I substitute taught in southwest Iowa. Facilities and materials were fine. I saw parents who didn't want to work with kids at home. Behavior problems bogging down teachers so bright students got little time. Thank you for a thoughtful article
Here's my experience with the party apparatus in Iowa.
Before a Senate run, I spoke to the Republicans. I could be their candidate if I signed on to a dictim of 19 beliefs, the first three had to do with women's reproductive health and the next two with firearms. Everyone had to swear their support; the money and outside support would flow. "An Admiral running for office!"
The sit down at a coffee shop with the IDP lead was a pleasant discussion. He showed me the 300+ beliefs forwarded under the Dem banner. I told him that some of this was comical...goofy, really. He said everyone knew that and that no one supported the majority of the fringe ideas therein. No obligation to, he said.
He then asked me about my ability to raise money because none was coming from the national committees. That proved to be true.
Dems raise money. Rep have it sent to them because tax breaks make it possible.
Thanks for sharing. I remember you sharing how much you had to raise at Matt's farm. I heard from a volunteer that Baccam spent 2-3 days a week on the phone fundraising.
Thanks for the deep research Robert. Sarah Corkery noted the same sad phenomenon. Dem “leaders” when asked for support, told Sarah ‘no…we won’t support you..and you will lose”
Perhaps. But to me, the "lede" is that old people are in the way and need to allow young people to get opportunities. Recognizing inequality in educational opportunities and that Democrats are aligned with the wealthy are important observations. Relationships are important as is elevating young people.
I am focusing on what I think is important. You do you. I won't complain. Thanks.
Well I have about 400 misspellings in my post but that is not going to stop me.
Democrats may be associated with the wealthy but also Democrats have yet to put nine billionaires into an administration.
The idea that we don’t listen to young people more isn’t really a new or insightful concept is it?
I’m not even arguing that we need to continue to have “old” people do most of it, but when it comes to elections where exactly does “educational opportunities to attend conventions” land?
I'm curious what Republicans say about those failing rural schools. Surely some of them have kids who are affected? I suppose some of them might see homeschool as the answer or default to family responsibility. But surroundings are an expression of expectations, and when kids grow up in a crumbling building, they know not much is expected of them. The lack of interest and investment in candidates is telling. I guess chickens are coming home to roost.
This discussion reminds me of the decades of gridlock between industry and environmental activists in the West. Environmentalists mostly come from places like North Liberty. They are often just as wealthy as the barons they oppose. But really working people in rural areas are forced to choose between two oppressors. One gives them a paycheck and some pride (even if also exploiting them). The other offers guilt and unemployment -- nothing of value that they can see.
"Guilt and unemployment." thanks for putting it that way. Yes, Republicans are hit by less funding for public schools for sure. But most Iowans are not paying attention to what is happening.
Okay. Bob. I ask you to schedule a zoom so we can learn from each other. Just the comments on this posting are too valuable to lose, as the lifespan of a substack posting is time-limited.
I agree with everything said in this article. I have talked with 2 candidates who lost and they had similar experiences. I dont understand the lack of engagement or leadership at the top of the party. IMO...lead or get out of the way!
This underscores to me, the Selzer poll could have been accurate had the game been played as it should have been. I know wiser folks than me disagree, but - damn - this is shocking, Bob.
The IDP “leadership” has been ossifying for over thirty years. In part I blame the influence of the first-in-the-nation caucuses that distorted and undermined local candidate and issue development. IDP leaders grew infatuated with national money, national campaign operatives, national press coverage, and national issues. They lost interest in what was happening in the trenches: how talented new candidates innovated new means and strategies and overcame long odds; won races even when they were outspent; identified nascent voter concerns and developing trends. I know that, because in 1992 I was one of those candidates: up against the hand-picked successor to a seven-term incumbent, I was given no chance of winning. Until I did. By 17 votes out of 14,000 cast.
Nobody from the Party ever debriefed me on how I’d done it.
I would eagerly have told them all that I’d learned, all I’d devised—and all that I had taught—as a volunteer organizer for the Sierra Club’s political committee over the course of ten years, working on gubernatorial and US Senate races in Iowa, Vermont, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nevada. But nobody asked.
And throughout my five terms in the Iowa House I ignored the usual advice to keep my head down and wait until Democrats regained the majority before I started pushing new issues and ideas. I helped build bipartisan coalitions that passed some significant reforms—sometimes to the annoyance of my betters.
