John Deeth Blog

Call me when this primary is over

2026-05-16T22:40:57.473-05:00

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

2026-05-10T16:19:00.002-05:00

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

2026-04-12T19:08:00.003-05:00

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"?

2026-04-04T18:54:00.001-05:00

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

2026-03-30T18:13:00.009-05:00

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

2026-03-18T19:00:00.060-05:00

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

2026-03-13T19:29:00.001-05:00

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

2026-03-08T19:28:00.001-05:00

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?

Koni Steele 1968-2026

2026-01-31T15:52:00.003-06:00

Koni Sue Steele, 57, of Iowa City, passed away on January 23, 2026, at University of Iowa Health Care while awaiting approval for an organ transplant.

Koni will be missed by her husband John Deeth, their sons Hayden Cox and Ethan Cox, Ethan’s fiancee, Caraline Ainesworth and granddaughter Hazel Cox, her sisters Keri Steele and Lori Steele, Lori’s husband, Mickey Cook, nephew Owen Cook, and her beloved dog Teddy. She was preceded in death by her parents Bob and Judy Steele and many other relatives in the Steele and Zeigler families.

Koni has been cremated per her wishes. Burial will be alongside her parents at Pratt Cemetery near Novinger, Missouri in the spring.

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

Open Letter To DNC Rules And Bylaws

2026-01-17T08:38:00.001-06:00

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

The Family Conversation Splits Down The Middle

2025-12-07T13:23:00.004-06:00

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.

The Cosplay Revolution At The Gates

2025-11-21T07:10:00.001-06:00

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

2025-11-15T11:42:00.001-06:00

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

2025-11-09T13:16:00.002-06:00

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.

Free speech rally October 1

2025-09-30T07:30:00.000-05:00

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

2025-09-09T07:04:00.000-05:00

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

2025-08-30T07:00:00.002-05:00

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

Chuck Deeth 1934-2025

2025-08-21T23:29:00.001-05:00

Charles Deeth, 91, of Onalaska, Wisconsin passed away at his home on August 21, 2025.

Chuck was born on April 4, 1934, and graduated from Ashland High School in 1952. He married Carmon Hancock on August 10, 1957, and they spent sixty-seven years together until her passing in 2024.

Chuck devoted thirty-eight years of his life to athletics and education. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse in 1956 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education. He taught in the Iola-Scandinavia School District for five years. In 1961, Chuck moved to Onalaska where he taught physical education, health, science, drafting and driver’s education. One year, he even drove the school bus.

Overall, Chuck coached 27 years of football, 20 years of basketball, 12 years of baseball, 5 years of tennis, and one season of track. He coached a total of 65 different seasons of one sport or another.

In 1973, Chuck took over as Activities Director and was in that position for the next 21 years until his retirement. Chuck was awarded the Wisconsin Athletic Directors Association LeRoy “Andy” Anderson Award for dedication, time, effort, and willingness to assist others; and WADA District III Athletic Director of the year in 1984. Upon his retirement in 1994, the School District of Onalaska dedicated the field house in his honor.

Chuck remained active in retirement, golfing and fishing well into his 80s, and was always a devoted fan of the Hilltoppers, Eagles, Badgers, Brewers, Bucks and Packers.
Chuck will be missed by his brother Jim, his sons John (Koni Steele), Brian (Michelle) and Jeff (Lauren), his grandchildren, and countless friends, students and players.

Services will be at First Lutheran Church in Onalaska, on Wednesday, August 27, with visitation at 10:00 and services at 11:00.

We can build it, but they won't come

2025-07-08T15:15:00.001-05:00

(First published at Bleeding Heartland)

It’s been two and a half years now since the Democratic National Committee upended the traditional presidential nomination calendar and removed Iowa from its long time place as the first contest. As an advocate for an Iowa presidential primary, I was overjoyed when the sitting Democratic president of the United States wrote, “Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process.”

I had hoped that October 2023 would mark the acceptance stage of the grieving process. That month the Iowa Democratic Party announced a two-stage plan for 2024: an early caucus for party business only, to meet the letter of state law (which does not require a presidential vote at the caucus), and a later, mail-in party run primary to comply with the DNC’s delegate selection calendar. I may or may not have been the first to come up with that plan, but no matter. It was the only way to legally check both of those boxes.

Unfortunately, some of Iowa’s Democratic leaders just don’t know how to say goodbye.

The latest denial came from Iowa House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, during an appearance on “Iowa Press” in late June. Meyer has now joined a few other bitter-enders in arguing that Iowa Democrats should simply ignore the DNC’s official calendar in 2028 and schedule our caucuses first.

