I haven’t seen any poll numbers, but after listening to Monday night’s WHO radio debate between Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Latham and Democratic challenger Becky Greenwald, the 4th district congressional race sure feels close.

Democrat Becky Greenwald and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Latham.

Democrat Becky Greenwald and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Latham.

Greenwald, a seasoned behind-the-scenes politico who has spent little time in front of a microphone as a candidate, was graceful but tough.  She had lines of attack on her opponent ready, and she delivered them with clarity.  She knew how to let them hang in the air, avoiding the repetitiveness characteristic of a novice debater.

Latham, who has experience in Congress but has faced few truly close reelection campaigns, handled questions just as well, and with the deeper understanding of policy minutiae that incumbents always exhibit.

But Latham revealed his level of anxiety by going on the offense early and often, attacking Greenwald on taxes, health care, immigration and partisanship.  Rather than remain above the fray, Latham engaged his opponent as an equal.

That’s not something incumbents usually do if they have a comfortable lead.

On the issues

If the topics of debate are any indication of what 4th district voters are thinking, the economy, energy, health care, taxes, and the elusive notion of “bipartisanship” will decide the election.  Based on my notes, those are the five subjects that the candidates talked about the most.

The economy: The candidates have staked out positions on opposite sides of the $700 billion “rescue plan” (or “bailout”).  Greenwald supports it, and Latham voted against it.  Both candidates seem to see their positions as politically expedient, but political experts still aren’t sure how the bill will ultimately play with middle-class voters.

What we do know is that when the economy is the most important issue of a campaign, voters tend to gravitate toward the Democrat.  Advantage Greenwald.

Energy: Through 90 minutes of debating, neither candidate found a renewable energy idea worth opposing. Both candidates support an “all of the above approach” to energy, which means investing in a laundry list of technologies plus offshore oil drilling. Each seemed competent on the subject of energy, and both candidates tied renewable energy development to economic development.

But Latham also got to work in examples of federal funding he has secured for renewable energy projects here, even if that was never the focus of discussion.  Slight advantage Latham.

Health care: Greenwald and a sympathetic phone questioner both seemed to want to force Latham to pledge his support to Sen. John McCain’s health care plan, and they almost got their wish. But before Democrats could fire up the presses for a “Tom Latham wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits” mailing, the incumbent hedged, saying he only supported the “principles” of McCain’s plan but that he couldn’t commit to anything.

Without McCain’s full plan, the only proposal to cut health care costs that Latham could name was a simple tax credit. Voters are pretty sure that health care reform is more complicated than that.

Greenwald, meanwhile, grabbed hold of Obama’s health care proposal, which is being featured in very moderate-sounding Obama campaign ads right now.  Democrats usually win on health care anyway, but in this debate, the differences between the two candidates were very clear.  Greenwald brought a more detailed proposal to the table, and she knew how to explain it.  Latham did not have the vocabulary to talk about the issue with the depth voters want.  Advantage Greenwald.

Taxes: Debates about tax policy are always more about accusations than they are about an individual candidate’s actual proposals. Latham and more than one phone questioner each asked Greenwald, roughly, “Why do you want to raise taxes?” Greenwald dealt with their questions with improved clarity each time.  By the end of the debate, she was able to make clear that she supports Obama’s tax plan, which only increases taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year.

But what Greenwald said about taxes will not matter, because any voter for whom taxes are the top issue is going to vote Republican. Advantage Latham.

Bipartisanship: There was a lot of talk of “partisanship” in Monday’s debate. Latham said he has a record of bipartisanship, and he accused Greenwald of negative campaigning. Greenwald said she would be bipartisan in Congress and accused Latham of voting with George W. Bush’s policies 95 percent of the time.

Latham’s rejoinder was that voting with George W. Bush 95 percent of the time is actually pretty good, and that Iowa’s Democratic congressmen vote with their party even more often than that. I’m not sure that holds water with voters. “Latham” and “Bush” in the same sentence always benefits Greenwald, no matter what the actual record is. Advantage Greenwald.

The final tally

Greenwald wins on points, largely because the policies she’s selling are more popular with voters than her opponent’s are these days.

But the bigger story is that it even came to this.  Latham and Greenwald engaged each other and debated as relative equals. We might just have a real race on our hands.

And one last thought to ponder: Latham is at odds with his party’s presidential nominee on the $700 billion “rescue plan,” on health care reform, on biofuels, and (presumably) on earmarks, given his seat on the Appropriations Committee. Meanwhile, Greenwald has embraced Obama’s proposals with open arms. That might tell us something about which presidential candidate has stronger coattails in the 4th district this year.