To: Johnson County Democratic Legislative delegation, Johnson County Democrats Executive Board, IDP Chair Rita Hart, and anyone reading this.
The likely order appears to be:
- South Carolina
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Michigan
- New Mexico
- Virginia
To: Johnson County Democratic Legislative delegation, Johnson County Democrats Executive Board, IDP Chair Rita Hart, and anyone reading this.
I'm trying hard to keep my eyes on the prize for 2026 - though, to be 100% honest, my enthusiasm level is somewhat lower than it would have been had a couple primaries turned out differently.
But we all know that my biggest job within the party is caucus season, and despite the greater urgency of 2026, 2028 isn't far from people's minds.
A number of Iowa Dems are already pointing to visits by potential 2028 candidates Pete Buttigeig and Mark Kelly as a sign that "the caucuses are not going away." (By "the caucuses," they really mean the excitement of the First In The Nation year before, not the actual caucus meeting night.)
I'm glad that big names are coming in now to help our candidates. But there is no 2028 nomination calendar yet. Things will change once 1) there is a calendar and 2) if Iowa Democrats, as many in the party are pushing, decide to violate that calendar.
I've long made my thoughts clear: we should let go of First once and for all, comply with whatever calendar the Democratic National Committee determines, end caucuses and have a primary, and build a new organizing model that does not depend on outside speakers, organizers, and money.
But that doesn't appear to be a majority opinion yet within the Iowa Democratic Party, and the top of the ticket disagrees with me, so for today I'm going to make just one ask: Whatever nomination process we have for 2028, whether we follow the calendar or break it, we absolutely need unrestricted absentee ballots, counted at equal weight to in-person votes. We need that for the caucuses to function, even if that means we are Second and not Absolute First.
I shouldn't be wasting time on this just 104 days from Election Day 2026. But this conversation is likely to heat up again soon. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting again this weekend and may be taking a preliminary vote in the 2028 calendar as soon as Friday. Calendar expert and RBC watcher Josh Putnam writes: "it is unlikely that the RBC reverses course on the Iowa's caucuses. Again, that is not really a surprise."
(Putnam knows this stuff even better than me. he is my only paid subscription and well worth it.)
The penalties for states and candidates that break the rules are automatic, more severe than ever before, and unlike the era before 2024, the DNC seems likely to actually enforce them. I hope that will be enough to make cooler heads prevail. If not, we will likely be in a situation of "we can build it, but they won't come."
This year has been all about the rural counties need to be seen and heard and shown up in. Well, this big blue county has some needs too. We need help with this. We are already using the largest physical spaces that exist in most precincts, often at great expense, and the rooms are still not big enough. And there are not more rooms available for splitting the largest precincts (the only idea anyone has offered us that, while it wouldn't work, at least acknowledges problem). The only way to fix the problem is to get a lot of the people who ONLY want to vote for president (roughly 90% of attendees) out of the room and at home with an absentee ballot. It'll make them happier and it'll make the handful of people who show up for the platform less miserable too.
My fear is that, in the pursuit of the bright shiny object of Absolute First, Iowa Democrats will once again throw the people who can't or don't want to attend in person under the bus, will cave to the Republicans and to New Hampshire, and once again require in person attendance to vote.
And at that point my community is not being treated as a team player, so I won't be an enabler anymore.
So, friends in the Screw The DNC camp, please at least give us early ballots, even if that means Screw The DNC And Go Second. I still believe we will get punished hard and that candidates won't come, but at least us volunteers on the ground will be able to run a functional event.
Now, can we get back to 2026 please?
The personal drama and online cruelty of the June 2 primary is getting to me, and I am about to get a lot more busy, so I'm checking out of some things and doing some selective blocking. I don't want to live in a bubble but there's people who aren't worth the stress.
But before I back off I do want to address one race and an issue that I think is important. I spent five bucks on a document and reached out for a response, so I'm gonna write the post.
As we all remember, the 2020 congressional race in (a slightly different version of) this district was decided by a mere six votes - painful proof that every vote counts.
