Harkin wouldn’t have been primaried...he’s a liberal Dem icon, no dem would’ve primaried him. That’s what Republican Tea Partiers do to their rinos, not what Democrats do. Democrats circle the wagons on their liberal icons, they don’t primary them.
Perhaps you are thinking about the possibility that Harkin would have lost to a Republican. That wouldn’t have been in a primary, that would’ve been in a general election.
The point of my post was, I’m afraid that the Dems will run Tom Vilsak in Harkins’s place, and I’m afraid Vilsak, the former governor and current Obama AG secretary, would win.
Vilsack’s “popularity” may be as shallow as Chet Culver’s. They tried to run his wife against King and she still failed to win. I think come 2014 and the 6-year fatigue that Vilsack will have a highly unpopular regime tied around his neck.
Forgot to mention, too, that Vilsack is no youngster. For a state that values seniority in its Senators, the optimal age to run is in your 40s. Chuck Grassley was 47 in 1980 and Harkin was 44 in 1984 when each won their first Senate terms. Vilsack will be 64 in 2014. To accumulate Harkin’s seniority as of January 2013 (not even counting his prior 10 years in the House), Vilsack would have to serve until he was 92 (2042).
As for the 4 Congressmembers that might run, the 2 Democrats would be 57 (Bruce Braley) and 62 (David Loebsack) and the 2 Republicans would be 66 (Tom Latham) and 65 (Steve King) in 2014. Current GOP Gov. Branstad will be 68 and Dem ex-Gov. Chet Culver would just be a few weeks short of 49 at the start of the 2015 session. Aside from Braley and Culver, all the other leading figures are in their 60s.
Someone mentioned the new GOP Sec of State Matt Schultz, and he’d be just 35. From a gaining seniority perspective, the GOP may be best off by running him rather than a 60-something Congressman.