Breaking: Tom Harkin to retire

[DrScholl]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent. Latham can't beat Steve King in the primary, anyway, so....

People like Heather Wilson and Tommy Thompson supposedly had the same advantages, yet they lost in the end. Don't automatically assume that anything that relates to a candidate's previous races is a leg up in other elections. Edited for clarity.

[King]

Making up quotes is generally frowned upon here.

Only if the joke falls flat.

[Donerail]

http://www.gis.co.polk.ia.us/election/Election_summary.asp?Contest_Type=1&Report_Type=contested&Election_Date=20121106

Behold Mr. Latham going into hostile territory and giving the incumbent Democrat a nice thrashing.

Won't matter when he loses the primary.

[Keystone Phil]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent.

Then says...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't make this stuff up.

[DrScholl]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent.

Then says...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't make this stuff up.

Iowa has a Democratic lean, Obama won it twice and Republicans have only won it's electoral votes once in 20 years, I just don't think a competent Democrat would lose. I didn't use the word "next" after as if anything was guaranteed, I just stated an opinion based on the lean of the state.

The assumptions I'm talking about are ones that say that because a candidate won another office in a previous election, that the candidate must be a certain winner for other offices. Just because Latham got close in Polk County in a house race, doesn't mean that he's achieve the same number statewide.

[Smash255]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent. Latham can't beat Steve King in the primary, anyway, so....

People like Heather Wilson and Tommy Thompson supposedly had the same advantages, yet they lost in the end. Don't automatically assume anything in elections.

Well there are certain things you can automatically assume.  One of those being is if King is the GOP nominee, its safe Dem.

[Brittain33]

Making up quotes is generally frowned upon here.

Were you convinced they were real?

[Vosem]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent.

Latham has consistently won in his tilt-D seat since the '90s, and it's shifted around over time so large parts of the state are familiar with him -- and like him. Iowa is only tilt D at the federal level, its senior Senator is a Republican so popular he hasn't faced a serious challenge for decades, and its Governor is also a popular Republican. Braley (the strongest possible Democratic nominee) is relatively junior and has only represented ~1/4 of the state.

You have this consistent bizarre belief that small Democratic tilts will always hold up everywhere (but  you don't think this applies to small Republican tilts), which looking at the results from any recent election, even Democratic landslides, can disprove. Even in 2008, Mark Kirk and Dave Reichert won in the high single-digits while Obama won their districts by margins in excess of 15 points.

Latham can't beat Steve King in the primary, anyway, so....

Unfortunately, were they to run against each other this is probably true, though I tend to think King holds too much power in his House seat over GOP presidential candidates (and he holds it basically for-life) to relinquish it for a Senate run that even he probably understands is extremely risky and could totally leave him with no power left in the party whatsoever. King would also have to give up Chairmanship of an influential House Subcommittee (though so would Latham, actually; both are very influential Republicans, on the Agriculture and Appropriations committees, respectively).

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent. Latham can't beat Steve King in the primary, anyway, so....

People like Heather Wilson and Tommy Thompson supposedly had the same advantages, yet they lost in the end. Don't automatically assume anything in elections.

Well there are certain things you can automatically assume.  One of those being is if King is the GOP nominee, its safe Dem.

Likely Dem. If King can avoid gaffes (unlikely), fundraise well (possible), face a bland (or gaffe-prone) opponent (possible), in a good year (possible) then he should win. All those factors probably won't align, but they're all reasonable.

[DrScholl]

Look, tilts can hold up and sometimes they don't, but in open seats tilt can sometimes be the predominate factor. Just because Latham won an even house seat (which has never been one totally unwinnable for a Republican) doesn't mean that he's guaranteed to win statewide. It may bizarre to some, but Democrats do have a very good chance at retaining this seat even if Latham does run. Grassley is an incumbent and a porker to boot, so his getting re-elected isn't so much about partisanship as it is incumbency.

I've never said anything about Republican tilts not holding up, unless it relates to 2010-like numbers, which were sometimes quite inflated for various factors in some states. Some people assumed wrongly that Wisconsin would flip in 2012 based on 2010 and the recall results, that was not correct logic.

[Keystone Phil]

Making up quotes is generally frowned upon here.

Were you convinced they were real?

No but it still shouldn't be done.

[krazen1211]

Latham would do better than King, but still lose in the end, unless the Democrat was completely incompetent.

