Call me when this primary is over

Despite this being the ugliest local election cycle in my memory, I'm actually feeling pretty mellow.

Actual footage of 
Johnson County primary

For one thing, my perspective is different. When you measure events on a scale of Zero to My Wife Died, everything is very close to zero. What's the worst that can happen when the worst has already happened?

I'm also making aggressive use of the block button. If you're seeing this, you haven't pissed me off (yet). But If you are caricaturing my closest friends beyond recognition, I don't really need you. If you annoy me enough that my gears keep turning at night and I lose sleep, I would rather take care of myself. And if you are dismissing my knowledge and experience as Old And Out Of Touch, well, then, you don't deserve to hear my insights and probably won't miss them anyway.

I will note that I have had far more hassle in my life from the far left than I ever have from the right. So maybe I'm a "bad Democrat" because I can get along with, work with, and be friends with Republicans. (Those flowers from the JC Republicans at Koni's funeral meant a lot.)

Also my meds are better - and I don't owe enemies any apologies or explanations for my mental health. 

The other silver lining to this cloud is I am down 25 pounds thanks to Teddy getting more walks. 

I know the risks of living in a bubble, but maybe that's what I deserve for myself right now. Monitoring the opposition isn't worth the stress of toxic people.

 

The loudest voices are not necessarily the most numerous voices. The more people that vote, the more the true voice of the people is heard. And I'm proud of the work I do to make that voice heard.

I Don't Vote But Vote For Me

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. 

Relationships Matter

I'm an Old Straight White Guy (and feeling a lot older than I did a year and a half ago). I get that we have more than had "our turn."

 

But the faction that is most loudly arguing that the Old Straight White Guy should have simply stood down in the name of diversity is also the faction that systematically hounded the first and only Black supervisor out of office, and that chanted "racist" at the City Council when they re-elected the black gay mayor.

 

Johnson County has got enough of a history at electoral diversity that we can afford to look at candidates as individuals. No matter what happens, it's not going to be all Old Straight White Guys at the table.

Tip O'Neill was very much an Old Straight White Guy, but a lot of his lessons are timeless.

 

He loved to tell a story from his first election, running for city council when he was still a student at Boston College. His neighbor Mrs. O’Brien said: "Tom, I'm going to vote for you tomorrow even though you didn't ask me."

 

“Mrs. O'Brien, I’ve lived across the street from you for 18 years. “I cut your grass in the summer and shovel your walk in the winter. I didn’t think I had to ask for your vote.”

Mrs. O’Brien’s response: “Tom, people like to be asked.”

 

He lost that election. He never lost another one. 

 

You're not going to get someone's support if you don't ask. You might not get it even then, but at least you've begun to build a relationship.

 Relationships matter in politics and in government as well. I'm not special. I'm not a big deal. But I am one of the senior rank and file county employees, and I'm one of the more experienced party leaders. I give people straight answers, and I think I'm worth talking to.

 

I understand not everyone wants to waste their time on me. There's no way I was going to support anyone but Rod Sullivan in the District 4 race. He is one of my closest friends and has been for 30 years. He's stuck by me through literally the darkest hours of my life, including the one I'm living through now.

 

I supported V in 2022. I volunteered for their campaign and was in on several planning meetings. My thoughts and judgement were taken seriously.

 

But something seems to have happened afterwards. Because I have not had a substantive conversation about policy or politics with V since that primary. (That was long before the district bill and the map that paired V and Rod.) Did I reach out? No, I didn't. If you're the candidate, I think it's on you to reach out. (V did offer appropriate condolences after my wife's death, and I appreciated that kindness - but that's been about it.)

 

I've also been disappointed in V on some policy matters, most notably the much needed new jail. (ALL of this personality stuff is going to seem like insider trivia after that jail vote.) I am not a police abolitionist and I have family working in law enforcement. That doesn't make me a "fascist" or even a "conservative." It makes me a pragmatist. I can't look at this in any sort of "leaving my friendship aside" manner, but Rod's vision of governing is closer to my own.

 

I also got to know Guillermo during V's campaign, and then he came to work for the county. And again, something seems to have happened, because when we passed in the hallways he barely said hello. His two predecessors, Andy Johnson and Mike Hensch, regularly talked with me and with a lot of other rank and file staffers. They built relationships, not just in one office or with higher ranking staff, but across the county.

 

Relationships matter. If V and Guilllermo had maintained a relationship with me after June 2022, would it have changed my "vote?" (I live in District 5.) No, but I would have been honest about it AND I would have been less likely to write all of this.

