The Cosplay Revolution At The Gates

One of the few ideas that stuck with me from grad school (other than the self-awareness that I didn't belong in grad school) was the notion of, as Eric Hoffer titled his book, The True Believer. It was an early version of what we now call horseshoe theory - the idea that as politics and political activists approach the extremes, they become more similar - both the views themselves and the personalities and rhetorical styles of the individuals. 

Horseshoe theory is how you explain the journey of Tulsi Gabbard, or the under-reported overlap between the Bernie Sanders crowd and Ron/Rand Paul supporters. This year I learned there is such a thing as the Socialist Rifle Association (complete with North Korea styled logo).

We definitely see horseshoe theory in the free speech issue. 

America's political climate has become hostile to the point of deadly in the past decade. To be honest, that has made me hesitant to write. The once universal value of free speech is under attack from both the right and the left. Online bullies dismiss calls for common courtesy and civility as "tone policing," a stance which slams the door on any rebuttals, especially when they come from an old straight white guy like me. 

So do I. But they get to speak.

Locally we've seen attempts to shut down free speech (dismissed as "hate speech") by force, with the would-be censors expecting to be treated as heroes and granted legal immunity. Support for these kind of shutdowns has even been called a "litmus test" of who's a "real progressive."

That's a complete misunderstanding of the concept of civil disobedience. We cheer when the Blues Brothers chase them off the bridge, but the Illinois Nazis were real and they got to have their march. That's the whole point of free speech - everyone gets to have it. If you disagree with someone, you don't just get to flip their table or dump marbles on the stairs to keep people from attending. You have to out-argue them, which shouldn't be difficult, but is more work and doesn't look as cool on short attention span social media.

This past decade, both of our major political parties have been the target of hostile takeover attempts.  I don't mean to both-sides this because the cruelty and rage on the right is a far more serious problem, threatening democracy itself. The hostile takeover of the Republicans was fully successful, but if I had the answer to Trumpism I could be president today. 

In contrast, the hostile takeover attempt against the Democrats failed in 2016 because it just plain couldn't persuade enough voters, despite very favorable conditions and no other opposition. But they deluded themselves into thinking every single vote was for Socialism! when half of it was simply for Not Her. With a wider menu of options for voters in 2020, they fared even worse. 

But it has left the Democrats with an internal faction that supports candidates who openly despise our party and use it only as a vehicle to hasten its own destruction. "I hate your organization, but I demand the right to choose its leaders." 

Meanwhile, the mainstream Democrats who have worked to build and improve the party - and our local mainstream is much closer to Elizabeth Warren than Joe Manchin - are held responsible for the positions and behavior of the most extreme people who want to destroy.

Over the past ten years I have read and re-read far too much 1930s history, and one of the many parallels I see is the far left treating the near left as a greater enemy than the far right. In 1932 Germany, the Communists and the Social Democrats, combined, outnumbered the Nazis. Together with the center parties, they could have commanded a majority. 

But Stalin decreed that "Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism." So the German Communists treated the Social Democrats as greater enemies than, well, literally Hitler. They were convinced that fascism was the last stage of capitalism and that The Яevolutioи would soon follow - just as Susan Sarandon said “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in" in 2016. 

But as it turned out, the Nazis locked up the Communists even before they went after the Jews.

"The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause." Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

I see the same dynamic today, in America and in Iowa City. Differences of tone and rhetoric and style and nuance and emphasis are treated as betrayals. People are called "fascist" not because they disagree on substance but because they choose not to lead their messaging with causes that, while just, are our least popular, or with issues that, while important, are not directly relevant to the office and the level of government at hand. 

Our community, our little blue island in a sea of red, faces very real constraints and is under a very real microscope. The Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts, undercutting the values of an academic community in an effort to force us to bend a knee to rural parochialism. Traps are being set for us - and some in our community, in the name of "resistance," want us to march headlong into those traps. 

If we do so, we run a very real risk of losing our local authority over substantive matters. 

Hunter S. Thompson, in the very piece in which he advocated for "Freak Power" in electoral politics, wrote of "the basic futility of seizing turf you can't control." If I am accused of "hating socialists more than I hate Trump," it is only because the right has largely abandoned our local politics, preferring instead to focus on state and federal races where they have more success. We saw that in this month's election, where the Republicans, already outnumbered four to one on registration within the Iowa City limits, turned out at less than half the percentage rate of Democrats. For every one Republican who voted, nine registered Democrats showed up. The electorate was, more or less, a Democratic primary universe. 

So I'm focused on the left side of the equation because it's more relevant to our community. Our local contests are no longer between liberals and conservatives - they're between liberals and leftists. Republicans watch from the sidelines and if they don't like the outcome, either electoral or policy, they just go over our heads and get the state to over-ride us. We have already seen that play out several times in the relationship between The People's Republic Of Johnson County and the State of Iowa, with the banning of our local minimum wage being just one example.

The governor and attorney general and legislature are playing gotcha games, trying to trigger the left, just waiting for someone to cross some line so they can impose their will on us - sometimes, simply out of spite (stay tuned for supervisor districts next year). At some point, the state will step in and make us do it their way. 

And if that happens, all of the local reforms and innovations we have worked on for decades that radicals dismiss as "incrementalism," the drug courts and the diversion programs, will be swept aside, and we will be forced into least common denominator lock `em up policy.

Demanding loud and specific ideological statements is like asking Oskar Schindler to post The List. But low-key quiet work to fix problems the state and the feds have created is not good enough for some people. A certain breed of cat likes the attention and the excitement of Defiance and Refusal. Then, when the shit hits the fan, they can wash their hands of responsibility for the unfortunate outcomes and feel good about themselves because they "resisted."

The story may be apocryphal but it is said that Adlai Stevenson once gave a deep and thoughtful and intellectual speech and an audience member said, “Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.” Stevenson supposedly replied, "That’s not enough. I need a majority.” He lost two landslides to Ike (the original Antifa candidate).

"Demand" is a big word on the left. But before we can demand, we need to persuade. We need to persuade people who do not share all of our values and views, and we have to do so in the face of cynical manipulation of powerful cultural symbols. We must not fight on weak ground, and we must speak in a recognizable language, not "Hey hey, ho ho." And sometimes we need to not insist on 100% agreement on our least popular issues as the price of a place under what is supposed to be a big tent.

Talk is important. Symbolism is important. Ideology matters. There are times to push the boundaries.

But there are times when substance and pragmatism are more important than symbolism and ideology. And sometimes the symbolism gets in the way of the substance. That is where our community now finds itself. 