Yet despite that narrow margin, the narrowest in the nation in 40 years, 2026 congressional candidate Travis Terrell did not bother to vote in the 2022 or 2024 primary or general elections.
Records from the statewide voter system indicate that Terrell, who turns 41 a few days before the primary, first registered a few days after his 18th birthday, a good start, and cast his first vote in the 2004 presidential election.
Terrell moved a few times between then and now between Wapello, Muscatine and Johnson counties, nothing wrong with that, and through 2021 had a fairly typical voter record for a young person. He voted mostly in general elections in presidential and governor years (missing 2010) and in four non-general elections: one city election (2005), one school election (2013), one primary (2018), and one combined city and school election (2021; state law combined the two elections beginning in 2019).
But after voting in the 2021 West Liberty city and school board election, Terrell drops off the chart. There is no "voter initiated" activity on his record until the summer of 2025 when he re-registered in Johnson County, a few months after he announced his congressional candidacy and also well after the Johnson County Democrats elected him to the county central committee (at a monthly meeting, not at the caucus). He then voted in the 2025 election for Tiffin city council and Clear Creek Amana school board.
During those four years, there were five elections where anyone in the state was able to vote: the 2022 primary and general election, the 2023 city/school board election, and the 2024 primary and general election.
There were a lot of important things on those ballots. A US Senate race between Chuck Grassley and Mike Franken that at least briefly looked competitive. The opportunity to vote against Donald Trump - yes, I know the Selzer poll was way wrong, but for a moment we thought that was competitive, too. And of course the congressional seat, the one Terrell is running for now, the one that was decided by six votes in 2020.
There's still enough journalist left in me that I decided to reach out to the Terrell campaign and try to get an explanation. I did not hear from the candidate but, in something that seems to be a pattern from this campaign, heard back instead from campaign manager Eric Kusiak (who was also a surrogate speaker for Terrell and the 2nd District Democratic convention on May 2).
"Like so many, Travis has struggled to have faith in the electoral system. He's the kind of voter Democrats have lost in the millions. What's been happening has woken him up to the failures of this party, like so many who support him that we left behind. His opponent has shown up to vote but still can't bring herself to defend the people in her district most in need or stand up to the corruption of either political party."
Kusiak, in another pattern for the campaign, then offered several attacks on Christina Bohannan, Terrell's primary opponent and the Democratic nominee in the two general elections that Terrell skipped. He also argued that attendance at No Kings rallies is a more appropriate measure than a person's voting record.
Every vote matters. Voting rights are the right from which all other rights are enabled. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Travis Terrell does not appear to believe these things. Instead, his campaign manager excuses him for "losing faith" when there isn't a Bernie Bro candidate on the ballot, and the campaign's attacks on Bohannan are more vitriolic than the attacks on Republican incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
At a time when voting rights are under bitter attack at the federal level, it is critical that our next member of Congress values those rights. Travis Terrell doesn't even value the right to vote enough to use it.
Disclaimer 1: As many people are aware, I work at the auditor's office. From time to time journalists, campaigns, and political researchers request voter records. Other people in our office do that work. I purchased Terrell's record under the same conditions and at the same rate as any other researcher and I have a receipt.
Disclaimer 2: I did not consult the Bohannan campaign about this post.
Disclaimer 3: I did not vote in the 1992 Iowa City school board election, which was uncontested. I regret missing that election. Other than that I have voted in every election in which I was eligible since moving to Iowa in August 1990.
I grew up in Wisconsin and in school we learned about the Wisconsin Ideas and the Progressives. And we were proud of that.
The original progressives were reformers, not radicals. Teddy Roosevelt and Fighting Bob La Follette were not Marxists. Neither was Iowa's great progressive, Henry Wallace (though he accepted Communist support, which backfired and did him more harm than good).
There were progressives in both major parties and in third parties, supporting a wide range of governmental reforms and business regulations - trust busting, but not Seizing The Means Of Production. There were lots of different kinds of progressives just as there were lots of different kinds of liberals and moderates and conservatives.