Meyer, and others who take the Defy The DNC stance, are not leading. They are giving party activists who are worried about the post-First future false hope that the glory days are coming back. Going rogue will not get us back the perks and privileges of First In The Nation, and it will not address the problems with the caucus process.

Most Iowans who say “we need the caucuses back” are not talking about caucuses at all. They are talking about First. They think First and The Caucuses are the same thing, because they’ve been taught that our early position was entirely dependent on having a caucus rather than a primary.

The short version of the history is that, after a couple cycles of game playing, Iowa and New Hampshire reached a detente in the 1980s by both claiming to be first. Iowa would be the first caucus and New Hampshire the first primary.

New Hampshire spent the next 40 years threatening to move their primary ahead of us and policing Iowa’s caucus process to make sure it did not resemble an election, without giving us much guidance as to what that meant. As rooms got more crowded and voters begged for absentee ballots, Iowa Democratic leaders shrugged their shoulders and said that was impossible because “New Hampshire won’t like it.”

Then Iowa ran into a string of bad luck that exposed the well-intentioned but amateur nature of the caucuses. After a Republican near-tie in 2012, Democrats had a de facto tie in 2016. Then in 2020 the results process melted down entirely. It doesn’t matter Who Really Broke The App; Iowa got the blame.

So in late 2022, the DNC announced a new calendar that had New Hampshire as the third state and removed Iowa from the early state window.

Iowa Democrats had a measured but long-delayed response. They appeared to be cooperative, playing a long game for a shot to get an early state date again in a future cycle. (With incumbent Joe Biden facing no serious opposition for the nomination, the stakes were low in 2024.)

New Hampshire took the opposite approach, immediately and loudly screaming that no matter what the DNC said, New Hampshire would vote first. Which they did. (Sort of; see below.)

Which brings us back to Brian Meyer on Iowa Press, saying Iowa Democrats should take that defiant stance for 2028.

When people say “we need the caucuses back,” they mean they want the candidate visits to the smallest towns, the national press attention, the exciting multi-candidate events, the outside money and organizers and big names. I did that stuff. It was fun. It may have helped us organize the state.

But that has nothing to do with the caucuses. Those things are about First. Those things are about the year before.

When I say “the caucuses” I am talking about the night of: the actual Monday night meetings and the months of arrangements, preparation and training it takes to pull them off—effort that is required of the county parties, not the state party. The work to get that done has grown much more difficult in recent cycles, and some of the problems are insurmountable. Unfortunately, too many Iowa Democrats ignore those problems because of the addiction to First, and they’re willing to ignore and sacrifice voters who can’t attend.

But going rogue will not get us back the privileges of First.

DNC rules require (page 20) that states that are non-compliant with the DNC calendar are automatically penalized 50 percent of their delegates, and that candidates cannot earn delegates in non-compliant states. The penalties on candidates who campaign in non-compliant states could get even more draconian.

Sure, a candidate might want a publicity bump from a rogue Iowa contest. But is that worth getting kicked out of DNC sanctioned debates? Are candidates willing to get locked out of the party’s online VAN database that is the lifeblood of organizing just to show up at an Iowa Democratic Party event?

The Screw The DNC crowd scoffs at those penalties and loves to point out, as Meyer did, that “New Hampshire moved forward” in 2024. “They did what they needed to do and what they wanted to do. (The DNC) still seated those delegates. At the end of the day, we need to do what we need to do. And I propose that we just move forward with our caucuses as normal.”

It is true that New Hampshire Democrats did vote in an official state-run primary on January 23, 2024, ahead of any other state and ahead of their assigned slot. It’s also true that unlike Iowa, New Hampshire has two Democratic senators, two Democratic representatives, and is still legitimately a swing state.

But there were consequences for New Hampshire. And they didn’t really vote on January 23.

Even leaving aside the questions about his health, it was unlikely that Biden would have run an extensive in-person primary campaign in New Hampshire or any state. Incumbents who face only fringe opposition never do. But the rules against candidates campaigning in states that are not in compliance with the DNC nomination calendar are strict and comprehensive:

“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.

So New Hampshire got away with voting first… but they didn’t really get First. New Hampshire saw no surrogate speakers or organizers. They didn’t even have Biden on the ballot. There was an awkward dance of New Hampshire pols trying to get people to write Biden in without breaking any of the rules, and while still trying to send a message that they resented that Biden had taken First away. They did good enough and got him 64 percent. It was a stubborn and empty victory.