I wasn’t entirely alone in my unorthodoxy: a handful of colleagues also innovated, beat the campaign odds, pushed issues that their own ears told them had “salience.” That “resonated.”
But nobody asked them about what they were doing, either.
An useful comparison might be found in analyzing the experiences of Iowa and neighboring Minnesota. In the 1980s both states succeeded in a considerable number of progressive reforms and initiatives. There are differences between the two states, but also many social and cultural similarities. Why did Minnesota’s DFL retain its vigor, while the IDP atrophied? Could a key factor have been the overweening long-term effects of our Presidential Caucuses?
Such a powerful post. Thanks for the history and for sharing your experiences. I had no idea the troubles went so far back into the 90's. As you suggest, the caucuses seem to be the problem. All that money coming in. I wonder if it went anywhere except to TV advertising. Thanks again.
The money went mostly to media, of course, but oh, the prestige! “Attorney General Endorses…” “State Senator Endorses…”. And I have to confess no little satisfaction that the House once held up floor debate while I took a call at my desk from The Vice President …
Check out Jess Piper here in Substack. She ran for office in Missouri. Same song different verse. Lucas kunce is stepping out too. Check out his recent Substack posts (Lucas ran against Josh Hawley in Missouri)
Lucas Kunce ran for the US Senate against Hawley but MO is a supermajority red state with the same Dem problem as Iowa. Lucas and Jess both advocate building the Dem party from the bottom up. Most rural elections dont need that many more Dem votes to flip yhings around.
Thanks for this letter. I resent the fact that the IDP made the decision to run on only a couple of issues. They asked for a "Disciplined" message. It reeks of what is wrong in the party. It is a part of why we loose. And yes, we don't support all candidates. (But if support comes with the stranglehold of messaging, is it help?) Evidently the Minnesota Democratic party suffers from the same problem. If you listen to the origin story of Tim Walz, you know that he was getting zero support from the Democratic party because they deemed his district too red to win. Too rural to win, I would say. (It was only as a result of the dogged determination of Al Franken, who believed in Walz, and bugged the party until they gave Walz support.) And yet, I would argue that if Walz had been the candidate for president, AND had been allowed to be more than a "aw shucks" coach, instead of the amazingly deep thinker he was, he would have won. (Although I am saddened to learn lately, how bad he has been to Native communities --I am still processing that information.)
I do have a bone to pick about your critique of the party's weak support for Diedre DeJear; in my opinion, she deserved to lose. She and her team REFUSED to acknowledge farming, farm issues, and rural folks. They wouldn't even put anything about agriculture on their website. Occasionally, in her speeches. she trotted out one farmer who somehow netted a quarter of a million dollars on a couple of acres as the hope for the future. When I pointed out the many ways this was tone deaf, they blew it off. When I told them how badly farmers were hurting and how they (we) just need to have that pain acknowledged, that we want to be seen, cared about and listened to, they said, their research said that people cared about education and women's health care, so that's what they were going to talk about. Period. Sound familiar? It's what Rita Hart sent from on high this cycle. So, thank you for this post. I think the Democratic party should be listening to Sarah Smarsh, (of Kansas). If you want an introduction to her thinking, Jon Stewart did an excellent half an hour or so interview with her. It's worth the listen.
Thanks for this. Good to know. A little surprised on Deidre's campaign. I interviewed her on a small farm. You are spot on about limited messaging. four points? It's crazy. Message discipline? That means the candidates aren't trusted. I was going to write about it for this column, but it was getting too long. I was going to include it in my next piece, and am happy to name you if you want.
Denise. can you share your email with me rosenbergralph@gmail. I have been volunteering with ProIowa24 and want to learn more of rural efforts independent of the party.
Thanks for this post, it is spot on. I think more non Republican candidates should run as Independents, since it seems like all they get for being a Democrat is baggage.
I substitute taught in southwest Iowa. Facilities and materials were fine. I saw parents who didn't want to work with kids at home. Behavior problems bogging down teachers so bright students got little time. Thank you for a thoughtful article
Here's my experience with the party apparatus in Iowa.
Before a Senate run, I spoke to the Republicans. I could be their candidate if I signed on to a dictim of 19 beliefs, the first three had to do with women's reproductive health and the next two with firearms. Everyone had to swear their support; the money and outside support would flow. "An Admiral running for office!"
The sit down at a coffee shop with the IDP lead was a pleasant discussion. He showed me the 300+ beliefs forwarded under the Dem banner. I told him that some of this was comical...goofy, really. He said everyone knew that and that no one supported the majority of the fringe ideas therein. No obligation to, he said.
