Across the country, newspapers are trying to save money by cutting experienced staff and relying more on syndicated material. The Des Moines Register, part of the Gannett chain, has had several rounds of layoffs in recent years and continued the trend by announcing dozens of job cuts this week.

Brian Duffy, who has been the newspaper's political cartoonist for 25 years, was among those let go.

A brief story in the Register's business section on Thursday noted,

The Register was said to be the only newspaper in the United States with an editorial cartoon on the front page. The tradition extended back to at least the early 20th century, according to Register archives. Ted Rall, the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, estimated that about 20 editorial cartoonists have been laid off or retired in the last three years without being replaced.

For several decades in the first half of the 20th century, the Register's front-page cartoonist was Jay "Ding" Darling, who won two Pulitzers and was the founding president of the National Wildlife Federation. From 1953 to 1983, the Register's cartoonist was Frank Miller, who also won a Pulitzer.

Duffy never won a Pulitzer, but he was highly regarded, and I spoke with several politically-engaged Iowans yesterday who were shocked to hear he had been fired.

Meanwhile, the Register's chief political columnist, David Yepsen, interviewed this week for the position of director of Southern Illinois University's Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. Yepsen hasn't gotten a pink slip, but you can't blame him for looking around. Morale in the Register's newsroom must be horrendous.

The Register's stature and quality has never been the same since Gannett bought the paper in the 1980s. Its circulation has dropped significantly as well, especially during the past decade. I don't know if anything can be done to halt the vicious cycle of newspapers cutting budgets for newsgathering and original content, then losing circulation, leading to more cuts. In this tough economy, businesses are reducing spending on advertising too.

Post any thoughts on the decline of once-great newspapers in this thread.

There's more...

I wish I could say I saw this one coming, but I was pleasantly surprised Tuesday morning to read the Des Moines Register's editorial urging Democrats in Iowa's third Congressional district to give Ed Fallon "a chance to unleash some of his ideas and energy in Washington."

That's right, the same editorial board that endorsed Hillary Clinton five months ago because of her experience, readiness to lead and hard work in the Senate has determined that Congressman Leonard Boswell "falls short."

Join me after the jump for more on this endorsement and other recent developments in the campaign.

There's more...

Everyone cites the DMR poll as the Gold Standard in  Iowa Caucus polling. Ann Seltzer knows more about polling than I do, but aside from whether the poll is correct, more on that later, this poll might do more to harm Obama than to help him.

To paraphrase Joe Trippi, if you're really winning this close to the election you would shut up and let expectations remain low so you can blow them away on election night. However, the DMR poll once again raises the expectations of the Obama campaign and this time raises them so high that it might have a boomerang affect if he does not surpass them.

There's more...

I have to admit a moment's pause last night at my New Year's Party when I learned the results of The Des Moines Register's last Iowa poll. How could this be?!? This was not what I was expecting, I thought.

This morning, I took a fresh look at the numbers and some of the commentary around the Internet about the poll. We have been told for months that this is the poll of record for the Iowa caucuses. Accurate or not, we'll find out on Thursday, but let's take a look at some of the strangeness surrounding this poll.

* Historical performance

The DMR's poll accurately predicted the order of finish for the top four candidates in 2004; that much is true. Or, at least it's half true. In fact, in 2004, the poll released a "likely voter" screen, and a "definate voter" screen. The LV screen had the order of finish correct, but the DV screen had Edwards and Dean flipped.

Further, the 2004 Iowa poll, in the more reliable LV screen, understated Kerry's final finish by 12 points, Edwards by 9, overstated Dean by 2 and Gephardt by 6. Sure, that makes sense, as undecided voters would account for that difference, you would think. But the Iowa poll only pegged undecided voters at 5 at the time. My point is this: Clinton and Edwards supporters should be heartened that the DMR poll's wild variation from the end result of the 2004 caucus makes an argument that that they weren't as "right" as they are credited with being.

* Turnout Models

Lots of problems with the weighting in this DMR poll. I'm am not a polling expert, but I thought that I would share some of the things that I read elsewhere.

From The Des Moines Register's own David Yepsen:

* A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren't all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans...Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they're Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.

That will raise some eyebrows among party pros. While we all know the Democratic turnout will be large, the events just haven't attracted that many newcomers in the past...
Will some of these fair-weather Democrats not bother to show up? If they don't, it will change the outcome. If pollsters adjust the party identifications in 2008 to look like they did in 2004, Clinton could beat Obama 31 percent to 29 percent.

Or, in the unlikely event just the registered Democrats who say they'll definitely show up are counted, Clinton gets 33 percent, Obama gets 27 percent and Edwards gets 25 percent.

A 24 point negative swing among caucusgoers who are actually Democrats seems unlikely.

* The DMR poll doesn't Render Other Surveys Null

Clinton and Edwards should be heartened that almost the entire body of polling evidence runs contrary to the DMR poll. Zogby is a good example. Zogby polls inspire a lot of passion. Their online polls are crap, in my opinion, but their primary tracking polls are better. In fact, in 2004, their tracking polls correctly indicated Kerry as the leader, and Edwards as trending upwards. (Although his final poll did have Edwards as a third place finish.)

My point is this: The DMR poll was disheartening, because it was so wildly different. I wasn't so much concerned about a poll showing my candidate behind, but a closing narrative showing Obama with momentum, thereby possibly influencing the caucus result.

But, there are some issues with this poll. It shouldn't be treated with the biblical reverence we previously granted it. This election is not over. Both Clinton and Edwards still have excellent shots at winning this caucus.

My prediction for the finish remains: Edwards-Clinton-Obama.

There's more...

They are revealing.

There's more...