But it wasn’t good enough for the DNC Rules And Bylaws Committee, which refused to allocate delegates based on the January 23 result.

Here’s the part you almost certainly don’t know: New Hampshire caved. They kept as quiet about it as possible because it would have undercut their posture of defiant bluster. But in order to get their delegates seated, the New Hampshire Democratic Party had to conduct a party-run primary (exactly what the Iowa Democrats did!) on April 27. The event was scarcely publicized and only a handful of party activists participated.

If Iowa Democrats defy the DNC to go first in 2028, there will be none of the historic perks of First as we knew it. There will be none of the excitement, none of the big events, none of the money, none of the press. We can build it, but they won’t come.

That’s the biggest punishment, but we could still be penalized at the convention. If the DNC wants to make an example of any state for breaking the calendar, Iowa is a sitting duck. Tom Harkin helped protect First for decades, but we no longer have him or any federal elected Democrats. The DNC doesn’t like that Iowa is red and getting redder, they don’t like our lack of diversity, they don’t like 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. I can very easily see the DNC tossing Iowa’s entire delegation to send a message.

So Meyer’s proposal definitely gets us no candidates visiting the state and very possibly gets us no seats at the national convention. And it does nothing to fix the outdated caucus process.

The biggest problem with the caucuses was not the botched 2020 results. It’s not even that the caucuses are not accessible to people who can’t or won’t attend at the scheduled time. Those are big problems, but they can potentially be fixed.

The biggest problem is that in the best Democratic precincts, attendance has overgrown the capacity of the largest available public buildings. It’s not a question of getting a bigger room—bigger rooms do not exist. I can recruit volunteers better, I can train people better—but I can’t build buildings.

Usually events deal with limited capacity by setting an attendance cap—they sell tickets. But the caucuses aren’t the Taylor Swift tour: you have a legal right to attend. And you can’t add more tour dates to an election (despite the old timers who say “the caucuses aren’t an election,” the public has decided otherwise). So either you cram tighter, or you come up with a way to get some people out of the room while still letting them participate.

Meyer acknowledged the problem of people not being able to attend, and alluded to some sort of absentee process. Which is great—except now you’re back to the “New Hampshire won’t like it” issue. And my sense is that the people who want to defy the DNC on the caucus date and go back to the old system will also be willing to go back to the old system of excluding people who can’t attend. It’s too bad, but it’s worth it for First, right?

The biggest change Meyer suggests is getting rid of the least popular feature of the caucuses, the long realignment period where supporters of weaker candidates can switch to a second choice (and where, historically, other delegate math games got played). IDP was already moving in that direction with minor reforms in 2020. Meyer wants to have the type of caucus Iowa Republicans have always had: a simple straw poll at the beginning. After that, people not interested in party business can leave.

Fair enough. Literally everyone I have ever talked to who has attended both a Democratic and a Republican caucus prefers the Republican system.

But while that might speed the caucus along, it does nothing to reduce overcrowding. You still have to park everybody, often many blocks away. You still have to sign everyone in and update a lot of voter registrations. You still have to get everyone into one room to get started. So in a mega-precinct, you still need that 800 person room. You just need it for, say, 90 minutes rather than three hours.

There needs to be a lot more reform to make the rooms less crowded. What if you start letting people sign in, vote, and leave before the meeting starts? That’ll spread out the sign-in crunch and rotate more people through the parking spaces, and allow for somewhat smaller rooms.

So 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?

Look, if we’re going to defy the DNC and have a fight with New Hampshire anyway, why not just go all the way and have a primary?

This year, State Representative Dave Jacoby of Coralville introduced the first ever bill for an Iowa presidential primary. It went nowhere, and we are a long way from seeing a primary bill pass. Iowa Republicans are still First on their party’s calendar, don’t really care much about the people who are unable to attend, and are united in opposition to any changes. If anything, they want to force Democrats back into the old stand in the corner to vote system. And they love seeing us squirm as we try to comply with both state law and DNC rules.

Realistically, the compromise of 2024, with an early caucus for party business and a later party run primary, is the best Iowa Democrats can do for now. But more Democratic leaders should join Jacoby in supporting a primary, to send the message to activists that it’s time to accept reality, and to let the national party know that Iowa Democrats are ready to live the values of voting rights that we’re supposed to stand for. If we do that, and if we win some elections in 2026, then maybe we can start talking seriously about an official spot in the early states again.

Despite my long-windedness, the caucuses and First are far from the biggest problems Iowa Democrats face. They’re just my piece of the big picture. Any time spent on fighting for First now is just a distraction from the more important work of rebuilding our party and winning elections. It’s long past time to move on.