About ten years ago the word "progressive" got narrowly defined. If you did not support one particular presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020, and if you supported candidates other than his acolytes in other races, you were no longer allowed to call yourself a progressive.
That irks my Wisconsin born pride. I'd like to take the word "progressive" back from the extremists.
Neither one of those approaches speaks to me. They're both assuming "mainstream Democrats will vote for the nominee." Which is what we do and what you're supposed to do. Buy into the process, accept the outcome. Sometimes YTIИU is a punch in the face.
But: of those two approaches, I believe Sand's approach is more likely to produce a general election win in Iowa.
Remember that scene in Big Bang Theory where Amy ruins Indiana Jones for the guys?
If you hated that, stop reading now.
As an entire generation knows, the MacGuffin driving "The Blues Brothers" is the tax bill for the orphanage where they grew up.
But it turns out The Penguin wasn't up shit creek after all.
According to the actual, real Cook County Assessor, "an institution used for religious purposes, as an orphanage or for
school and religious purposes, may qualify for a property tax exemption
if it is not used for profit."
I'm not the first to discover this gaping plot hole. In 2022, the current Cook County Assessor addressed the issue.Then, Kaegi explained in assessor lingo: “We want to set this right. So, we’re going to issue the orphanage a certificate of error. No taxes are due for 1979 to 1981. And no taxes in the future.”
The plaque also retroactively grants “special assessment landmark status, as the childhood home of Jake and Elwood Blues, a.k.a The Blues Brothers, and is therefore exempt from any future assessment increases or taxes.”
No Mission From God. No Getting The Band Back Together. The only part that's real is the Illinois Nazis.
When Aykroyd accepted the plaque, he addressed the crowd and said: “Well, I guess the whole movie didn’t happen."
OK, here's one that's been bugging me:
I understand as well as anyone that if Iowa Democrats are going to succeed, we have to win more votes in our rural areas. I understand that better than most Johnson County Democrats; it's been a very long time, but I've actually run a race in a rural district (with zero support from the state party of that era). I know that the world is a very different place once you get six miles from Kinnick Stadium.
But that mindset does not need to extend to disrespect for those of us in the remaining blue counties, or candidates who come from the blue counties.
Remember all those special election wins and over-performances from 2025? Johnson County provided way more than its share of volunteers. We are constantly shipping volunteers all over the state to other counties that need a hand.
You know that money that is so hard to raise out in the small towns? We understand that we have more than our share of the good paying jobs here in Johnson County - but we give that money to candidates all over the state.
And when you're trying to bump that vote share up from 28% to 37% or 41% in the rural counties, don't forget that you also need that 68% or 70% out of Johnson County - 15 points better than any other county in the state, in every statewide and congressional contest, up and down the ballot.
We do these things gladly. We understand that to win, we have to win everywhere.
But.
I am really sick of hearing that someone is "unelectable" just because he comes from my county.
What does that tell us here in Iowa City? It tells us, "We're OK with you doing the heavy lifting. We'll quietly thank you for the margins and the money at the fundraisers in your county, as long as we can make a couple jokes at your expense in the rest of the state. But Johnson County legislators only get to run in unwinnable statewide races. We're happy to let Jean Lloyd-Jones (1992) or Art Small (2004) take one for the team when we can't find anyone else, but we'll point to them after the fact and say 'See? We told you Johnson County candidates are unelectable.' And don't you dare think about putting up one of your own in a high profile winnable contest."
I'm not going to say anything negative about the other leading candidate. But if supporters are going to use where a candidate has run and where he comes from as a talking point, it's a simple fact that his district is 100% urban. It's a non-issue. It should be a non-issue.
I'm not saying "it's our turn" (even though, frankly, considering what we do for the Democrats of this state, it is way past our turn). I am saying: evaluate Zach Wahls as Zach Wahls and stop using "candidates from Johnson County are unelectable" as a slur.
