstream media coverage of the race, the bad news for Fallon is that Iowa newspapers and local television stations have not focused much on the key policy differences between the candidates. Not every "process" story is bad for Fallon (the coverage of Boswell's refusal to debate may even have helped him), but clearly he would prefer for issues such as the Iraq War, energy policy, trade, and the bankruptcy bill to be front and center in news coverage.

Amazingly, the Des Moines Register just ran this article suggesting that Boswell and Fallon "align on most key issues" but have very different personalities. The article quotes a political scientist about how Baby Boomers like Fallon are different from people in the older generation like Boswell. It is full of anecdotes that have little bearing on who would represent this district well in Congress. For instance, readers learn that Boswell asked colleagues in the Iowa Senate not to use profanity, and Fallon tracked snow into a union hall after riding his bicycle there one January day.

A media narrative emphasizing personal or stylistic differences between the candidates favors Boswell, in my opinion. Why should Democrats fire Boswell and hire Fallon if the two mostly agree on the issues? Boswell himself has said:

"If you look at the issues, there's just not a lot of difference between us," Boswell said. "He's taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don't exist."

Regarding the mainstream media coverage, the good news for Fallon is that local journalists have not been mere stenographers for Boswell's supporters.

On Saturday Boswell's campaign put out a press release touting his record on fighting methamphetamine use in Iowa. The release misleadingly implied that Fallon had not been concerned about addressing the meth epidemic. (Click the link for more background on that issue.) I am sure they were hoping for a bunch of "Boswell tough on meth, unlike Fallon" stories, but as far as I know, no newspaper or tv station picked up this story.

Last week a 527 group called Independent Voices sent out three glossy mailers attacking Fallon. Two of them focused on Fallon's opposition to residency restrictions for sex offenders; I transcribed those here and here. (If you want to see the visuals, Stoller put a scanned image of one mailer up at Open Left.) The other direct-mail piece accused Fallon of not being supportive enough of Iowa's ethanol industry.

These hit pieces did not get much play in the free media, and what they did receive focused on the controversial nature of the mailings, rather than just passing along negative spin on Fallon.

Some Bleeding Heartland commenters are convinced that the 527 mailers will backfire on Boswell and would be more effective with general election voters than with more savvy, primary voters. My concern is that even if well-informed Democrats do not believe the message of these hit pieces, they might still be scared away from voting for Fallon, having seen the types of messages Republicans could use against him.

What will the voters do today? I have no idea. My gut feeling is that Boswell will win, but not in a blowout. Frankly, it would be amazing for Fallon to keep this within 10 points, given the incumbent's money advantage and the huge list of establishment allies that are helping his campaign.

Final note: I never was able to get Boswell's office on record regarding his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and specifically whether he supported Republican efforts earlier this month to add the Senate version of the FISA bill (which House Democrats oppose) to the 2009 intelligence appropriation. Stoller included Fallon's open letter to Boswell on the FISA issue here. The press secretary for Boswell's campaign said she would check with his Congressional office and get back to me on this issue, but she never has, despite several attempts by me to follow up. Boswell's Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice-mail messages on this issue. Until the mainstream media start digging on telecom immunity and the FISA, we are unlikely to get any clarity about Boswell's position.