For a couple years, we were choosing symbolism over substance. Granted, elections don't happen in vacuums and individual candidates have flaws. But three times in a row, with relatively low turnout each time, we chose protest candidates over pragmatic mainstream liberals.

• November 2023, Iowa City: 9,989 (split outcome)
• June 2024, Democratic primary, countywide: 6,847
• March 2025, Iowa City: 6,902

On November 4, with high turnout, and with control of city government hanging by one seat, we came to our senses and dodged a bullet.

• November 2025, Iowa City: 11,176 

It's an indicator that the extremists, who excel at low turnout conventions and caucuses, are noisy out of proportion to their real numbers.

But that was just the first of three important rounds of local elections. 

We face big choices again in June and next November. We face choices between responsible progressive policy within the unfortunate constraints of the current federal and state governments, or symbolic gestures based on rigid ideology.

We face choices between making real peoples' lives better, sometimes in small ways, or making ourselves feel better through purity and self-righteousness.

We need to choose whether we want to do the real work of government, or if we'd rather just be the cosplay revolution. 

This Is What Joe Strummer Trained You For

Winston Churchill, one of the original Antifa, is often quoted as saying “a man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart, but a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.” The actual origins of that aphorism are lost to time, but whoever said it, it speaks to a truth about political evolution as one ages.

I had an excess of heart in my youth, and I may suffer from a deficit of brain as I approach retirement age. It's been more than a decade now since I retired this site's slogan "too old to be cool, too young not to care" because I was, in fact, too old. And my cultural touchstones show that age.

My first political hero was a musician, not a politician. At the impressionable age of 17 I discovered the Clash and their leader and lyricist, Joe Strummer. It was the dawn of the Reagan Time and I was terrified of getting drafted and sent to Central America, and Joe Strummer had written a gigantic record just for me, with the in your face title "Sandinista!". It taught me about draft resistance and revolution and imperialism.

 

I went through a grad student proletariat phase when I fancied myself quite the political expert. I didn't do or accomplish anything, but I talked a good game and I insufferably thought I knew it all. 

Then I got to Iowa City intending to pursue a Ph.D. and instead I walked into a campaign headquarters, where my real postgraduate education begin. I still had a lot of Joe Strummer in my head, and there's a third party vote in my past that I can't honestly say I regret. But bit by bit, I grew more pragmatic and gained more experience: as a volunteer, as a campaign staffer, a failed run for office, and finally the career in government where I found my calling.

Sometimes I cringe at my younger self, especially when faced with people who remind me of myself at that age. For those who are going to attack me: I get it. I was you once. Sometimes I still look deep inside myself and wonder "what would Joe Strummer do?"

Strummer struggled with contradictory goals. He struggled with it within the music itself, self-awarely noting the irony of "turning rebellion into money." He wanted to keep the uncompromising purity of punk rock yet he also wanted the mass popularity and success that would allow his message to reach a mainstream audience. The dissonance eventually destroyed the Clash right at their moment of commercial breakthrough.

Unfortunately Joe Strummer can't speak to today's events. He died at age 50, far too young, in 2002. The autopsy found an undiagnosed congenital heart defect, though personally I think the only thing wrong with Joe Strummer's heart was that it was too big.

During those grad school days, I found another musician who has now become a role model: Peter Garrett. He is a gigantic man, an imposing presence with an intense stage manner and a shaved head. (He may have been separated from J.D. Scholten at birth.)

Garrett's band Midnight Oil was big in their native Australia in the early 80s, and Garrett ran for office as a third party candidate of the Nuclear Disarmament Party  while still in the band. They had a very brief window of American and global success with their album "Diesel And Dust," a thematic record about the very Australian yet universal issue of native land rights. It was uncompromising - "it belongs to them, let's give it back."

This platform was not enacted, the international success did not last, and Midnight Oil faded back to their previous rank of being big only in their home country.

 

Garrett left the band in 2002, and two years later announced a run for Parliament - but now as a member of the Labor Party (the mainstream center left party filling the role the Democrats play in the USA).

This time Garrett won. He served a decade and was in two cabinet posts, Environment (where he was a friend of endangered turtles) and later Education, until stepping down in the wake of an internal party power struggle. Then he called the guys up and joined Midnight Oil again.

Henry Rollins, 2017

Musicians only need to get support from a niche, a relatively share of the audience. Protest vote politicians can also push the limits.

But serious politicians? They need to win a majority.

 

 

 

I still ask myself "what would Joe Strummer do?" 

But now I also ask "what would Peter Garrett do?"

All of this, somehow, relates to our local politics of the moment. Stay tuned for that.

City Election Recap: Part 1

Local elections in Iowa City aren't like general elections, and aren't even like local elections in other places. We have some conservatives here, sure; Republicans come in here and raise money from them at closed door events all the time. But true conservatives have long since checked out of local government.

Instead, our local elections have become contests between mainstream, Elizabeth Warren type liberals vs. the Sandersesque left. That's an oversimplification, but it pretty much captures the flavor.

More on this later.

That was sharply drawn in last week's Iowa City election between two de facto slates. At large liberal incumbents Bruce Teague and Megan Alter, with Shawn Harmsen in the separate District B race, defeated the leftist challenger slate of Clara Reynen and Newman Abuissa in the at large race and Amy Hospodarsky in District B. 

It's the first win for the mainstream liberals in three local cycles. In 2023, Laura Bergus, who took a sharp left turn after winning her first term, switched races and defeated fellow council incumbent Pauline Taylor. Mandi Remington knocked off Royceann Porter in the June 2024 supervisor primary, and self-described anarchist Oliver Weilein won big over Ross Nusser in a March 2025 city council special election.

Turnout saw a sharp jump over the past few cycles to 11,174 in Iowa City. It's the highest ever, setting aside three elections with extreme extenuating circumstances (the 2007 and 2013 elections that saw student turnout spikes due to ballot issues on the bar admission age, and the 2005 election with a public power measure that prompted Midamerican Energy to spend $400,000 on a No campaign). In real terms and taking into account growth, it's a return to the levels we saw in 1997 (10,097) and 2001 (10,668).

That turnout growth, compared to the March special election (6,902 - pretty good for a special and rivaling recent regular city election cycles) was uneven across precincts, and that may be the big story as to why the outcome was so different. Of course, in this election the mainstream liberal candidates were all experienced people who have won elections before, unlike first time candidate Nusser in March. All other things being equal, someone who has won an election before is usually more likely to win than someone who has not.

The turnout increases were smallest in the core downtown/student precincts, with precincts 5, 11, 20, 21 and 25 at 100% to 113% of their March turnout (this includes absentees) and precinct 19 actually dropping to 79% of the March turnout.