If you asked her family to describe Koni, you’d hear the same words over and over: warm, charming, thoughtful, smart, fun-loving, wildly creative… and just mischievous enough to keep things interesting. Koni loved fiercely. She made people feel seen, important, and supported. And if someone needed standing up for, Koni was already halfway there, probably with a plan, a speech, and snacks.
She always had a sense of humor when anyone pronounced her name "Coney," which everybody did the first time they saw it.
She was born December 18, 1968, in Kirksville, Missouri, to Bob and Judy Steele, and spent many of her early years in Lost Nation, Iowa. From the very beginning, Koni was busy. She packed her childhood full of Girl Scouts, 4-H, Rainbow Girls, gymnastics, roller skating, swimming laps across the street at the Nicelys’ pool for the American Red Cross, and delivering morning newspapers. She also spent treasured time with extended family in Kirksville and at the family’s wooded property, floating on the frog pond her grandfather created in 1963, swimming at Aunt Wanda’s pool, and pontoon boating with the Stanley cousins.
Koni was intensely creative and perfectly happy entertaining herself for hours, reading and writing stories and poems. She once buried a “treasure box” in the yard, then became convinced the neighbor boys had seen her do it. This led to a recurring routine of digging it up and reburying it… often at night… just to be safe.
Keri and Lori relied on Koni to help with poetry homework — usually the night before it was due. Procrastination may have been a group activity, but talent was all Koni. She won the Lost Nation School Spelling Bee, advanced to win the Eastern Iowa Regional Spelling Bee, and competed in the Des Moines Register State Spelling Bee — proving that all those hours reading paid off.
Koni’s creativity was also proudly displayed in her fashion choices. While delivering newspapers as a young teen, she designed her own uniform/costume: a coat, Mom’s pink bathrobe hanging well below it, pajamas, and slippers. The old men at the corner café teased her dad, asking, “Don’t you buy her any clothes?” Koni considered that a success. She loved giving people something to talk about. Her newspaper career ended in January after she slipped on the ice wearing those slippers, and her dad laid down the law, she had to wear shoes or boots to deliver newspapers. Shoes or boots ruined the look, so Koni was done delivering newspapers.
Koni provided nonstop entertainment for family and friends. At just five years old, during her great-grandparents’ 60th wedding anniversary party, she spontaneously jumped up onto the pool table and launched into a full-volume rendition of “On Top of Spaghetti.” She brought the house down — and earned a standing ovation, proving very early on that Koni never needed an invitation, a stage, or a microphone. She once nearly got herself, her sister, and cousins kicked out of a bowling alley because she kept throwing the ball while the machine was down clearing pins. She wasn’t being reckless — she was too busy entertaining the crowd to pay attention to actual bowling.
Koni could tell incredible whoppers, complete with different voices. She loved to make people laugh. Keri remembers Koni writing, rehearsing, directing, and performing an entire play down in the creek, starring Barbie dolls and neighborhood kids. Koni also thrived on pranks and neighborhood shenanigans. When neighbor boys once showed up at the front door wearing only shaving cream, Koni didn’t hesitate — she yelled, “Grab the hose!”
As a kid, Koni woke up every day and chose fun, and she enlisted the neighborhood kids as co-conspirators. One of their favorite hobbies was tying fake snakes to fishing poles, plopping them in the street, and hiding by the house like tiny goblins. When a car came along, they’d reel the snake across the road like it was late for an appointment. Drivers would either swerve dramatically or try to commit vehicular snake-slaughter. Quality entertainment. Zero regrets.
Then Koni entered her artist era in home ec and produced the most realistic stuffed skunk ever created by human hands. This thing deserved a museum. Naturally, they decided it deserved… the road. They set the skunk down in the road, hid by the house, and waited. A car approached. Koni began reeling the skunk across the street. The driver panicked, ran straight over it, then slammed on the brakes. Physics took over. The skunk launched into the air and landed squarely on top of the trunk like it was claiming the car. The driver floored it. The skunk flew off and hit the road again, dignity shattered. And then the horror hit them. That car belonged to their brand new principal. Like, freshly hired. Still-new-smell principal. They did not wait to see if he noticed them hiding by the house like tiny goblins. They scattered in every direction like startled raccoons, fully convinced their criminal skunk era had just ended their academic careers.
