That’s a good point about the age of potential candidates; I wasn’t aware that Latham was that old (or King, for that matter). Sounds like we should take a look at Matt Schultz, although youth by itself won’t win the election (think of Mandel in OH).
Looks like Matt Schultz pretty much came out of nowhere (which is maybe a good thing in this era of despised career politicians). He doesn’t have a voting record or tenure in office that can be exploited by an opponent.
He assumed office in 2010, a very good year for the GOP.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Matt_Schultz
http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/73695/matt-schultz#.UQUwEOimBbk
Seems his campaign website is not fully active (issue positions, etc.), although you can donate or sign up.
One of the sources above mentions that he’s been hard nosed about cleaning up the voter rolls.
I had forgotten how old Latham and King were, too, until I went to review their bios. I thought they were at least 10-15 years younger. Latham does seem like a safer bet of the two men, but between his age and the fact he’d be trading off 20 years of seniority in the majority to become a Senate freshman (and undetermined which party will be the majority in 2015, as we’d still have to win 6 seats), I can understand why he’d take a pass. King will have had 12 years, but he’d seem more game for such a run.
Looking at some of the other statewide officeholders, aside from Branstad, you have his Lieutenant Governor, Kim Reynolds, who is in her early 50s. Running a woman in a state that has had few females in federal office is a possibility. The downside is that she’s a recovering alcoholic and that might be used against her. I also don’t know how she is ideologically.
State Auditor David Vaudt is another. He’s in his 3rd term, but he’ll also be 61 in 2014. I don’t know much about him.
Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey is around 50, and in his second term. Noteworthy is that he managed to win the office in 2006 in a disastrous election cycle (the seat was open, but hadn’t been won by a Republican in 24 years). He was the top vote-getter statewide in 2010, winning by a commanding 26%.
Getting back to Schultz, he did beat a Dem incumbent in 2010 (I’m guessing one of the Soros-backed Dem Secs of State that won their jobs in 2006). The comparison to Josh Mandel can only relate to one of youth. Where it stops is that Mandel had to run against a well-funded incumbent Senator. This is an open seat. If Mandel hadn’t had to face Brown, it’s very possible he would’ve won. Since Harkin will be out of the way, it’s likely better for us.
Of course, it’s the open seats that we must target aggressively. We still have that appalling impediment that has not been broken since 1980... that of taking down more than 2 incumbent Dem Senators in a cycle.
The conventional wisdom is that Latham would be our toughest candidate. It's a waiting game now. http://theiowarepublican.com/2013/kevins-korner-adieu-commie-tommy-list-of-contenders-and-mahaska-mess/#comment-780073037