In contrast, ten precincts saw turnout more than double the March numbers. The biggest jumps were on the south and southeast side (precinct 10 at 277%, precinct 12 at 263%, and 27 at 226%) and on the west side (26 at 242% and 8 at 228%). 

These precincts saw turnout between 215 and 279 voters, other than 8 at 471, and there were some split outcomes. In 10 and 27, the liberal incumbents all won. But in 8, 12 and 26. Hospodarsky led Harmsen while Teague and Alter led the at large contest.

But elections are counted in raw numbers, not percentages, and the big numeric spikes were in older established east side precincts like 1, 16, 17, 23 and 24 and west side precinct 2. These precincts all had between 558 and 861 voters (with increases of 152% to 210%) and Harmsen won all with 57 or 58% (except for 55% in 24).

Harmsen's strongest vote was in these precincts along with 60% of the absentee (which is not broken out by precinct). Hospodarsky had several hot spots on the southeast side and west side and in the core campus precincts.

The geographic patterns were simpler and different in the vote for two at large race. Most precincts finished in the citywide order: Teague, Alter, Reynen, Abuissa. There was no precinct where Alter ran ahead of Teague, and nowhere that Abuissa was ahead of Reynen. (The part I can't figure is why, in a race that was so polarized, Abuissa ran 1000 votes behind Reynen.)

The exceptions were the core five student precincts - 3, 5, 11, 19 and 20 - which all finished Reynen, Teague, Abuissa, and Alter. But of those five precincts, only 20 saw significant turnout; the others had the four lowest vote totals. And, again, these were the places where turnout increased the least over March. Just anecdotally, this election seems to have attracted fewer of the young voters who don't normally participate in local elections than the special election did - or maybe they just got hidden in the higher overall turnout. My sense is that Weilein had a particularly strong personal following.

The least controversial item in the election was the local option sales tax referendum. That's odd for those of us with long memories. Johnson County has long been the last holdout in the state on LOST, with the regressivity argument having more strength here than anywhere else. Iowa City briefly and narrowly passed a sales tax in 2009 for flood relief (Coralville just as narrowly voted it down), but that expired after four years. There were landslide defeats in 1987 and 1999 (the exquisitely poor timing of scheduling the 1999 vote the day before property taxes were due didn't help) and a narrower loss in 2014.

This time, the liberals and the left seemed to be in agreement that the state had given the cities few revenue options, and the inclusion of affordable housing in the resolutions made the regressivity pill easier to swallow. There was no visible organized No campaign like there was in 2009.

In any election involving money in Johnson County, there's about a 15 or 20% unpersuadable vote that I call the Automatic No. They're just going to vote against taxes, period. That means a Yes campaign has to get their 50% (or in the case of a bond 60%) out of the remaining 80% of voters.

Set aside the Automatic No, and the Yes campaign got everyone else: 77% in North Liberty, 84 in Iowa City and 85 in Coralville.

Looking at that Automatic No a little more closely: Given a choice between a slate of Warren liberals and a slate of Sanders leftists, local Republicans didn't make a "lesser of two evils" choice, they just opted out. The city's voter registration is roughly four Democrats for each Republican (countywide it's more like 2.4 to 1). But the final election turnout was nine to one Democratic. Looking at turnout percentage, Democrats were voting at more than twice the rate of Republicans.

Also pointing to the Republicans Skipped This One analysis: Over 1100 voters, ballpark of 10% of the total turnout, voted in the sales tax contest but skipped the District B race. So the Automatic No vote got out to vote against the sales tax, and if they don't like what the city council (which keeps its status quo ante split of four liberals and three leftists) does, they'll just get the state legislature to overrule them.

Briefly touching on other races:

The Iowa City school board race saw incumbents Ruthina Malone and Jayne Finch comfortably ahead and a close race between two strong challengers who presented as liberal. Jennifer Horn-Frasier narrowly prevailed (as of this writing 248 votes) over Dan Stevenson with last second surprise candidate David Noerper way behind. It's a big change from 2023 when a conservative slate lost in a landslide as liberals packed the polls to vote against them.

The left made its first serious run in Coralville, which saw all time record turnout of 3841, surpassing even the "Koch Brothers Election" of 2013 that drew national attention. In the open mayor's race (incumbent Meghann Foster is running for Zach Wahls' open state senate seat), mainstreamer and longtime council member Laurie Goodrich defeated lefty Ryan Swenka. There was a very sharp geographic split with Swenka carrying the precincts south of I-80 while Goodrich prevailed in the higher turnout north.

The council race was a free-for-all with eight candidates for three spots. Incumbents Hai Huynh and Mike Knudson were consensus choices. Lefty Katie Freeman took the third slot by just over 200 with support from just 38% of city wide voters, as a bunch of hard to tell apart candidates split the vote.

The other notable local result was in Solon. One of the three council seats was open, and it was widely understood that former Iowa football equipment manager Greg Morris (long rumored as a potential candidate for something) would win,and indeed he placed first. But late starters Matthew Macke and Tim Gordon, who both presented as conservative, knocked off incumbents Lauren Whitehead and Cole Gabriel, both active Democrats, in what feels like a backlash election.

So status quo for Iowa City and North Liberty, some shuffling in Coralville, and a big step backwards in Solon. Now, on to the next one, a June primary with unusually high stakes.

More to say about that later.

Free speech rally October 1

In 1921 Hitler personally led his storm troopers in an attack on a meeting which was to be addressed by a Bavarian federalist by the name of Ballerstedt, who received a beating. For this Hitler was sentenced to three months in jail, one of which he served. This was his first experience in jail and he emerged from it somewhat of a martyr and more popular than ever. "It’s all right,” Hitler boasted to the police. "We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak.” As Hitler had told an audience some months before, 'The National Socialist Movement will in the future ruthlessly prevent – if necessary by force – all meetings or lectures that are likely to distract the minds of our fellow countrymen.” - William Shirer, The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich

There is a Free Speech Rally scheduled for Wednesday. October 1 at 5:30 on the Ped Mall. I encourage you to attend and to think deeply about the meaning of free speech. It belongs to everybody and it even applies to things you might call "hate speech."

If you are leaning on your right to "free speech" to rationalize efforts to prevent someone you oppose from speaking, and to block people from attending that speech, you're a hypocrite.

And if your purity test is unconditional support for such efforts, you are no progressive.

Caucus Conversation: Myths and Facts

Sometimes you need to explain things again. And again. And again.

That's what I've been doing for the last nine years when it comes to the failure of the Iowa caucuses. That whole discussion is bubbling up again thanks to the Iowa Democratic Party's "Family Conversation" survey (please particpate).

There's nothing new here for people who have been following me for a long time. This is just a re-organization in the hope that it will finally click for a few more people.