Original Sin

2025-05-14T21:01:00.000-05:00

In the summer of 2007 I was professionally blogging and Joe Biden was an asterisk in the polls. I watched him at Iowa City's Ped Mall & Hamburg Inn taking all questions from all comers for 2 ½ hours straight. He could give a 10 minute answer full of detail and nuance on any subject.

For 8 years I felt deeply reassured that, God forbid, anything should happen to President Obama, Vice President Biden was ready to take over on Day One.

In the fall of 2020 I thought Biden's goodness and decency were the perfect antidote to the vile years of Trump.

In the summer of 2023, I honestly believed, or wanted very badly to believe, that Joe Biden was still that man. I'm responsible for that.

One of our nation's great tragedies is that Joe Biden did not get his opportunity to serve as President until it was too late. 😢

Carmon Deeth 1935-2024

2024-12-22T23:37:00.001-06:00

Carmon Deeth, 89, of Onalaska, Wisconsin, passed away at her home, with her family at her side, on December 22, 2024.

Carmon was born September 11, 1935, and graduated from West Salem High School in 1953. After graduating from UW-La Crosse in 1957, she married Charles Deeth on August 10, 1957.

Carmon spent her career as an elementary school teacher, retiring from the Holmen School District in 1997. While teaching, she returned to school and earned her masters in education in 1988.

Carmon was active in her retirement with artwork, travel, church circles, antiquing and bridge clubs.

Carmon will be missed by Chuck, her husband of 67 years, her sons John (Koni Steele), Brian (Michelle) and Jeff (Lauren), her grandchildren, and her many friends.

Services will be Thursday, December 26 at First Lutheran Church in Onalaska, with visitation at 10 a.m. and services at 11 a.m.

Some Thoughts On Early Voting

2024-10-19T10:00:00.003-05:00

When Iowa Republican legislators shortened the voting window from 40 days to 20, one of the arguments they made was "people shouldn't vote before the debates."

The one and only Harris-Trump debate was September 10. I emailed the first ballots to overseas voters on September 14. Why not let the rest of us start voting? I

t's clear the shorter window did NOT accomplish the goal of shifting people's voting plans away from the "exceptional" early voting and toward the "normal" Election Day voting. Even the Republicans get that - they stepped up their vote by mail program this year.

Today at the Coralville Library we had 871 voters- our biggest site ever that did not involve how old you had to be to get into a bar, and our 3rd biggest overall.

(Long ago I discussed the statistical anomalies of our 2010 general election: https://jdeeth.blogspot.com/.../number-crunching-part-2... )

All the shorter voting period has accomplished is cramming the same* amount of work into half the time. All that does is make the line twice as long.

* MORE than twice the work, really. The ban on pre-filled forms, even for in person early voting, has increased the error rate. We spend an insane amount of time chasing down the nit-pickiest problems. Actual phone call we have to make: "When you voted in the lobby yesterday, what day did you sign the form?"

It's going to take majorities to fix this.

Iowa Democratic caucus a limited success—but much work remains

2024-03-07T10:18:00.003-06:00

(Oringinally published at Bleeding Heartland)

While I was never going to be satisfied with the Iowa Democratic Party’s first effort at a party-run primary (“mail-in caucus” in IDP’s language), which wrapped up March 5 with a results announcement, there were at least some successes.

In fairness, with Iowa Republicans still First In The Nation on their side and opposed to any substantive changes to accommodate the new calendar that removed Iowa from the early Democratic states, IDP didn’t have many realistic options other than what they did: a January 15 in-person caucus for party business only to comply with state law, and a later mail-in process to comply with Democratic National Committee rules.

I recommended that plan myself long before IDP implemented it.

For the first time in three cycles, the IDP produced results promptly and without controversy, though the format was sub-optimal and did not include the all-important percentages used to calculate delegate counts. (At this writing it appears non-Biden groups are not viable anywhere, and late arriving ballots in the next few days are unlikely to change that.)

The turnout of 12,193 as of March 6, while low, is in the same general ballpark as the in-person attendance during Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election year caucus. And we got about one hour of media attention at the beginning of Super Tuesday coverage, before polls closed in states that were voting in person.

So as a dry run in a more or less uncontested year, not bad. NASA didn’t land their first rocket on the moon either—they had to get John Glenn into orbit first. But as a critic, and as someone who’s worked on a lot of caucuses and elections, I’m focused on the Room For Improvement side of the ledger. What did we learn and how can we make it better?

