Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson just tweeted a few minutes ago that according to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s spokesman Matt Paul, Vilsack “considered it” but won’t run for governor of Iowa next year. No one will be surprised by this news. It’s good for Vilsack to make it official as other Democrats consider challenging Governor Terry Branstad: Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, State Senator Jack Hatch, Senate President Pam Jochum, State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald, State Representative Tyler Olson, and former State Representative Bob Krause.
Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread.
10 Comments
I'm disappointed
I was hoping against hope that he would run. You can dress up all the Dem candidates you want, but in the cold, hard light of day, TV was/is probably the only hope the Dems had of beating Terry Branstad. And of course from a political junky point of view, what a donnybrook it would have been. Hate to miss out on that. I frankly thought he was giving it serious consideration, and I bet he got leaned on pretty hard to do it. Spose Tyler Olson will jump in shortly.
rockm Wed 5 Jun 11:40 AM
moving forward
Vilsack is smart to move forward and Iowa should do the same. I disagree with rockm — he’s not the only Democrat who could beat Branstad. In fact, I think Branstad is very vulnerable and there are several Democrats who can deliver a win.
The thing that Vilsack has brought up, which is very relevant to Iowa today, is making rural America a priority. Let’s hope a good part of the discussion in the upcoming race will be about rural Iowa. If we’re going to be strong moving forward then we must address how to keep rural Iowa strong. Moving to a larger city doesn’t address the need.
julie-stauch Wed 5 Jun 12:01 PM
the middle ground
I’ll split the difference between the two of you. I don’t think Vilsack is the only one who can beat Branstad — Branstad is a tough politician and experienced campaigner, but I think his welcome is wearing out quickly. But I would have loved to have seen Vilsack in. I think his chances of winning were well above average, and I think he did, and would again do, a good job (perhaps better with a little distance, more hands-on experience in a very large administrative capacity, and time to reflect on his earlier terms and what Chet and Terry did or didn’t do well to follow-up). Unfortunately, other than a one-day visit to the Statehouse, I never sensed that he was all that close to jumping in.
zeitgeist Wed 5 Jun 2:52 PM
I think it's clear
that someone who has already won two statewide elections would be in a better position to beat Branstad than the other potential candidates. That doesn’t mean none of the others can win, but Branstad starts out favored against any of them.
I think all the Vilsack speculation was wishful thinking. I doubt he seriously considered giving up his current job for a shot at being governor again.
desmoinesdem Wed 5 Jun 3:04 PM
Agree and disagree
I agree with Vilsack that it is time to bring on the next generation of leadership. But I wouldn’t exactly call Jack Hatch or Mike Gronstal the “next generation”, as venerable as both those gentlemen are. I guess Dems will have to nominate a Tyler Olson (young unknown) and get him introduced this time around.
I really think that Branstad and his ilk need to depart the scene and Vilsack is/was the only near term possibility to get that done, so that is frustrating. I’ll get over it.
As for the notion that rural issues will decide the next election – I’m puzzled and did a little poking around. I am not a political expert (far from it) but I reviewed the SOS web site for active voters. I looked at the counties containing Cedar Rapids, Des Moines-Ames (Polk, Dallas, Warren, Story), Dubuque, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Iowa City, Waterloo and Sioux City. That’s 11 counties out of 99. More than 51 percent of active Iowa voters operate in those 11 counties. Therefore it would seem to me a candidate may want to appeal to those urban voters if he/she wants to gain traction. I would be putting my time, money and ideas in urban, not rural, Iowa. Of course, what is a rural issue or an urban issue? Well, take water quality. Farmers (rural) are polluting the water, and city folk (see DM Waterworks) are paying to clean it up, so that it may be consumed without the drinker growing corn silk out his/her behind. I guess that makes it both an urban and a rural issue.
Probably a simplistic analysis, and I’m sure the political types reading BH will straighten me out.
IMHO urban interests are far under represented in the legislature, too, (not an original thought, I understand)but that’s a post for another day.
rockm Wed 5 Jun 3:49 PM
Rural/urban
I’m not sure what your criteria are as far as over representation.
In my part of the state we get great representation overall from Dave Heaton and Jerry Kearns (Rich Taylor doesn’t understand the issues)
We need energy intensive and labor intensive industries in order to see economic growth in rural areas. People from the cities opposed the fertilizer plant and some even accused us of wanting to poison our neighbors. Talk about civility.
I think urban areas get people moving to their towns so they have volunteers to help with different projects, but I understand your point.
I’ve been to all of those areas you listed except for Sioux City and the only one that I didn’t care for was Iowa City.
I have a feeling that Iowa City’s economic strategy is the only way some towns will survive these days so I guess I better get up to date.
The whole rural/urban debate has made me think about becoming a Republican or an Independent anyway so I guess I should give that more thought.
moderateiadem Wed 5 Jun 4:51 PM
Rural/urban
Heaton and Kearns: fans of both, not enough of them in the legislature…
rockm Wed 5 Jun 4:57 PM
meant "fan" of both
rockm Wed 5 Jun 4:58 PM
20 counties will do it
In a time long gone by, I used to do targeting for a successful statewide Democratic candidate. We put nearly all of the candidate’s time and resources into 20 counties of the 99. If we got reasonably attainable margins in those 20, we won — it was as simple as that.
The population has only gotten more concentrated in the many years since. I have trouble believing that general approach would not still find success (although even people in those 20 counties love to hear you’ve “visited all 99 counties). The issue now, to a much greater extent than when I was targeting, is more how the suburbs break because the concentration of population has not been into the cities themselves, but adjacent.
zeitgeist Thu 6 Jun 11:01 AM
I lilke it
I think it leaves Vilsack’s options more open for a shot at the United States Senate in 2016. Do I expect him to run that seat then? Probably not. It leaves his options more open though. He would still have to resign as Ag Secretary early so I doubt he does it.
I think Branstad isn’t even particularly comfortable within his own party these days so you have to wonder which side of the pin ball machine would actually give him a harder time in a second term.
moderateiadem Wed 5 Jun 4:31 PM