Koni never met a stranger. As a child, she often disappeared for hours, visiting elderly neighbors, listening to their stories, exploring their attics, and admiring their treasures. Upon meeting a new elderly person, she often asked, without hesitation, “Do you have an attic? What’s in it? Can I see it?” They usually said yes. Koni could be pretty convincing.
She formed a special bond with an elderly war veteran named Austin, spending countless hours listening to his life story and admiring his treasures with him. Koni meant so much to him that when he passed away, she was asked to spread his ashes at Eden Valley.
Her sense of right and wrong ran deep. When she discovered gravestones at Rustic Park in Lost Nation had been vandalized, Koni carried the broken pieces home to her dad — some of them very heavy — and made sure he contacted Benny Bentrott, who was able to get them restored. It mattered to Koni that the people buried there were respected.
In junior high and high school, Koni sang in choir, ran cross country, and played drums in the marching, pep, and jazz bands. The family’s Dodge MaxiVan — tricked out by Bob with shag carpet, CB radio, TV, 8-track and cassette players, surround sound, seating for ten, and absolutely no seat belts — became the center of countless adventures.
Koni and Keri loved filling the van with friends. They learned the hard way that 21 people was one too many when they pulled out of the Fareway parking lot in Maquoketa, busted a back shock, and sent sparks flying.
In 1984, the Steele family moved to Oxford, Iowa. At Clear Creek, Koni became manager of the Clipperettes Softball team and made lifelong friends. She also hosted a sand dune party that ended with the MaxiVan stuck in sand up to the undercarriage. Friends either helped pull it out — or Koni charmed a local farmer into doing it. She spent the rest of the night at the car wash vacuuming and washing the van. The next morning, Bob her dad opened the hood, discovered the engine encased in sand, and yelled, “KKKKOOOOONNNNNI!” She was busted.
In high school, Koni worked at Eagle’s Market in Coralville and quickly found her calling in the deli. From that moment on, the family had its first true foodie. Koni cooked for every holiday, could make potato salad for 50 as easily as for five. When John’s mom got overwhelmed at her last Thanksgiving, Koni stepped up on zero notice and saved the day.
She also took industrial arts, where she “made” a wooden jewelry box for Keri — with a lot of help from classmates. That jewelry box, now a treasured heirloom, sits here today holding Koni’s cremains.
Koni graduated from Clear Creek Amana High School in 1987 and attended Kirkwood Community College and the University of Iowa, graduating in 1994.
Koni worked as a call center trainer and teacher in both community college and corporate settings in Missouri from 1997 to 2004. During this time, Koni also served as a United Way Coordinator, helping support United Way efforts in Central Missouri. But Koni's proudest accomplishments in this era were her sons Hayden and Ethan. Both births were challenging but both boys were healthy and have grown into good young men.
Koni returned to the Kirksville house in the woods in 2004 to be a full time mom and help care for Bob and Judy.
In 2006, Koni met John Deeth on MySpace, and she decided she liked him enough that she cyber stalked his phone number. The first time she called, John was hiding in the basement of Gaslight Village during the 2006 tornado. They had their first date, with Hayden and Ethan as chaperones, at the Mark Twain Cave in Hannibal, Missouri.
John quickly fell in love with Koni’s beautiful phone voice, but long distance wouldn’t do. Koni returned to Iowa City and married John on September 14, 2007. It was a small secret wedding at the magistrates office. John’s friend Brian Flaherty was best man, sister Lori was maid of honor, and two month old nephew Owen was the only guest! John rode his bike to the wedding so Brian had to give Koni a ride home. When they got home Koni and John told the boys they were married, and they all went to hang out on the Ped Mall.