He then asked me about my ability to raise money because none was coming from the national committees. That proved to be true.
Dems raise money. Rep have it sent to them because tax breaks make it possible.
Bad on the IDP. They need to be replaced with folks willing to recruit and train candidates.
Thanks for sharing. I remember you sharing how much you had to raise at Matt's farm. I heard from a volunteer that Baccam spent 2-3 days a week on the phone fundraising.
Thanks for the deep research Robert. Sarah Corkery noted the same sad phenomenon. Dem “leaders” when asked for support, told Sarah ‘no…we won’t support you..and you will lose”
https://dartanyan.substack.com/p/an-afternoon-with-hardin-county-democrats
Thanks Dartanyan! Good column.
You buried the lead.
Ballots and support are more important than old people and libraries.
If we are going to criticize the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future, can we laser focus on stuff that actually matters?
No on is casting a ballot when it comes to who is being sent to the national convention.
Slainte.
Perhaps. But to me, the "lede" is that old people are in the way and need to allow young people to get opportunities. Recognizing inequality in educational opportunities and that Democrats are aligned with the wealthy are important observations. Relationships are important as is elevating young people.
I am focusing on what I think is important. You do you. I won't complain. Thanks.
Well I have about 400 misspellings in my post but that is not going to stop me.
Democrats may be associated with the wealthy but also Democrats have yet to put nine billionaires into an administration.
The idea that we don’t listen to young people more isn’t really a new or insightful concept is it?
I’m not even arguing that we need to continue to have “old” people do most of it, but when it comes to elections where exactly does “educational opportunities to attend conventions” land?
Peace.
Thanks.
I'm curious what Republicans say about those failing rural schools. Surely some of them have kids who are affected? I suppose some of them might see homeschool as the answer or default to family responsibility. But surroundings are an expression of expectations, and when kids grow up in a crumbling building, they know not much is expected of them. The lack of interest and investment in candidates is telling. I guess chickens are coming home to roost.
This discussion reminds me of the decades of gridlock between industry and environmental activists in the West. Environmentalists mostly come from places like North Liberty. They are often just as wealthy as the barons they oppose. But really working people in rural areas are forced to choose between two oppressors. One gives them a paycheck and some pride (even if also exploiting them). The other offers guilt and unemployment -- nothing of value that they can see.
"Guilt and unemployment." thanks for putting it that way. Yes, Republicans are hit by less funding for public schools for sure. But most Iowans are not paying attention to what is happening.
They will notice it eventually, after it's too late.
This is astonishing, depressing information. Hope it gets wide distribution. Thanks for being a great reporter, Bob.
Okay. Bob. I ask you to schedule a zoom so we can learn from each other. Just the comments on this posting are too valuable to lose, as the lifespan of a substack posting is time-limited.
that would be nice Ralph. email me at rdwleonard@gmail.com and I will set something up.
I agree with everything said in this article. I have talked with 2 candidates who lost and they had similar experiences. I dont understand the lack of engagement or leadership at the top of the party. IMO...lead or get out of the way!
This underscores to me, the Selzer poll could have been accurate had the game been played as it should have been. I know wiser folks than me disagree, but - damn - this is shocking, Bob.
I hadn't thought of this. Please share with Ann.
The IDP “leadership” has been ossifying for over thirty years. In part I blame the influence of the first-in-the-nation caucuses that distorted and undermined local candidate and issue development. IDP leaders grew infatuated with national money, national campaign operatives, national press coverage, and national issues. They lost interest in what was happening in the trenches: how talented new candidates innovated new means and strategies and overcame long odds; won races even when they were outspent; identified nascent voter concerns and developing trends. I know that, because in 1992 I was one of those candidates: up against the hand-picked successor to a seven-term incumbent, I was given no chance of winning. Until I did. By 17 votes out of 14,000 cast.
Nobody from the Party ever debriefed me on how I’d done it.
I would eagerly have told them all that I’d learned, all I’d devised—and all that I had taught—as a volunteer organizer for the Sierra Club’s political committee over the course of ten years, working on gubernatorial and US Senate races in Iowa, Vermont, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nevada. But nobody asked.
And throughout my five terms in the Iowa House I ignored the usual advice to keep my head down and wait until Democrats regained the majority before I started pushing new issues and ideas. I helped build bipartisan coalitions that passed some significant reforms—sometimes to the annoyance of my betters.
I wasn’t entirely alone in my unorthodoxy: a handful of colleagues also innovated, beat the campaign odds, pushed issues that their own ears told them had “salience.” That “resonated.”