Latham has consistently won in his tilt-D seat since the '90s, and it's shifted around over time so large parts of the state are familiar with him -- and like him. Iowa is only tilt D at the federal level, its senior Senator is a Republican so popular he hasn't faced a serious challenge for decades, and its Governor is also a popular Republican. Braley (the strongest possible Democratic nominee) is relatively junior and has only represented ~1/4 of the state.

Since 2002. In the 1990s Latham represented roughly what is Steve King's current district (but smaller). In 2008 and 2012 he administered a good thrashing to 2 Democrats in 2 different Obama districts.

Although to be fair, Bush got 53% in Latham's 2012 district.

[Brittain33]

Does anyone know why Latham has been so successful? What's so appealing about him?

[RogueBeaver]

Pub insiders don't think King and Latham run against each other. *Fingers crossed for Latham*

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/can-steve-king-win-iowa-senate-seat-86820.html

[Miles]

Pub insiders don't think King and Latham run against each other. *Fingers crossed for Latham*

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/can-steve-king-win-iowa-senate-seat-86820.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Brittain33]

I would be so excited for that story if it weren't Politico.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I do recall and could probably dig it up if needed a krazen quote saying nothing but "R+1" in a thread about Herb Kohl's retirement. Definitely not a made up quote there.

[Talleyrand]

I think if it ended up being King v. Latham, Republicans would be pleasantly surprised by the results.

While King would likely start off with a huge lead, my gut feeling is that he'd make a number of gaffes and run an idiosyncratic campaign, something money and grassroots support could not make up for. Latham would steadily close in with a strong, establishment-funded campaign and his connections to most counties in the state would close the deal for him, giving him a comfortable win by the end of the campaign.

However, I only think one of these two gentlemen, if either, will run, and we'll see someone like Matt Schultz or Kim Reynolds enter.

[Miles]

I think if it ended up being King v. Latham, Republicans would be pleasantly surprised by the results.

While King would likely start off with a huge lead, my gut feeling is that he'd make a number of gaffes and run an idiosyncratic campaign, something money and grassroots support could not make up for. Latham would steadily close in with a strong, establishment-funded campaign and his connections to most counties in the state would close the deal for him, giving him a comfortable win by the end of the campaign.

However, I only think one of these two gentlemen, if either, will run, and we'll see someone like Matt Schultz or Kim Reynolds enter.

Remember though, with this same Republican electorate, nutter Bob Vander Plaats was able to  come within 10 points of Branstad in the primary.

[Talleyrand]

I forgot that. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd expect King to replicate Plaats' performance closely, but  he could still win, especially if Branstad couldn't take out Plaats by more than that. 

[Miles]

I forgot that. Thanks for pointing that out. I'd expect King to replicate Plaats' performance closely, but  he could still win, especially if Branstad couldn't take out Plaats by more than that. 

Looking at the map, King has lots of room to improve on Vander Plaat's performance in the northwest.

[nclib]

Tom Harkin has been a great Senator and I wish him well in his retirement. Even if a Dem replaces him, he/she won't be as good as Harkin. If Steve King is nominated, Dems should be in good shape. Otherwise, I'd say lean Dem, but would depend on the campaign and the 2014 climate. As for King and Vander Plaats, wouldn't King be expected to run ahead of V.P. based on representing more of the state?

[Talleyrand]

Looking at the map, King has lots of room to improve on Vander Plaat's performance in the northwest.

Tom Harkin has been a great Senator and I wish him well in his retirement. Even if a Dem replaces him, he/she won't be as good as Harkin. If Steve King is nominated, Dems should be in good shape. Otherwise, I'd say lean Dem, but would depend on the campaign and the 2014 climate. As for King and Vander Plaats, wouldn't King be expected to run ahead of V.P. based on representing more of the state?

Doesn't Latham have lots of room to improve on Branstad elsewhere though? He's represented most of the state before, and he's fresher in voter's minds than Branstad was in 2010. You guys have a point that he's probably higher-profile than V.P. and could improve on him in one region, but I think there's some case to be made for Latham overpeforming as well.

[Badger]

All Lattham has to do is beat someone ideologically and geograpically advantaged in the primary, then face a Democrat of leonard boswell's caliber in the general. He's a cinch to win!

[Gass3268]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RogueBeaver]

They're not running against the other. What worries me is that King's very vocal and Latham, well, isn't.