First and most importantly:

We should have accepted long ago that our role as an early state is over.

I would have felt better about all this had IDP leadership immediately accepted the reality that Iowa is no longer an early state, and started working toward both a post-First era of party building and a presidential primary run by county auditors.

IDP chair Rita Hart is in a bind between rank and file activists like me who care more about HOW Iowa votes than WHEN we vote, and old guard stalwarts who think Iowa should have defied the Democratic National Committee the way New Hampshire did and held an old fashioned Stand In The Corner To Vote caucus on January 15 anyway.

But a system that required in person attendance at a long meeting was indefensible in the party of voting rights, and the summer 2022 proposal to change to the mail-in system was too little too late for a DNC that was already hostile to Iowa’s demographics and past errors.

Iowa Democrats should have thrown in the towel in December 2022, the moment President Joe Biden named five other states as the early states and said caucuses should no longer be part of the Democratic Party’s nominating process. State Representative Ross Wilburn, then near the end of his term as IDP chair, should have loudly and publicly said “it’s over,” loudly and privately told the Des Moines donor class the same, and introduced a presidential primary bill on Day One of the 2023 session, with every legislative Democrat as a co-sponsor.

Instead, under both Wilburn and Hart, we had ten months of secrecy and denial—almost certainly because of back stage maneuvering to try to squeeze into the early states after Georgia Democrats took themselves out of the running due to lack of cooperation from Georgia Republicans. And once IDP leaders finally accepted being out of the early states for 2024 as a fait accompli, everything about the way they “accepted” it indicated that they still consider it just a temporary setback and that they intend to get early state status back in 2028.

Iowa cannot change its old and white demographics, and that alone may be too much to ever overcome in a party that values diversity. But we can try to change our process and our electoral results. We do not even deserve to be considered as an early state till we have an auditor-run primary and until we win some elections. Those items, rather than a futile fight for First, should be our priorities.

While we eventually complied with the rules, we should have done so much sooner. The Biden campaign suffered as a result.

The DNC has strict rules about campaigning in states that are not in compliance with the nomination calendar. That’s why, when New Hampshire refused to go along with its assigned date, Biden had to run there as a write-in candidate. He made the new rules, and he followed them. Iowa’s “contest date”—the results release on Tuesday—was not in compliance with the DNC rules until October.

Biden was never going to campaign here the way he did as a non-incumbent—but the strict rules mean even surrogates and local volunteers had their hands tied. Last summer, while a score of Republican candidates barnstormed the state, and while rogue Democrats Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips stood on the State Fair Soapbox, local party activists could barely utter the name “Biden.” We had to worry about whether carrying a Biden sign in a parade would get the president in trouble with his own rules.

Biden’s critics had the state to themselves for months, and the president’s campaign can’t get those months back.

New Hampshire needs to be thrown out of the national convention.

For a couple of ridiculous weeks, DNC chair Jaime Harrison insisted on calling his native South Carolina “First In The Nation,” emphasizing their newly assigned slot on the calendar even after New Hampshire had voted. I get that South Carolina was excited about their new role. But they very objectively were not First. New Hampshire was.

New Hampshire was encouraged, even begged, to do more or less what we did—make the state run primary a non-binding “beauty contest” to comply with state law in a Republican controlled state, and hold a party-run process later to allocate national delegates to comply with the DNC calendar.

They refused. They don’t care about a 50 percent reduction in delegates, and they don’t care about Biden staying off the ballot. They care about voting First, and they won the only battle they cared about. The national press played along with countless “Biden is in trouble in New Hampshire” reports (he won with 64 percent as a write-in).

We did it way too late, with way too much reluctance, and we are still in denial, but in the end Iowa did follow the DNC rules. New Hampshire did not. South Carolina leaders were conciliatory after their voting date, arguing that New Hampshire should be seated at the convention. I’m less generous. Our state got punished pretty significantly for the results failure of 2020, which was unintentional (the finger pointing over Who Broke The App will never end). New Hampshire broke the rules on purpose.

The DNC will never be able to set state law, but they need to set an example to discourage other states, and the only way to set that example is to completely bar New Hampshire from the convention. Ooh, but what if it costs us the state in November? Only the 20 party bigwigs who would have been delegates will care, and they’re the exact people who need the lesson.

The IDP still owes us some explanations.

Why did Iowa Democrats stall on setting our contest date from December 2022 until October 2023? I know the answer—we were lobbying for the Georgia slot—but someone needs to be honest about that.

How much was spent on the outside consultants who managed the vote, when we have 99 auditors who know how to count? Every dollar spent on this party-run primary is a dollar that won’t be spent on a tough legislative race.