Back in Iowa City, Koni renewed many of her old high school and college friendships. Koni, John and the boys lived in the little rented house with the big backyard on Benton Street for ten years. It was the perfect size when the boys were 7 and 5, but way too small when they were 17 and 15. At Christmastime 2017 they bought their home on Little Creek Lane, and the very first thing they did was get the boys their own dog, Teddy, on Christmas Eve. As the boys got older, Teddy decided he was Mama’s dog.
Koni was also responsible for John’s turtle obsession. When Ethan wanted a turtle, she got Ginga (pronounced Jinja), and John doted on her so much that Koni and the boys decided “daddy needs his own turtle.” So one day Koni surprised John in the front yard with a little pet store box. When John asked what was in the box, she said it was a piece of chicken! But it was really Shelley the turtle.
Koni put up with all John’s repetitive jokes and long election seasons. As she became a part of the Deeth family, she learned all about Wisconsin lore, like the Fargo accent (which is real!), Ole and Lena jokes, and the history of the Green Bay Packers.
In Iowa CIty Koni worked in several call center roles. During peak COVID some of those were work at home jobs, which Teddy loved because he could be on Mama’s lap all day. She also shared many adventures with John, Hayden and Ethan. The Deeth-Steele-Cox family vacationed to Orlando in 2012, and John and Koni saw a total eclipse of the sun together on the banks of the Mississippi River in Cape Girardeau, Missouri in April 2024. Koni drove the whole way on both trips because she loved to drive and knew how easily John got distracted!
Koni was also a member of the P.E.O. Sisterhood and a volunteer for the Johnson County Democrats. Sometimes Koni would go along with John on his blogging assignments and take pictures while John wrote. She helped John manage a 750 person caucus at the IMU in 2020, and she ran the location at her old school in Tiffin in 2024.
While Koni was mostly homebound in her final months, she tallied one last proud achievement when, thanks to Ethan and Caraline, she became a grandmother to little Hazel. The big blended Deeth-Steele-Cox-Ainesworth-Cook family celebrated Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years together on Little Creek Lane this year.
Koni never gave up. Her last weeks were spent working hard toward her goal of an organ transplant. While she was unable to receive one in time, she believed in organ donation and was able to donate her eyes to the Iowa Eye Bank.
Koni wrote a poem in memory of her mother, the family has asked me to share:
When You Are With Me
When you are with me, I am home.
But I woke up this morning, without a hand to hold.
Thoughts and memories remind me,
That your love and kindness stays with me.
But when you're not here, where is my home?
These empty feelings, they say will pass, like an empty pond, once rain comes again.
It's just that, when you are here, I am home
When I woke up this morning, I was alone.
There is a beauty left, in the space you made, I can hear your sweetness echo, with the softest sound.
You said, with our breath together, we can make a hurricane of change.
With my hand in yours, there was a certain peace, even in times of pain.
I can still feel you here, even though you are gone. When you are here, I am home.
WITH ALL THE LOVE, TO YOU
Koni Steele, 2023
Yesterday (1/16/2026) was the deadline for state parties to file applications with the Democratic National Committee for an early date in the 2028 nomination calendar.
As expected, the Iowa Democratic Party filed for an early date, as they did in 2024 without success. Earlier in the week, IDP solicited statements of support from party leaders to include with the application. I replied with a statement of opposition. Since I'm skeptical that IDP passed along my thoughts, I'll share them here.
As of Friday, no bill for a presidential primary has been filed in the Iowa Legislature. I understand that Democrats are on defense and that there are many priorities. However, Democrats found time to introduce several other no-chance messaging bills in the opening week of the session.
My statement of opposition:
Dear Rules and Bylaws Committee members:
I strongly oppose the Iowa Democratic Party's application for inclusion in the carveout window. No state with a caucus process should be considered for an early date. I encourage RBC to follow the position of former President Biden, who in December 2022 said "our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process," and enact a ban on caucuses for presidential preference effective immediately for the 2028 cycle.