 

I have never had a substantial conversation with Mandi Remington about anything in my life. At some point before 2023, the self-described "progressive" faction decided that I was "too establishment" and no longer worth the time of day. They decided they could win with just their own people and didn't need to talk to anyone else. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but it seems like that attitude has carried over from campaigning into governing. Only talking to your own people is something Trump and Reynolds and the legislative Republicans do. It should not be how Democrats of any faction operate.

 

I didn't know Josh Moe or Joe Reilly before they were candidates either - but they reached out and asked for my support. Mandi just wrote me off, apparently with no consideration. I don't "not like" Mandi - I just don't know her at all. There's no relationship TO damage.

 

This isn't an ideological thing. Jon Green talks to me often and I think we have a good relationship, even if we may not always be on the same side of every issue or primary. Laura Bergus was decent enough to reach out and tell me that she was changing races in 2023 and running against my friend Pauline Taylor, and I was honest and told her I was going to support Pauline. We have barely talked since, but at least we had enough of a relationship for an honest conversation, and I feel like we could still do that despite our differences.

 

Maybe I'll get called some names. Maybe some stuff from the distant past will get brought up. Maybe someone will point out my flaws again as if I don't already see them. I'm past the point of caring. Petty cruelty in a political fight on the internet can't hurt me after the year and a half I have been through. And one of the most valuable lessons of that year and a half for me has been: relationships matter.

What's A "Progressive"?

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.

Running Against The Party

I consider myself a mainstream Democrat. If you want to measure me, my contested caucus track record this century is Bradley-Dean-Obama-Clinton-Warren.

I recognize that Mainstream Democrat is not the most popular thing to be these days. But I'm a voter too, and I don't really care for it when people run within a party by running against the party - whether that's Rob Sand's "parties are bad and we should all just work together" approach, or the clenched fist Well ACTually, What Socialism Means Is approach. I want to make the party better and stronger and I don't think attacking the party helps that.

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.

We're Not On A Mission From God

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.

Assessor Fritz Kaegi took part in a live comedy sketch with actors Dan Aykroyd and Jim Belushi during the actors’ August 19 musical performance as The Blues Brothers at a fan convention in Joliet...

With Aykroyd looking on and nodding, Kaegi said: “St. Helen of the Blessed Shroud is an orphanage. It is a religious institution. It’s tax exempt.”

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."

Unelectable

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.

Showing Up Matters

Since Koni's passing, I've been going to a lot more events than I used to. Being around people keeps me positive. And I missed a lot of events in the past five or so years because I was very busy as a caretaker, first with my parents and then with Koni. 

 

Over the past five years, there have been some times where I was grateful for virtual attendance options. Zooming in meant I could skip the drive over and the drive back, and spend that time taking care of things at home. It was just easier.

 

But did I get the same things out of virtual attendance that I would have gotten out of being physically present? Of course not. The meeting was called to order, the presentations were made, the meeting was formally adjourned, the feed ended. I had none of the little conversations you have before and after the official business, none of the relationship building and maintaining, no, "hey, let's go grab a drink" opportunities. So much less of those little things that make participation a positive experience.

 

The mindset developed in our community, toward the end of peak COVID, to an almost dogmatic level, that virtual attendance was Just As Good As in-person attendance, and that disagreeing with that premise was "ableism." I watched my friend get bullied out of the county party in part because he dared to ask that question.

 

I understand some of that. Like I said, I'm just out of a long period of caregiving. I also have a somewhat hidden disability that makes certain crowd situations, especially where there's conflict or hostility, hard (one of the many, many reasons I prefer a presidential primary over a caucus, but that's another story). We shouldn't abandon virtual options for the general public or rank and file members.

 

But leaders, in an organization or in government, have a different level of responsibility. If you're taking on a leadership role or an elected job, you owe it to everyone to show up and make yourself more available and more accessible - to everyone, not just "your" people. Yes, it's less convenient. But you made that choice when you chose to be a leader.

Nothing is an absolute, and there's good reasons and excuses. As a Sometimes thing, virtual attendance can be a useful tool.

 

There are a lot of very experienced rank and file staffers in our local government. We're the institutional memory. We know about a lot of things that aren't in our job description or even in our department. If you get to know us, you'll learn a lot.

 

But when your default mode is Virtual Is Just As Good, when you miss out on all those countless hallway interactions and opportunities for one on one conversations with the public because you're literally phoning it in, are you really doing the same job?