It would have been a worst-case option, but given the shaky state of IDP finances, and the relatively low turnout, it might have been reasonable to forego a vote entirely and just have had the state central committee select a delegate slate. Yes, that’s an insider process, but so is a party-run primary that only a little bit bigger circle of insiders know about.

Why were the first ballots sent out more than two weeks after the announced January 12 date?

How were requests managed to make sure that voters did not attend Republican caucuses on January 15, change party again before the February 19 deadline, and request a Democratic ballot? There was a lot of emphasis that this was illegal, but only vague explanations of what would be done to prevent it. (The only fail-safe ways would be to share valuable and proprietary caucus attendance lists with the Republicans, which is unlikely—or to have a government-run primary.)

What about claims from multiple voters that they never received their ballots? That may have been user error with the online request process—but why was there no system for voters to confirm that requests had been accepted and that ballots had been sent or received?

The language was part of the problem.

Why did the terms “preference card” and “mail-in caucus” annoy me so much? Because the language is part of the denial.

After the 2016 de facto dead heat in Iowa, the DNC adopted a rule saying caucus states had to include a recountable document – since you can’t re-count the heads when they are no longer in the room.

In discussions with New Hampshire, IDP learned that the word “ballot,” and especially the process of qualifying for a ballot, were key elements of what the New Hampshire Secretary of state considered the difference between a “caucus” and an “election.” So IDP came up with the term “presidential preference card” (NOT a “ballot”) and made them all write-in (thus there was no process to qualify).

In this cycle, with Iowa Democrats officially scheduled after New Hampshire, we should no longer care if the term “ballot” triggers them. A little common-sense language would have gone a long way toward convincing critics that IDP really is committed to a new post-First era.

Yet IDP insisted on calling something that any reasonable person would call a “ballot” a “preference card” instead, and called their mail-in voting process a “caucus.” That sent the message that they consider 2024 a temporary setback and that the “natural order” will be restored in 2028. At least this time they put candidates’ names on the “preference cards.”

The media was part of the problem.

With few exceptions, state journalists uncritically parroted IDP’s Newspeak terms “preference card” and “mail in caucus” in the few stories that publicized the process.

Granted, process stories aren’t as fun as chasing candidates. The state press and IDP could do little about the fact that Biden was not going to actively campaign here. In 2012, Barack Obama wasn’t here much either—but he had a large campaign presence in Iowa, which was still a swing state. In 2024, Iowa is about electoral vote 420 on Biden’s depth chart.

So there wasn’t much Democratic news to report. But the stories that did run tended to be too late and too vague—“Deadline to request preference card is today” was a typical story. Confused voters would call their auditor the next day (as the deadline fell on President’s Day) only to be told it was too late and there was no way to vote in person. And when the “preference cards due today” stories landed, auditor staffers like me had to field phone calls from voters standing outside their polling places wondering why they weren’t open.

It didn’t help that there was publicity, including two tweets from Vice President Kamala Harris’s account, listing Iowa as a Super Tuesday state and urging people to go out and vote.

The party needs a better publicity plan.

This may be the most realistic place to expect improvement.

If we will be stuck with this hybrid process for the future, which seems likely, Iowa Democrats need to find better ways to get the word out and boost turnout. The public expectation—a mass mailing to all registered Democrats—is too expensive for a financially challenged party. But the online request process required voters to already be kind of in the know about the inner workings of the party, and confused many older voters. And, again, there was no confirmation email to indicate the request had been successfully completed.

Maybe a contested nomination process will take care of the publicity. We will never again see the kind of candidate resources we saw back in the days of First, but even as a Super Tuesday state we’ll see more than the nothing we saw this cycle.

Democratic legislators need to introduce a primary bill.

The lack of a primary bill makes it look like Iowa Democrats are more committed to the donor class (who feel they have a constitutional right to personal phone calls from presidential candidates) than to our role as the party of voter rights.

We are past the “funnel” deadline for the 2024 legislative session, but there is still time to offer amendments, and there are still election bills pending. I know it won’t pass, and there are of course many other priorities this session. Yet legislators had time this week to introduce two dozen troll amendments to the Don’t Tread On Me license plate bill.

A primary bill is still valuable for the purposes of discussion, and to show national critics that Iowa Democrats are committed to change. The sooner the Iowa Democratic Party truly lets go of its early state fantasies, the sooner we can start undoing the damage Republicans are inflicting on our state.

