September Senate Approval Numbers from Survey USA

who the mystery candidate against Grassley is. Iowa Republican blogger Craig Robinson is now claiming the Iowa Democratic Party chairman Michael Kiernan doesn’t have a candidate, but Kiernan said the big-name Democrat will announce after former Republican governor Terry Branstad gets in the IA-Gov race, and that hasn’t happened yet.I’m shocked that Gillibrand can’t get her approval over 50.

that it’s Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal?  From an outsider’s perspective, I think he’s an outstanding public servant.  And he’s not up for re-election until 2012 with the four-year terms in the Iowa Senate.

He will have his hands full keeping the Iowa Senate caucus in line this session–tough budget stuff to handle and endless Republican efforts to bring up the marriage amendment.I think Gronstal will focus on maintaining our strong advantage in the Iowa Senate (32-18). We’re defending 19 IA Senate seats next year; GOP only defending six.

Tom Beaumont’s front page article in today’s Register identified Roxanne Conlin and Christie Vilsack as the two potential top-tier candidates who are openly looking at the race: http://www.desmoinesregister.c…The article hints strongly that Conlin is the one most likely to make the run: she looked seriously at taking on Grassley in 2004, she is loaded and could largely self-fund the race, and she is well connected to trial lawyers throughout the country.Another plus, for me, is that Conlin was a leader of the Edwards campaign in the past Iowa caucuses, while Vilsack’s political instincts are more questionable — as first her husband ran and then she strongly backed Hillary Clinton.  Christie Vilsack was also the highest profile Kerry backer in Iowa in 2004.

So, either one would give Grassley a competitive race, but I’m hoping it’s Conlin.

Okay, I can see how it was questionable to back Hillary.  But if you’re telling me that Christie Vilsack’s backing of Kerry in ’04 was questionable, as compared to Conlin’s support for Edwards . . . ummmmm, how is that questionable?  Kerry won that caucus, which then set him up to be the nominee.  Edwards came in second in Iowa both times he ran, and would have been disastrous had he been the nominee either time (he would’ve seemed like a lightweight against the Bush/Cheney War Machine in ’04, and we all know what would’ve happened had he been the nominee in ’08!)  So, if that’s the only barometer with which you’re looking at the political instincts of Vilsack vs. Conlin, I would say that they come out even, perhaps with Vilsack a bit ahead.Either way, though, I hope that whichever one of them jumps into the Iowa race (if the mystery candidate is, indeed, one of them,) they’ll be able to boot Grassley out of office.

First a disclosure: I live in Iowa myself, and I was an Obama supporter throughout the 2007-08 caucus campaign.  So I don’t have a dog in the Clinton/Vilsack vs. Edwards/Conlin decision for 2008.But in going back to whom they supported in the caucus campaigns, I’m looking especially at their decisions regarding electability based on known information.  No one knew in 2003 that Edwards would later father a child with one of his supporters!  (Well, maybe Rielle herself had hopes, but no one else.)In the 4-way 2004 caucuses, the decision was more about how Democrats should position themselves nationally.  Edwards presented himself as a moderate southerner and fresh face.  Kerry as a military veteran with foreign policy expertise.  Dean as an anti-war insurgent.  And Gephardt as a fighter for working families.  All of these candidates had obvious downsides as well.

It seemed to me even at the time that Kerry would be the WORST general election candidate because he came off as aloof.  If you can’t at least fake being a friendly, fun person, you’re in trouble in a presidential race.  He wasn’t exactly hard to caricature as an elitist who didn’t really get the masses.

Edwards had downsides, too, of course.  A certain used-car-salesman piece charm and limited time in politics.  However, those who backed him then did so mostly because they thought he could actually defeat Bush in 2004, which I think he would have.

If he and Rielle would have played in the White House, too, obviously that could have created a scandal if they were caught, but as Clinton showed, swing voters are much cooler about a cheating president than about one who comes off as snobby.

For Christie, I worry that her choice in consecutive elections of the candidate easiest to caricature as snobby bodes poorly for a possible Senate campaign against the folksy bozo Grassley.

Hillary in fact did figure it out when she started downing shots in western Pennsylvania toward the end of the primaries.  Hard to see Christie go that route, but from what I know of Conlin, I can imagine it.  :)

So that’s what I mean by political judgment: the degree to which they’ve given signs that they won’t let Grassley beat them on folksiness.  It’s sort of silly, but let’s be honest: a high percentage of swing voters vote for reasons that seem pretty silly.

I love Roxanne Conlin, but she is such a lightning rod and would be savagely attacked in a way that would be hard for the GOP to pull off with Vilsack. Also, Vilsack could energize the very large group of IA Dems who supported Hillary.