But nobody asked them about what they were doing, either.
An useful comparison might be found in analyzing the experiences of Iowa and neighboring Minnesota. In the 1980s both states succeeded in a considerable number of progressive reforms and initiatives. There are differences between the two states, but also many social and cultural similarities. Why did Minnesota’s DFL retain its vigor, while the IDP atrophied? Could a key factor have been the overweening long-term effects of our Presidential Caucuses?
Yup. Spot on Bill. I'm also in the "nobody asked me" camp. They did tell me to shut up, however. :)
Such a powerful post. Thanks for the history and for sharing your experiences. I had no idea the troubles went so far back into the 90's. As you suggest, the caucuses seem to be the problem. All that money coming in. I wonder if it went anywhere except to TV advertising. Thanks again.
The money went mostly to media, of course, but oh, the prestige! “Attorney General Endorses…” “State Senator Endorses…”. And I have to confess no little satisfaction that the House once held up floor debate while I took a call at my desk from The Vice President …
Check out Jess Piper here in Substack. She ran for office in Missouri. Same song different verse. Lucas kunce is stepping out too. Check out his recent Substack posts (Lucas ran against Josh Hawley in Missouri)
Love Jess. I moderated a panel with her and Chris Jones this past summer in Iowa City. I'll check out Lucas too.
Lucas Kunce ran for the US Senate against Hawley but MO is a supermajority red state with the same Dem problem as Iowa. Lucas and Jess both advocate building the Dem party from the bottom up. Most rural elections dont need that many more Dem votes to flip yhings around.
Check out my Substack. I'm putting my 45+ years of experience to work in hopes of building out the best site on the planet for people who want to run for state or local office or be well informed voters and advocates. Heavy focus on building the policy base and sharing lots of guidance from other elected officials. https://open.substack.com/pub/sharonlawrence/p/elections-breaking-down-the-red-wall-a0b?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=a5esd.
I've just subscribed. Thanks.
Outstanding analysis. Thank you.
👍
Thanks for this letter. I resent the fact that the IDP made the decision to run on only a couple of issues. They asked for a "Disciplined" message. It reeks of what is wrong in the party. It is a part of why we loose. And yes, we don't support all candidates. (But if support comes with the stranglehold of messaging, is it help?) Evidently the Minnesota Democratic party suffers from the same problem. If you listen to the origin story of Tim Walz, you know that he was getting zero support from the Democratic party because they deemed his district too red to win. Too rural to win, I would say. (It was only as a result of the dogged determination of Al Franken, who believed in Walz, and bugged the party until they gave Walz support.) And yet, I would argue that if Walz had been the candidate for president, AND had been allowed to be more than a "aw shucks" coach, instead of the amazingly deep thinker he was, he would have won. (Although I am saddened to learn lately, how bad he has been to Native communities --I am still processing that information.)
I do have a bone to pick about your critique of the party's weak support for Diedre DeJear; in my opinion, she deserved to lose. She and her team REFUSED to acknowledge farming, farm issues, and rural folks. They wouldn't even put anything about agriculture on their website. Occasionally, in her speeches. she trotted out one farmer who somehow netted a quarter of a million dollars on a couple of acres as the hope for the future. When I pointed out the many ways this was tone deaf, they blew it off. When I told them how badly farmers were hurting and how they (we) just need to have that pain acknowledged, that we want to be seen, cared about and listened to, they said, their research said that people cared about education and women's health care, so that's what they were going to talk about. Period. Sound familiar? It's what Rita Hart sent from on high this cycle. So, thank you for this post. I think the Democratic party should be listening to Sarah Smarsh, (of Kansas). If you want an introduction to her thinking, Jon Stewart did an excellent half an hour or so interview with her. It's worth the listen.
Thanks for this. Good to know. A little surprised on Deidre's campaign. I interviewed her on a small farm. You are spot on about limited messaging. four points? It's crazy. Message discipline? That means the candidates aren't trusted. I was going to write about it for this column, but it was getting too long. I was going to include it in my next piece, and am happy to name you if you want.
Listen to Anderson Clayton from North Carolina as well.
Denise. can you share your email with me rosenbergralph@gmail. I have been volunteering with ProIowa24 and want to learn more of rural efforts independent of the party.
Thanks for this post, it is spot on. I think more non Republican candidates should run as Independents, since it seems like all they get for being a Democrat is baggage.
Thank you. Many small town dems run as Republicans in rural Iowa