Ten months of denial and secrecy over

2023-10-07T20:33:00.004-05:00

(Originally published at Bleeding Heartland)

"The Iowa Democratic Caucuses As We Knew Them Are Finally Dead," reads the Friday headline at New York.

The truth is, The Iowa Democratic Caucuses As We Knew Them died on December 1, 2022. That night the incumbent Democratic President of the United States said "Our party should no longer allow caucuses as part of our nominating process," and announced a calendar of five early states that did not include Iowa - a decision quickly ratified by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.

What followed was ten months of denial and secrecy by the Iowa Democratic Party which finally ended Friday with an announcement that the party would release the results of the "mail-in caucus presidential preference" on March 5, Super Tuesday, the earliest date allowed by the DNC.

And after all that delay, the final plan looks a lot like what I recommended on December 10: hold the caucus meeting on the same night as the Republicans (which turned out to be January 15, 2024) but only conduct the legally required business of electing precinct level officers and uncommitted delegates. Then after the caucus, at a later date that was compliant with the DNC calendar, we could conduct the mail-in presidential vote.

That's exactly what IDP is going to do, according to an email sent to "SCC Members, Leaders, and Friends" just three minutes before the Friday press conference, which is basically no different that reading it in the Des Moines Register.

What took so long? No one really knows, because IDP leadership was very tight-lipped about the "vigorous and lengthy negotiations with the DNC" from December till this week. Rank and file Democrats deserve to know the details of that. I have a strong opinion but no evidence. Let's just say I think Georgia removing itself from an early Democratic state slot scheduled for February 13 or 20, because Georgia Republicans would not cooperate, was a key factor in the delay.

The entire process was too closed, too secretive, and too long. We should have been discussing how the 2024 process could and should work, in public, way back last winter, with Iowans and not with national committee members, and made the announcement in spring or early summer. That would have set expectations and reduced confusion.

The delay also made it impossible for President Biden and his supporters to start planning for the fall 2024 campaign, because of extremely strict rules against campaigning in non-calendar compliant states. We had to watch fringe candidates Marianne Williamson and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chaos agents who could care less about rules, speak unanswered at the Iowa State Fair and get free media, while local activists had to worry about whether we were allowed to dust off an old Biden-Harris 2020 sign for a parade - all because IDP refused to set a contest date.

One thing we do know, from the last minute message to the grassroots leaders, is that IDP is playing for the future. "A fight right now over the early state calendar only weakens Iowa Democrats’ future chances," said IDP Chair Rita Hart. "I have repeated reassurance from the Rules and Bylaws Committee and its co-chairs that the presidential nominating calendar discussions will once again be opened up for 2028."

DNC Member Scott Brennan is more direct: "We intend to be first in 2028." Slow down, Scott.

True, Hart and Brennan recognize an important reality: 2024 doesn't matter. It matters even less now that Kennedy is taking his ball and going home for an independent campaign. And there is a certain benefit to Iowa's somewhat cooperative approach to the DNC, as opposed to New Hampshire's defiant insistence that they will break the calendar to stay First. (If they follow through, their delegation could and should not be seated at the national convention at all.)

But this Play For 2028 approach is one more sign of denial. Treating 2024 as a temporary setback means we won't be focused on building an Iowa Democratic Party for a post-First future. We'll still be counting on the national campaigns, organizers and money to come in and do it for us, like they have for the last 50 years - just not this one cycle. And we'll be spending 2025 and 2026 distracted by the Rules And Bylaws Committee again, just like we spent 2022 and 2023.

As for this year, the Iowa Democratic Party is preparing to spend a lot of money which could be used for more important things in order to conduct a pointless vote in an uncontested renomination race, simply to prove that we have learned how to count votes after our problems in 2016 and 2020, in the hopes that if we succeed, all will be forgiven and we will be restored to our "rightful" place on the calendar. We have county auditors who can count votes, at taxpayer expense, but more on that later.

The reality is, there are no "Iowa Democrats' future chances." The whole point of the DNC calendar reform was to get rid of Iowa (and take New Hampshire down a notch). They didn't like our process, they didn't like our demographics, they didn't like our recent election results, and they didn't like our arrogant attitude that First was our birthright.

Four more years won't make us significantly less of a red state - rebuilding will take Iowa Democrats much longer than two cycles. It won't make us any less old or any less white or any less rural. And exile from the early states for one meaningless re-election cycle won't be enough punishment for a lot of corners of the party. Maybe we'll get some other small token of appreciation for behaving better than New Hampshire, but Iowa doesn't deserve to be considered for an early state slot until we get a state-run primary and until we win some elections.