I've taken the most common pro-caucus myths, the ones the die-hards always repeat, and made the case against them. Unfortunately, some of those items require long, deep in the weeds answers, so I've tried to sum them up in one-liner shorthand. If you're on my side in this discussion, bookmark this for later.

Preamble: A word from Basil Exposition.

Historically, only a few states had public presidential primaries, and New Hampshire was generally first. Most states had the old smoke-filled room system of obscure conventions and sparsely attended caucuses. 

Starting in 1972, the Democrats reformed their nomination process to make it more open, and Iowa accidentally scheduled its caucuses before the New Hampshire primary. Jimmy Carter noticed, and from there the Iowa caucuses grew into what we know now.

After a decade or so of games, Iowa, New Hampshire, and the national parties agreed that Iowa would have the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary. Both states passed laws to that effect.

New Hampshire spent the next 40 years policing Iowa’s caucus process to make sure it did not become an election, without giving Iowa much guidance as to what that meant, and threatening to move their primary date ahead of our caucus if they didn't like something.

The national parties went along until the Democratic National Committee revised the calendar in December 2022 - moving New Hampshire to third and removing Iowa entirely from the early states. (Republicans left the existing calendar in place.) Now the process-obsessed Democrats are reviewing the calendar again for 2028.

Myth: "The caucuses" and "First in the nation" are the same thing.

Short answer: The two terms often get used interchangeably. But when people say "we need the caucuses back," they usually mean "we want First in the nation back." 

Quasimodo predicted all this.

Facts: “First in the nation” (or “First”) is about the year before – the in person visits, the command performances at party fundraisers, the organizers on the ground, the money flowing into the state, the hoopla. In a nomination system where states vote in sequence, most states don’t get that kind of attention. Historically only the two earliest states, Iowa and New Hampshire, have gotten that. In recent years, and to a lesser extent, Nevada and South Carolina have had some of that. The other 46 states get some TV ads and maybe an airport rally.

When I'm talking about “the caucuses” I mean the actual meeting at which votes are cast and party business is done. These meetings are run by the parties and not by county auditors like a normal election. Historically the caucuses have required in person attendance with no absentee voting. In recent cycles, most states have phased out caucuses in favor of primaries.

The reason “First” and “caucuses” are often incorrectly used as synonyms is because of New Hampshire. “New Hampshire won’t like it” has long been used as an excuse to shoot down reforms and to keep our process frozen in the past. 

Part of that excuse making has been to say “the caucuses” when what’s really being discussed is First. That's deliberate, to reinforce the message of “we have to have caucuses instead of a primary or else we won’t be First.” 

I’m actually agnostic on the whole question of First, and I recognize the historic benefits.  But there are serious issues with caucuses as a process, and for a lot of reasons I believe the flaws in a caucus process outweigh the advantages of First.

Myth: State law says we have to vote First.

Short answer: Not really.

Facts: The state law, and the corresponding New Hampshire law, often get used to justify our complicated process. But despite the way it's usually spun, Iowa law does NOT say we have to vote for president first. It only says that we have to hold a caucus to elect precinct level party officers before other states vote for president. The law does not even require a presidential vote at all at the caucus. For decades, Iowa Republicans skipped the presidential vote in re-election years.

In 2024 Iowa Democrats followed the letter of the law. They had a January caucus for party business only, eight days before New Hampshire's rogue primary. They then held a mail-in presidential vote, with a March deadline that was in compliance with the DNC calendar. 

There were a few bumps in the road, as there are any time you try something new. The caucus attendance and mail-in turnout were low - which is normal in a re-election year. (Yes, I know a lot of unprecedented stuff happened later.) But it pretty much worked, and it's probably the only way we can comply with both current state law and the likely 2028 DNC rules.

Myth: There is no way to organize rural Iowa without in person visits by presidential candidates and without outside money and organizers. The caucuses are still first for the Republicans and we can't cede the field of debate to them.

Short answer: It's over and it's not coming back.

Facts: Yes, this hurts. Yes, it’s going to be hard to change. But for reasons I explain below, the DNC is not going to willingly give us back this privilege. And if we go rogue and vote first anyway, the DNC can effectively prevent candidates from visiting Iowa and keep us from gaining the historic benefits of First.

We build this mess ourselves through 50 years of making unrealistic demands and setting unrealistic expectations that candidates absolutely HAD to be seen in person in the very smallest Iowa towns. We insisted, indeed some of us continue to insist, that Iowa First is the "natural order" (a phrase I saw used this week!), and we have no idea how entitled we sound to the 48 other states that managed to organize without it. 

We have already wasted three years in denial since the December 2022 day that we lost the early state slot for 2024. We have continued to feed false hopes that will only make our rural counties resent it even more when it's 2027 and the candidates aren't here.

Our party leaders need to lead. We need to respect our small county activists enough to be honest with them, and we need to work with them on how to best replace that old system - because we don't have the political clout to make it come back.

Myth: The caucuses are a great organizing tool. (When they really mean "First.")

Short answer: Maybe. But your mileage may vary. (And as you'll read below, we make some unacceptable moral compromises to have this privilege.)

Facts: First certainly helped with fundraising, which is probably why the state’s political establishment loves them. There's a lot of money in multi-candidate events and in selling database access. And the overall level of interest and excitement isn't a bad thing.

But what does that do in terms of actually rounding up volunteers and votes for November? 

I attended a lot of candidate events for candidates of both parties from 2007 through 2019, when I was wearing a beret and doing more writing. Those events have long since been corrupted by the media spotlight. The glorified ideal of Ordinary Iowans Who Are Trying To Make A Deliberative Choice is in fact pretty rare. Iowans are getting their information off the internet like the rest of the world. 

The Notch Babies were a big group in 1988. 
This issue, um, resolved itself with time.

Instead, events are packed with four types of people: 

1) "Bird dog" representatives of single issue groups who are trying to get their candidate on record on their pet cause and their specific wording. They certainly have the right, but they tend to hog the mic. And those demands, aimed at a national audience, can paint candidates into the corner of taking positions that don't help in an Iowa general election.

2) Trackers from the other party, other campaigns, and reporters looking for a gaffe.  

3) Selfie collectors – who are often already committed to other candidates! 

And 4) People who are already strongly committed to that specific candidate. And of this group, almost no one sticks around and joins the local party if their favorite candidate is not the nominee.

Myth: The caucuses are a great organizing tool. (When they mean "the caucus meeting itself.") 

Short answer: Tell that to the 500 people in my caucus room.