I have volunteered for the Johnson County, Iowa Democratic Party since my move to the state 35 years ago. I have worked professionally in election administration for our local election office for 28 years. I have assisted with the logistics of caucus organizing since the 2004 cycle, and in 2016, 2020, and 2024, I was the county party's lead organizer for the presidential caucuses. I oppose caucuses in a way that only someone who has done the work on the ground can. I have written extensively on the subject for many years and I can provide more information at whatever level of detail you wish.
There are many problems with caucuses as a process.
You are well familiar with the problems caucuses have with the inclusion of voters who cannot attend a long meeting at one time and in one place. But you may be less familiar with the severe overcrowding issues we have had in our largest and most Democratic precincts.
Instead of spreading turnout across a whole day as in an election, caucuses require all voters to be present at the same time. The number of people who want to attend a First In The Nation Caucus is larger than the capacity of the largest available public buildings. We began to exceed building capacity as long ago as 2004. The average caucus attendee in 2020 was in a caucus of 191 people, straining the capacity of a grade school gym, the largest commonly available public space. Some caucuses had turnout of 500, 700, even 900. Dividing into smaller precincts does not help, as it does not create additional public spaces.
As lead caucus organizer for our county, I can recruit more volunteers. I can train them better. What I cannot do is build buildings.
When confronted by these numbers, Iowa activists from smaller counties either a) scoff in disbelief; b) don't care, because it's OK for urban counties to suffer as long as presidential candidates visit the smallest towns; c) dismiss it as "it's only a problem in the college counties" which does not solve the problem; or d) say "high attendance is a good problem to have."
It is not a good problem to have. A three hour, 700 person caucus does active damage to our organizing efforts. You can't do "organizing" in a crowd of 700. All you can do is crowd control and anger management. People leave in disgust, and never attend a party event again until the next caucus comes around and they are forced to if they want to vote. And they invariably blame the local volunteers, who did not make the rules.
While Iowa Democrats have made some good efforts at reform, the problem of building capacity cannot be solved without a complete change to a primary election.
Chair Hart is correct when she notes: "As a practical matter, it’s important to emphasize that any change to Iowa law with respect to a state-run primary or caucus is a non-starter at the Iowa statehouse. Iowa Democrats are compelled by state law to conduct an in-person party-run presidential delegate selection process. "
However, that rings very hollow without some indication that Iowa Democrats actually WANT to move to a primary. Unfortunately, there is no solid evidence of that. The in-state discussion continues to focus on First In The Nation and not on reform.
The first ever bill for an Iowa presidential primary was introduced only in 2025, and attracted no co-sponsors. Frankly, such a bill should be supported by every Democratic legislator. Instead, our state House Minority Leader urged on statewide television that we should openly defy the DNC if we are not rewarded with an early date. (If this should happen, I urge RBC to impose the strictest possible penalties on our state, and on New Hampshire as well.)
Additionally, our platform process will also be completed this year before RBC makes its final decision. I had hoped to get our state party platform to include support for a presidential primary; instead, it says the opposite (page 15).
Given the limits of state law, Hart and IDP are to be commended for the program they developed for the 2024 cycle: 1) a caucus for party business only on a First In The Nation night. This meets the requirements of state law, which does not require a presidential vote. It only requires election of party officers. Indeed, Iowa Republicans did not have a presidential vote in the 1984, 1992 or 2004 cycles. 2) A mail in party run primary at a calendar compliant date. That process could use some improvement, but was a good first effort in what was at the time a relatively uncontested nomination contest. My hope is that IDP has a similar process for 2028.
However, such a party-run process should not be rewarded or encouraged with early state status, at least not until and unless Iowa Democrats start to show serious support for a state-run primary election.
The Democratic Party is the party of voting rights. It is time our nomination rules fully reflect this, with a ban on caucuses.
I am happy to discuss this issue in more detail with the committee members.
Sincerely,
John Deeth
Iowa City, Iowa
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![]() |
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.