Yesterday the Iowa Democratic Party released the results of its "Family Conversation" about Iowa's role in the presidential nomination process and The Future Of The Caucuses As We Knew Them.
I don't envy Rita Hart and the rest of the party's leadership. The outcome of the survey shows a sharp and nearly even division. There's an almost dead even split between respondents who want to accept the DNC's calendar decisions (51.7%) and those who support some version of going rogue (48.8%). No matter what IDP does, nearly half of the activists are going to be unhappy.
That is to some extent inevitable. There's no way to satisfy both the primary advocates (a group which now includes former IDP chair Derek Eadon, so I can no longer call myself "the highest ranking") to the 🤬 The DNC, Go First Anyway crowd who insist that having insanely overcrowded urban precincts is "a good problem to have" (pro tip: it isn't).
First off, let's jump to the end. The report indicates that IDP "will respond to the DNC by Jan. 16, 2026 seeking a waiver to participate in the early window." I'm against that. It's doomed to fail, it's a distraction, and every minute and dollar spent on it is time and money wasted. But given that roughly 2/3 of respondents want Iowa to be early or (delusionally) First, I can see why IDP feels the need to at least apply.
I'm also a little disappointed that feedback from the open ended comments section was not included, though hopefully some of that will get released eventually. These raw numbers don't address the problems large counties face in holding in person caucuses - specifically, the lack of enough large public spaces to hold the number of people who want to attend want to vote but have no choice but to attend.
One overall observation I have is that younger respondents are more likely to prioritize the old fashioned in person caucus and the First role. I'm old, but I was young once so I understand. First was (past tense) fun and in my experience young voters really love the excitement of seeing and meeting the candidates; they also haven't had the years of opportunities that us old timers have. It's easy for me to say "that stuff doesn't matter" when I've had face time with a sitting president.
But younger voters are also less likely to have had to organize and manage a caucus. It's not directly addressed in the survey but my experience as I advocate for a primary is that the more work someone has had to do to organize a caucus, the more likely they are to want change. (I've probably done the most work, so I'm the one who's most opposed to the old system.) Younger people are less likely to have the kind of job and kid commitments that can keep people from attending. And they are also generally more able to endure the crowded rooms, the long meetings and the hours of standing.
One specific that I'm pleased with: A near consensus level 75% want to "maximize participation or provide accommodations for Iowans who cannot participate on caucus night." That points to some kind of absentee process, which will help get people out of the overcrowded rooms.
However, that contradicts the 60% of respondents who "would like to see some kind of traditional 'in the room' caucus night experience." Most people do NOT want to attend a "party organizing meeting." They want to vote and leave like they do in a real election. If an absentee process is completely opened up, an overwhelming majority of people will choose that option.
This isn't directly linked to the absentee issue but it's a critical explanation: "Support for Iowa being first was lowest among respondents who have never
attended a presidential caucus, with only 34% supporting it and 32%
responding they did not care." There's a reason for that: A lot of people who are interested enough to respond to a self-selected survey about a VERY inside baseball subject are at the same time not able or willing to attend an all evening meeting! They would rather just be able to vote than fight over this First thing.
Here's another very interesting yet contradictory finding:
"More than 60% of respondents support Iowa Democrats standing up to any attempt by Republicans in the legislature or Brenna Bird to force action on our party-run caucus process." The most likely Republican driven change would be to force Iowa Democrats back into the 2020 and before system that required no-exceptions in person attendance.
So 60% want to fight that and 75% want to "maximize participation"... but 60% also want "an in the room experience." So, is that overlap a group of people who recognize the problem of people who can't attend, but want to force attendance as much as possible and limit the absentee process to excused absences?
A system of excused absences doesn't do
enough to solve the overcrowding issue. Johnson County was overcrowded in 2004, and that was with HALF the attendance of 2016 and 2020! We need to get more than half the people out of the rooms, and WAY more than half would be happy to not be there!
And who decides what's an
excused absence? And how do those decisions become non-controversial in a
contested race environment? In 2016 and 2020 there were HUGE differences
in presidential preference by age and geography. That means deciding whether "away at
college" or "elderly" are valid excuses has an outcome impact.
Finally, one interesting geographic split: "59% of urban voters supported devoting more resources to the caucuses compared to 48% of rural voters." Rural counties probably have fewer issues finding sufficient rooms to hold the attendees. Here's how I'd support "more resources": If the state party wants to force large urban counties to use a voting system that doesn't work for us, then the state party, not the county party, should be the ones paying the thousands of dollars to rent large theaters and hotel ballrooms.
It's clear from this survey that those of us within the Iowa Democratic Party who want substantive reforms have made a lot of progress. A lot of us are willing to let go of the fantasy of getting First back and accept the new reality. But unfortunately there are still too many people clinging to false hope, so we still need to do a lot of persuading.
That should start with our Democratic legislators. Another session is coming up, and even though there is no hope of passage, Democrats should be sending a message to the voters, to our own activists, and to DNC Rules And Bylaws getting behind a presidential primary bill.