Facts: The biggest myth of all is the carefully curated image of the caucus as an idyllic town hall setting of people calmly and patiently discussing The Issues Of The Day. When people say "we want the caucuses back," and actually mean the caucuses instead of First, this is the misty-eyed memory they are talking about. That may still exist in some small rural counties. But that is not the modern experience for most people who attend a caucus. 

Half of all 2020 caucus goers attended just 260 of the 1678 precinct caucuses, precincts with attendance of 191 people or higher. That's close to the point where a grade school gym is fire-code overcrowded, and close to the point where a meaningful meeting doesn't work. All you can do is crowd control and anger management.  It's not possible to organize in a room of 500, 700, or 900 people, especially when a 90%+ majority of attendees do not want to be at a "party organizing meeting," they just want to vote for president. 

Myth: A lot of people at the caucus is a good problem to have.

Short answer: Meetings of that size do active damage to local organizing. 

Facts: Someone wants to attend your meeting and first you tell them "stand in line 45 minutes to sign in, then stand in a corner for three hours to vote." And it is always the locals who get blamed. Never "the Iowa Democratic Party." Never "the DNC." Never "the New Hampshire Secretary of State who won't let me have an absentee ballot." It's always the precinct and county volunteers who did the most work and had the least to do with making the rules who get blamed.

We don't lose Democratic votes over it in the fall, and eventually they caucus again, only because they have no choice. But we lose people who might be donors or volunteers, who instead sit on the sidelines because their first experience with the party was so awful.

In fact, if we decouple the presidential vote from the caucus meeting, like we did in 2024, the much, much smaller number of people in attendance will be the people who actually care about party committees and platform resolutions and will have a better experience. 

But if you think the only way to organize your county is forcing everybody who just wants to vote for president into a mandatory meeting, that's not a good plan.

Myth: Overcrowding is "only a Johnson County problem."

Short Answer: No it's not, and that doesn't solve the problem.

Facts: 17 counties had at least one caucus with more than 200 people in attendance. These are the biggest and best Democratic precincts where we need to run up the score in November to win.

And blaming Johnson County (and other big precincts in blue counties) for our own success and enthusiasm does not solve the problem. Are we simply supposed to suffer?

I understand that it may be hard for a rural county activist to imagine a 900 person caucus. But that's our reality. In 2020 Johnson County had 40 caucuses (out of a then 57 precincts) with 200 or more in attendance. That's not a caucus - that's three dozen simultaneous congressional district conventions that we're being forced to manage.

IDP has told us, verbatim, "you blue counties are on their own, what resources we have need to go other places, and you need to help your smaller neighbors." We haven't complained. We've done the work and gotten the results. We don't ask for a lot of help. 

Well, this is the thing we need help on. We are forced into a one size fits all caucus process that simply does not work for us. We need the rest of the state to understand, to care, and to let us have the solutions we need. 

Myth: Just get bigger rooms, then.

Short Answer: There aren't bigger rooms. 

Facts: Once attendance gets over about the capacity of a grade school gym, public spaces (free or otherwise) are hard to come by. The urban counties are already paying thousands of dollars to rent theaters and hotel ballrooms. (IDP and the DNC have never offered to chip in for that.) The number of people who want to attend - correction: want to vote for president but have to attend - is larger than the capacity of the largest public spaces that exist. 

The only way to solve the problem is to get the people who only want to vote for president out of the rooms with absentee ballots or with a real primary.

And we can do that. We just have to let go of First.

Myth: Caucus night can be fixed by holding a Republican style straw vote or by other rule changes.

Short Answer: That helps a little but not a lot.

Facts: Getting rid of realignment, the least popular part of caucus night itself, could make the event shorter and less miserable. IDP made some minor reforms in that direction in 2020. I fully expect that if we are forced back into a mandatory in-person caucus system, it will use the Republican vote-and-leave procedure.

But that won’t solve the overcrowding. 

You’ll still have to park everyone, often many blocks away. You still have to sign everyone in, re-register a lot of people, and get them into the room long enough to hand out ballots. You'll still need the 500 person room - you'll just need it for two hours instead of three. 

So why not let people check in early, vote, and leave? That’ll spread out the sign-in crunch, rotate more people through the parking spaces, and allow for somewhat smaller rooms. Not a bad idea.

Do you start that at 6 PM? 5 PM? What if some sites let you have an early check in all day long but others, especially schools, don’t? 

And how many hours of early sign in and voting can you have before the New Hampshire Secretary of State decides that’s not a caucus, it’s an election? 

Which doesn't matter... unless we are trying to be First.

If we're going to defy the DNC by going rogue on the date, and defy New Hampshire by allowing absentees, that begs the question: why not just go all the way and have a primary? 

Myth: So we'll do it like we always did it before, only with absentees. 

Short Answer: Run that by the New Hampshire Secretary of State.

Facts: I'm all for absentees at the caucus. Nevada had a good early voting program at their 2020 caucuses. But New Hampshire didn't care what Nevada did, because Nevada voted after New Hampshire.

One of the few things New Hampshire has made clear to Iowa over the years is that they consider an in-person meeting to be an important part of the difference between a caucus and an election. They also believe that absentee ballots transform a caucus into an election - and New Hampshire will do whatever is necessary to have the first primary election.

Describe for me an absentee system that will not cause New Hampshire to object.

Iowa Democrats invested a huge amount of time and effort in a phone-in "virtual caucus" system in 2020. But IDP undercut it by under-counting the votes, so the presidential campaigns didn't buy in. Then the IT crowd at the DNC shot it down entirely as a security risk.

So at the last minute IDP dusted off a "satellite caucus" system. It helped a handful of people who would not otherwise have been able to attend, but it did little to address overcrowding, and people still had to attend an in-person meeting at one place and time. 

(The other flaws and inconsistencies in the satellite caucus process would take up another dissertation-length post, that I may need to write if it looks like that dead plan is going to be dug up again.)

It would be easy to have a caucus with the kind of absentee votes people actually want - mailed ballots and early voting locations. Again: all we have to do is give up on First.

But a lot of Iowa Democrats believe the next myth:

Myth: First is the only thing that matters.

Short answer: "There's always next cycle." 

Facts: In a way, I almost admire Scott Brennan, the former IDP chair and current DNC member. When a New York Times reporter told him the story of an emergency room worker who was going to miss the 2008 caucuses because she could not get the shift off, Brennan was honest enough to say the quiet part out loud (paywalled):

Brennan, (then) chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said the party had no responsibility to ensure that voters can participate. "The campaigns are in charge of generating the turnout," he said. The voters who truly care, he said, will find their way to their precincts. As for the emergency room worker, "There's always next cycle."

Brennan should be permanently excluded from any position of influence in the Democratic Party for that answer, yet he gets re-elected to the DNC at every state convention. 

