We needed another six years from Tom Harkin

From the day Senator Tom Harkin announced plans to retire, I had a bad feeling about Iowa Democrats defending an open U.S. Senate seat in a midterm year when Governor Terry Branstad would be on the ballot. Harkin may not have known other retirements would hand several Senate seats to Republicans practically before the campaigns began. He couldn’t have anticipated that issues like ISIS terrorism and the ebola outbreak would dominate the media discourse during the last two months of the campaign. He probably didn’t expect tens of millions of dollars to come into Iowa, amplifying Bruce Braley’s every misstep (plus a bunch of made-up stuff) thousands of times.

I appreciate Harkin’s many years of service in Congress and don’t mean to begrudge him time with his family. But the bottom line is that if he had sought a sixth term, Republicans would not have fielded a serious Senate candidate in Iowa. Harkin would have cruised against a challenger on the “clown car” level of Christopher Reed.

In the coming days and weeks, plenty of Iowa Democrats will rail against tactical or strategic errors by Braley and his strategists. They’ll have a point, but in a year like this, none of it mattered. Candidates who started their campaigns in a stronger position and ran better races (such as Senator Kay Hagan in North Carolina or independent Greg Orman in Kansas) had the same result. Almost every competitive Senate race shifted toward the Republican at the end. Good grief, Senator Mark Warner nearly lost Virginia, which wasn’t even on the radar as a potential GOP pickup.

Instead of running for an open Senate seat in 2020 (a presidential election year), Iowa Democrats will have to find a candidate who can compete with the better-known and better-financed incumbent Senator Joni Ernst.

About the Author(s)

desmoinesdem

  • I agree with you

    about Harkin. I understand wanting to retire, but you have left Iowa in terrible hands. It is less about Braley, and more about turnout of voters, and frankly the fact that we need to get it across to presidential election voters that midterms are as important, or maybe more important, and that they need to vote then as well. Polk County was really close, and he lost, LOST, Scott County, the 3rd most populous county in Iowa and one with significant minority and labor populations. Not enough voters. And I really do think Harkin is mainly to blame. He was a great senator, but how much does he care for Iowa to leave it in Ernst’s hands, and possibly to leave the SCOTUS nominees that may arise in McConnell’s hands…  

    • he cares

      I am sure Tom Harkin is more devastated by what happened than we are. I think he believed Bruce Braley was so experienced and well-qualified that he would be able to win the seat. And he probably didn’t think the Republicans could win the Senate back anyway.

    • regarding Scott County

      For many years it was known as a reliable Republican vote-producing area. At best it is swingy, not a Democratic base area like Polk County.

      Braley lost Scott County in his 2010 re-election campaign in IA-01. Dave Loebsack carried it in 2012 and just barely again this year, by a little more than 200 votes against Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

    • Harkin could not have looked at our politics fondly

      I’m sure he must have looked at it and said “I could put 6 more years of this nonsense, or I could do something valuable with the time I’ve got left.”

      I don’t begrudge him that at all.  If we are to have a true, healthy democratic movement in this country, we cannot depend on one person, or even just a handful.  We’ll need about 150 truly committed House members and about 30 committed Senators to force any sane policy changes and stifle the insane ones.  Producing that type of ongoing, enduring governing majority must allow for regeneration in the system, new blood, and retirements with the secure knowledge that capable hands are ready to take over.  

      Over the last 30 years, Harkin has seen the complete degeneration of the Senate. I can’t imagine why a class act like him would have even stuck around for as long as he did.  Must have become a really dreary place after Paul Wellstone died.  

  • double that

    We as Dems did a horrible job with our message, with our choosing of candidates…with doing such a poor job of getting the message out..

    And I went to the Dems election night party…hardly anyone was there…. which in a way, reflects what happen

    • it's hard to know

      how we can make people care about a midterm election, even with good candidates. Lots of good candidates in many states lost yesterday. Thousands and thousands of negative ads turn people off and drive down turnout.

  • The Palin of the Plains....

    We may be stuck with her, but I thank god that the Ship of State held and we can still fight back against ALEC based  abortion and voting restrictions.  And maybe she will do some good after all by joining with the Cruz Crazies to prevent a “grand bargain”.  Maybe they will even impeach Obama.  If they do, God help them in 2016.

  • I am not shocked about Brailey

    giving the gaffs against.  Appel’s loss to Washington insider Dave Young is very shocking.

  • Harkin did good things for Iowa

    I still have a toddler T Shirt that says “Harkin for Congress”. My mom had us all over helping him campaign when I was a kid.  He is a real gentleman.

    Harkin picked a good time. The time just had a lot of interesting variables after he pulled the trigger. The Democrats were well resourced nationally. Obama had won reelection and everything seemed fine for Democrats. They lined up a guy to take over with a serious network to scare off Republicans. Latham was rumored to be winding up shop in a few years.

    The gambit worked. They scared off all the big guys. Then the national landscape and an unfortunate gaffe made conservative groups take a second look.  

    • Democrats almost lost Virginia

      where far less was spent by outside groups. This is the fourth straight midterm election that was a wave for one party or the other. The president’s party traditionally does poorly in a midterm during the president’s second term.

      With Branstad on the ballot having more money to spend than God, there was no way defending an open Senate seat could have looked promising.

      • Branstad's money didn't move the senate race

        It was a drop in the bucket compared to the millions in the race. Iowa also does not really have coattails. Even in open races. Jamison beat Branstad in Story in 2010.

        Joni was a narrative that people believed in. Braley was on the wrong side of the wave and it was the anxious media that worked against anxiously waiting on him for the next mess up more than even the third party group ads. It was like Chevy Chase’s terrible impression of Ford that branded him a clumsy dolf when he was actually an Ivy League athlete. None of that mattered when he fell down the stairs. It was news.  

  • Another 6 from Harkin

    I too had a bad feeling when Harkin announced his retirement.  You are correct, the 2nd guessing and hindsight of the Braley campaign is not helpful..and it was his to lose.  But as you said….so did all the even stronger candidates, as in Mark Warner in VA.  The  political/emotional reaction of the electorate was hard to overcome in this environment.  It was a combination of many external factors that are very difficult to overcome….Timing is everything in politics.  Add a couple videotaped serious foot-in mouth comments, millions of $$ and untold political hires by the dark money crowd and here ya go…  

    • I think psychologically

      having the media talk constantly about ebola and ISIS put voters in a frame that worked well for Republicans. Amazing how little was said about the government shutdown just one year ago.

  • Why did Harkin retire?

    I remember Harkin saying that Obama’s second term would be wasted if the Senate remained vulnerable to filibusters all the time.  He thought the minimal reforms that occurred were “baby steps”.  

    Is that why he retired?  Seeing himself wasting time in the Senate and seeing his advice rejected by his own party can’t be very motivating.  It reminds me of how Byron Dorgan (North Dakota) retired after Obama killed re-importation of prescription drugs.  

    If Harkin had stayed and found himself in the minority, would that have helped anyone?  Staying for six years just so you can set the scene for your successor seems a touch undemocratic to me.  Like those legislators who retire at the last minute so no one has time to get into the race.  

    • I think the failure to enact real filibuster reform

      contributed to Harkin’s decision to retire. Senate Democrats did eventually get rid of the filibuster for most presidential nominees, but that was months after Harkin had announced his decision.

      Harkin could have continued to accomplish some things even as a member of the Senate minority. And holding that seat would have increased the chance that Democrats could re-take the Senate in 2016 (now highly unlikely).

  • really?

    I applaud Sen Harkin for his years of service and am glad he gets to enjoy retirement.  He has been a public servant for a long time and deserves time with his family.

Comments