The sad truth is: A lot of Iowa Democrats agree with him.

In the 40 year battle with New Hampshire, Iowa has always been willing to throw voters who can’t attend an in-person caucus under the bus, and there’s no reason to think 2028 will be any different. Both parties do it - but Democrats are at least supposed to act like we care. 

Democrats are the party of voting rights. We cry foul every time the Republicans make early voting harder. We push our voters to bank their votes early...

...except at caucus time, when we demand that people attend a one time one place only hours long meeting. And we tell the people who can't attend "There's always next cycle," because First is more important.

If you're only going to take one thing away from this whole deep read, that's the thing. People who are arguing that First isn’t everything, it’s the only thing (apologies to Vince Lombardi) are, in the end, arguing it's just too bad if some people don't get to vote. 

That's morally unacceptable. What good is First to people who are disenfranchised by the process?

Here's another way people try to explain away that problem:

Myth: The caucuses aren’t an election.

Short answer: The people have decided otherwise.

Facts: If you want to be a “well, ACTually” bro about it, you’re technically correct. The caucuses were never meant to be a mass participation event. They were designed as a living room sized meeting of the long time regular party activists. They were intended to elect local delegates, not produce the kind of precise results we see in elections. 

Then Jimmy Carter showed up, then the national media showed up. And then the public made them a mass participation event by showing up.

In every way that matters, the caucuses have long since become an election. The voters of Iowa have decided they are an election. They’re just an election with complicated and outdated rules. And we learned the hard way in 2012, in 2016 and especially in 2020 that the parties will be held to the timeliness and precision standards of elections.

Myth: The DNC hates Iowa.

Short Answer: This one's actually true - but maybe we kind of deserve it?

Facts: National Democrats hate that we have so dramatically trended red since 2012. Maybe we can change this. 

They hate our unrepresentative demographics. We can't change this. 

They hate caucuses as a process - and rightly so. We need to show that we want to change this. 

They hate our arrogant sense that First is somehow our "natural right." It's too late to change this. 

And they don't think that Iowa missing out on one uncontested nomination cycle is sufficient punishment for the results meltdown of 2020, no matter whose fault it actually was. 

The truth is, the entire calendar review process of 2022 was about one thing: getting rid of Iowa.

With all this against us, any time spent trying to persuade DNC to put us back in the early states is time wasted. Whatever pull IDP has with DNC (next to zero right now) should be used on other items that will help us rebuild. 

Myth: If we defy the DNC and go first anyway, the candidates will still come to Iowa and we will reap all the historic benefits of First. They're coming already, aren't they? So what if DNC takes away some delegates. Iowa is about the momentum, not the delegates. 

Short Answer: DNC has effective tools to keep candidates from visiting rogue states.

Facts: This gets a little deep in the weeds. 

There is no 2028 calendar yet, so there's no rules to break yet and people can do whatever they want. 

In late 2026, the DNC will schedule four or five states for dates in February 2028. Other states can begin voting in March. Once the calendar is set, each state party must submit a “delegate selection plan" to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which approves or rejects those plans. 

One reason for rejection is if the plan violates the early state calendar, or does not include a date at all (which is why Iowa’s plan was initially rejected in early 2023). At that point sanctions take effect against both the state and against candidates who campaign there.  

Campaigning (see page 20) is defined extremely broadly.

“Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, placing a candidate’s name on the ballot or failing to take action to remove it from the ballot; purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state.

The DNC has two especially strong tools that would keep candidates out of a rogue Iowa. 

One, they can exclude candidates from debates. The stronger tool is locking candidates out of the party’s online database (known as “VAN” to all operatives). Maybe a candidate could survive skipping debates. But no campaign could last a week without VAN – especially in a state with a party run caucus. You can’t get data on past caucus attendees from local or state election officials and build your own database – it is ONLY available from the party. Is anyone really going to risk that for a minor media bump from a rogue Iowa?

Myth: They’ll never actually punish us. New Hampshire got away with it, didn’t they?

Short answer: F🤬k around and find out.

Facts: Actually, New Hampshire WAS punished. True, they voted in an official state-run primary ahead of their assigned slot. But they didn’t really get First. They “voted” first but they saw no surrogate speakers or organizers. They didn’t even have Biden on the ballot. 

And here’s the part you probably don’t know: in order to get their delegates seated, New Hampshire Democrats had to have a do-over vote in April. The event was scarcely publicized, because New Hampshire wanted to bluster and bluff everyone into thinking they had "won," and only a handful of party activists participated. 

Historically the DNC has been reluctant to invoke delegate penalties on states that vote too soon. But the real punishment for Florida and Michigan, who broke the calendar rules in 2008, was that the candidates didn't visit. They got to vote early, but they didn't get First. Same with New Hampshire in 2024 (though Biden wasn’t going to be up in Nashua campaigning for renomination anyway). 

But there’s a first time for everything. Those past rule breakers have been legitimate swing states. Iowa, in contrast, is the perfect state to make an example of. They already hate us for all the reasons listed above, and we have no strong federal official to fight for us the way Tom Harkin used to. 

Maybe I’m wrong. But if we pursue the "F🤬k the DNC" path, we could very easily end up with no candidate visits and no national delegates. 

Eyes on the prize, people. 

This "family conversation," while welcome as outreach, is a distraction from more important matters. I'm only devoting so many words to it because it's my particular area of expertise. 

Before we start talking about F🤬k the DNC, maybe we should focus on winning some 2026 elections instead? Then maybe Governor Sand, Senator Wahls, and three Democratic House members can go make the case for Iowa as an early state.

The Family Conversation: The Bratty Stepchild Speaks Up

Last week the Iowa Democratic Party rolled out a long-promised "Family Conversation" about the future of Iowa's role in the presidential nomination process. I've been having that conversation for several years, of course, and it's been blowing up on social media lately like a holiday get together with the sketchy relatives and too much booze. My role seems to be the bratty stepchild who doesn't know his place and says a lot of rude stuff that isn't supposed to be said.

The "conversation" takes the form of an online survey ("share widely," Rita Hart says, and so I have) that requires a Google login, presumably to weed out ringers and trolls. It's similar to a survey taken in May 2022 prior to Iowa's failed application to the DNC for continued early state status. That gathered some valuable information, most notably the fact that everyone hated realignment and delegate math, and led to the development of the mail-in party run primary plan that Iowa Democrats used in 2024. 

It took me a few days to respond for personal reasons, but no need to hurry, it will be available for three months or so. Below is what's getting asked, so you can think it through ahead of time. I've also included my responses. Each section has an open comments field that does not appear to have a length limit, as I'm more verbose on this subject than anyone and I didn't run out of space. 

DNC is meeting this weekend to begin the process of the 2028 nomination calendar, so now is as good a time as any to talk about it.

Family Conversation Survey

Dear Iowa Democrats,

Iowa Democrats have a lot of work to do before the 2028 presidential election. Namely, we need to win elections in 2026. However, discussions about the 2028 nominating process have begun. Without an incumbent president on the ballot, we are likely to have one of the deepest and longest nominating campaigns in history. 

Unlike 2024, the outcome of the presidential nominating process will be in doubt. As Iowa Democrats, we have choices to make about how to proceed. Since the certification of our 2024 process by the State Central Committee, I have promised that Iowa Democrats will have a “family conversation” about what comes next. 

In January, Ken Martin was elected to lead the DNC for the next four years and has promised an “open process.” It’s unfortunate, despite that promise, Chair Martin began the process by removing several members of the Rules and By-laws Committee (RBC) who chose to support Ben Wikler for Chair - including our own Scott Brennan. The new RBC will be seated at the DNC meeting in August. From there, we expect the earliest there will be an approved process determining the nominating calendar will be the December meeting of the DNC. 

(Deeth notes: it's interesting that Brennan's removal from Rules And Bylaws is attributed to Iowa's support for Wikler, rather than to the overall anti-Iowa mood we saw in the 2022 early state window application process. I think it's a little of both.)

I know that many Iowa Democrats have deeply held beliefs about the caucus and nominating process. Having been through the 2024 cycle, I can tell you the devil is in the details. There are going to be disagreements about specifics and logistical challenges to any plan. My goal in this process is unity around our shared values - and that’s why I am asking you to complete this survey today. Your voice will help us prioritize our options as we navigate the upcoming process. 

Democratically yours, 

Rita Hart

Chair, Iowa Democratic Party

Identification questions
 
Required fields
Google account login
Name
ZIP (this flags you as an Iowan or not)
Email
Phone ("By submitting your cell phone number you are agreeing to receive periodic text messages from this organization. Message and data rates may apply. Text HELP for more information. Text STOP to stop receiving messages." This is, again, a required field, so if they get nothing else out of this they get contact data.)

Timing of Caucuses

 

The Iowa Democratic Party State Central Committee will be responsible for setting the date of 2028 Iowa Caucuses. The Iowa Caucuses could potentially be first, in an early window with three or four other states, or Super Tuesday or later. Do you have a preference for Iowa’s role in the nominating process or do you not care? 

• First
• Early Window
• Super Tuesday or later
• Don't Care (my answer)

Comments

"Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process" - President Biden, December 2022

No state with a caucus process should be considered for early state status. My hope is that DNC bans caucuses entirely.

Tradition, Inclusion, and Accessibility

 

Critics of the Iowa Caucuses have said that the historical caucuses make it difficult for Iowans to participate. Caucus goers must arrive at a specific place by 7:00pm on the day of the caucuses. This can disenfranchise voters who work third shift, have kids, are challenged by health care issues, or are first responders. People in favor of Iowa’s historical process argue that it requires candidates to build organization in all 1600 precincts and maintains Iowa’s historical alliance with New Hampshire to be early in the calendar. What would you say is closest to your views? *

 

• IDP should focus the nominating process on maximizing participation measured by the total number of voters or caucus goers. (my answer)
• IDP should figure out accommodations for voters that cannot participate on Caucus Night and to alleviate overcrowding in urban precincts, but generally needs to maintain the historical “in-the-room” caucus process.
• IDP should focus the nominating process on candidates' ability to organize in all 99 counties and 1600 precincts to win.
• IDP should focus the process on maintaining its alliance with New Hampshire.
• IDP should return the Caucuses to their historical “in-the-room” format for expression of presidential preference.

Comments

The overwhelming percentage of people attending a caucus do not want to be at a "party organizing meeting." (90%+ leave as soon as realignment is locked in.) They simply want to vote for president. We should give them that.

Resource Trade-offs - Potential Costs and Benefits

 

Organizing the caucus requires a significant investment of both time and financial resources. Past competitive caucuses have cost millions of dollars and required substantial staff time and effort. Some say the work of the caucuses makes Iowa Democrats stronger in the General Election. Some people say this takes away time and resources from organizing to win the general election. Which comes closer to your view? 

• The caucuses help build the Party organization. It is ok for the IDP to devote resources it might otherwise spend on organizing and communicating with unreliable Democrats and swing voters, on the Caucus because the national attention of the Caucuses is valuable and sets the stage to do the necessary organizing work to win.
• The caucuses divert attention from winning elections. It should not spend money that might otherwise go to organizing and communications, even if that means presidential candidates will not come to Iowa. (my answer)

Comments

First of all, when I say "caucuses" I mean the actual meeting itself, not the year or so of events preceding that night (that's "First.")

Caucuses with hundreds of people that take three or more hours to complete do ACTIVE DAMAGE to our organizing efforts. 

Over and over I have heard: "The caucuses were so crowded and disorganized! I'm never going to anything for the Johnson County Democrats again." Never "the Iowa Democratic Party." Never "the DNC." Unhappy people always blame the local party and the volunteers in the room, even though we aren't the ones who made the rules. 

We don't lose Democratic votes over it in the fall, and eventually they caucus again, only because they have no choice. But we lose PEOPLE. People who might be donors or volunteers instead sit on the sidelines because they are convinced the local Democrats are a shit show - because their first experience when they try to join is getting told "stand in line for 45 minutes to sign in, then go stand in the corner for three hours to vote."

And the much overhyped candidate appearances do little to help. Most people at those events are either a) selfie collectors or b) people who feel a strong commitment to that one candidate - and if their candidate is not the nominee, we never see them again.

DNC Compliance

 

The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee will establish a formal petition process for states seeking early-state status in the 2028 presidential nomination cycle. If Iowa is not selected, the RBC will/may sanction Iowa for a “rogue” process and refuse to credential our delegates to the National Convention. Which comes closer to your view?

• IDP should work within the DNC process and accept the outcome, even if it means Iowa is not in the early window. (my answer)
•  IDP should work within the DNC process, but ignore the outcome if Iowa’s plan is not accepted, like New Hampshire in 2024.
•  IDP should give no consideration to the DNC process.

Comments 

We should not even apply for early state status.

Every minute spent pursuing early state status with (or without) DNC is time wasted that could be better spent rebuilding our party and our state. DNC doesn’t like that Iowa is red and getting redder, they don’t like our lack of diversity, they rightly disapprove of caucuses as a process, they don’t like our arrogant sense of entitlement that First is our natural right, and they don’t think we’ve really been punished yet for the 2020 results meltdown. And we have zero elected federal Democrats to stand up for us. 

It is foolish to believe that we can defy a DNC decision and still get the benefits of First In The Nation. See my article at Bleeding Heartland, "We Can Build It, But They Won't Come."  I can very easily see the DNC tossing Iowa’s ENTIRE delegation to send a message. 

Some are already saying we could live with no delegates, if it meant we would get the in-person visits and other privileges of First. But we won't. The rules against campaigning in non-compliant states are extremely strict. During the summer of 2023 when we were in non-compliance, we were unable to even get a call from Wilmington to discuss our efforts to start a volunteer Biden group - acknowledging us was against the rules! 

All DNC has to do is 1) toss candidates who come here out of debates and more importantly 2) lock them out of VAN. If we go rogue we won't see a single credible candidates and our votes won't count. 

State Law Compliance

 

Iowa law requires that political parties hold their caucuses at least eight days before the first presidential primary. It does not speak to whether presidential delegates must be tied to precinct caucuses. The 2024 Iowa Democratic Caucuses did comply with state law. However, future Republican legislatures could tighten this law. Meanwhile, some lawyers argue this portion of code is an unconstitutional infringement on the political right of Free Assembly. If there is a disagreement over interpretation of state law, which is closer to your view? 

• IDP should avoid being sued by the state, even if it disagrees with the interpretation of state law.
• IDP should be willing to go to Court if it disagrees with an interpretation of state law, even if litigation is time consuming and expensive. (my answer but see comments)

Comments

 

Neither answer really represents my views. The focus should be on CHANGING the law to end caucuses and require a presidential primary. I understand the difficulty being in the minority, but the message is important. Dave Jacoby introduced the first ever presidential primary bill last year and while it isn't perfect (it allows the parties to choose a primary or a caucus as an option when a primary should be required of both parties, and it emphasizes First too much) EVERY Democratic legislator should be signed on as a co-sponsor. Instead our House leader has joined the "go rogue" camp.

We are supposed to be the party of voting rights. Each fall we push people to vote early. We want to make it easier to vote and we fight vote suppression...

...except in February of leap years. Then we tell people they have to attend an all evening meeting and if they can't, in the immortal words of Scott Brennan, "you can always caucus next cycle." 

I think IDP should take legal action if a Republican legislature tries to make us abandon the mail-in reforms of 2024 and force us back into an in-person system with no absentee voting - a move that I think is likely.

I hope that individual Iowa Democrats take legal action against the state and/or IDP if we are prevented from casting a vote that counts toward a national convention delegate that is seated at full voting strength, or if we are prevented from casting absentee ballots (there is considerable ADA vulnerability on that point).

 

Now that you have read about the various potential issues, please rank the importance of each of your answers in each category from 1 - 5 (with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important.) *

• Timing of caucuses (5)
• Tradition, Inclusion & Accessibility (1)
• Resource trade-offs - potential costs and benefit  (4)
• DNC Compliance (2)
• State law compliance (3)

Comments 

I appreciate the opportunity. My thoughts on this subject are of course very public and well known, and widely available, and I'm sure you've read some version of this before. I've been writing it since 2016.

We need to let First go. 

I understand the political disadvantage this puts us in. But voting rights are more important than political advantage.

My frustration is that I, a mere county level volunteer, appear to be the highest ranking official in the party who is willing to openly say what needs to be said -  that First As We Knew It is over forever and that we need to build a new way of organizing that does not depend on magic outside speakers, organizers, and money. Frankly, that should have been the first thing Ross Wilburn said in December 2022, and our leadership should have been telling activists that for the last three years. Instead we remain in denial. We have wasted three years on letting people have false hopes.

Iowa Democrats set unrealistic expectations for 50 years and now we are paying for it as our rural counties think "Democrats don't care" because presidential candidates didn't come to Mt. Ayr last year. Guess what - 48 other states don't get that! Why are we not saying that? Instead our legislative leaders are saying "Fuck the DNC, go first anyway." That is not leadership and it will not work. We need to be willing to tell people the truth even if they don't want to hear it, and maybe give up a few donations. 

My fear as we move forward is that rural counties and the donor class are going to force us back into the old Stand In The Corner To Vote system. This is simply unworkable in urban areas - it's not "just Johnson County." The average caucus goer in 2020 was at a caucus of 191 people or more, and 17 counties had a caucus at least that large. Those are our best Democratic precincts. Those are the places we need to run up the score in November - and we are turning people off with a long and difficult process in an overcrowded room. (A "Republican style caucus" won't help the overcrowding - you still have to park and sign in all those people and get them in the room.) 

As the lead organizer for Johnson County's caucuses in 2016, 2020 and 2024, I believe I did the best I could with the resources I had available. And our volunteers did their best within the rules and within the spaces we had. But all we accomplished in 2016 and 2020 was making a bad situation a little less bad - and we locals got the blame for a system we do not like and do not want.

I can recruit better. I can train better. I can plan better. I can't build buildings. 

In our urban precincts there are simply not enough rooms that are large enough to hold the crowds that want to attend. I've been pointing this out since the 2016 cycle and no one has ever offered a realistic response. No one has yet offered to build us a dozen 1000 seat meeting halls with 800 parking spaces each on the east side of Iowa City and in north Coralville. No one has offered to repay the thousands of dollars it cost us to rent the largest privately owned meeting spaces. You just set the rules and force us to deal with it even when they don't work for us. It's not fair to ask our county to run three dozen simultaneous congressional district conventions. Personally, I'm not willing to go back to that. I'm not willing to enable it. If we have to go back to in person with no absentees in 2028, I'll call the fire marshal myself.

The only way to solve this problem is to get people out of the rooms while still letting them participate.  There's not a way to do that without real absentees, and there's not an absentee system I can imagine that New Hampshire will not subvert. 

The problem can't any more be that people are not aware of the issue - it has to be that they simply don't care. The attitude I'm getting is that Johnson County and Grinnell and Beaverdale just have to suffer through 900 person caucuses so that donors can have Pete and Kamala's cell numbers and so that small county chairs can get quoted in the New York Times.

Johnson County has shipped a great deal of resources, both people and money, to IDP and to weaker counties. And we MORE than do our part with our own results - 15 points better than any other county in the state, across the board. We ask little in return except for some wins. Well, this is something Johnson County and the other blue counties need. We need a voting system that gets people out of the overcrowded rooms, and lets everyone vote, and that is more important than First. 

I look forward to continuing this family conversation and will be happy to talk with any Democrat in the state with any questions.

John Deeth
Caucus and Convention Organizer, Johnson County Democrats