For now, I need to be just a little positive and look at some details. The timeline announced Friday is as follows:

Iowa Democrats will be able to request a presidential preference card (sic) starting November 1, 2023.
Presidential preference cards (sic) will be mailed starting January 12, 2024.
Iowa Democrats will hold our in-person caucuses January 15, 2024.
The last day to request a presidential preference card (sic) is February 19, 2024.
The Iowa Democratic Party will release results of our 2024 mail-in caucus presidential preference (sic) on March 5, 2024.
Iowa Democrats will accept presidential preference cards (sic) postmarked on or before March 5, 2024.

First of all, let's use honest language. Now that we don't have to play word games with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, let's drop the stupid and confusing term "presidential preference card." It's a ballot. And it's not a "mail-in caucus presidential preference" - it's a party-run primary.

The first ballot request date, November 1, is really, really soon. It's still not clear what form those requests will take. If they're on line, accommodation will need to be made for those without computers. If they're paper, they'll need to be distributed somehow. And there are many people who will only be able to get a request form if someone prints it and mails it to them, which is an expense. Who does that - the state party or the locals?

Ballots will be mailed January 12. There is a five week overlap period when requests will be coming in and ballots will be both be coming in and going out. This overlap period includes Caucus Night. That means some people will come to the caucus with their ballots in hand and will want to turn them in. I would also expect IDP to include ballot requests in the caucus materials. That's a lot of stuff to juggle for a volunteer caucus chair and there's a risk of ballots getting misplaced. It might be better to hold off on mailing the ballots just four days, until after the caucus.

That said, many people will not trust the post office with a ballot and will want to return it in person. In earlier versions of the plan, IDP talked about county drop boxes. How will county parties be expected to manage and safeguard that? The average county chair does not have a box that's built like a tank and a 24 hour security camera like an auditor does.

The party plans to both announce results on March 5 and accept ballots postmarked March 5. That's going to mean a second set of results after caucus night to include the late arrivals. I think this is a rhetorical point. IDP wants to complain about the recent Republican driven change in state law that requires ballots to arrive before polls close on Election Day. Fine - but we'll need to set some specified cut-off date.

As for March 5, I was hoping for a different date. Iowa's results will be buried in the flood of results from both parties in other Super Tuesday states (to the extent that anyone cares about Biden 98%, Williamson 2% results). I would have preferred county convention day, March 23. This would have been a fun news handle for the county conventions (to the extent that anyone cares about Biden 98%, Williamson 2% results). But, as I expected, IDP clearly decided that the important thing was to go as soon as possible to emphasize that we really, really want to be an early state again.

Not discussed in the party release: Whether or not names will be printed on the ballots, and if so, the process to qualify. Will they be machine countable, which is way more accurate than a hand count? If not, are we going to quibble about whether "Joe" or "Biden-Harris" or "Bidin" votes will count?

So there's a lot more details to be fleshed out, and that will need to happen in less than four weeks before those requests start coming in.

In the big picture, there is good news. The most important change happened months ago, even before Iowa Democrats were demoted in the calendar. The old system where people had to stand in the corner for hours of endless headcounts and realignments, in crowds of up to 900 people, is over. Anyone who simply wants to vote for president does not need to attend a meeting at one and only one specific time and place. Since Iowa Republicans will not cooperate with an auditor-run primary election, a mail-in party run primary is as good as Democrats can do. The party of voting rights needs to contrast our improved, inclusive system with the same as it ever was Republican caucus where if you cannot attend, you cannot vote. And we should push for more.

The next legislative session starts very close to caucus night. Democratic legislators should emphasize voting rights by introducing a bill for a real, auditor-run Iowa presidential primary. It doesn't matter that Republicans won't assign it to a committee. It's a point that should be made and it's a point that will make national news. And, if you think trying to get back into the early states is important, it's a point that will help our standing with the rest of the national Democratic Party.

Thoughts on Running for Office

2023-07-13T09:37:00.002-05:00

In the wake of the special session there's been a lot of Run For Something talk. I've been that person who ran and lost a tough race no one else wanted to run. It's been a while but the fundamentals haven't changed much. I don't want to throw water on anyone or be a gatekeeper. I just have experience and advice. Some of it's hard. You can accept or reject as you like (remember, I lost)

I’m not going to talk about ideology - reasonable people disagree on the best approach - or biography – you are who you are. I’m talking about universal constants.

First off: You will probably lose. You need to be OK with that. There are a LOT of reasons to run besides winning yourself. If you can move the needle for the top of the ticket a few points in your direction, you've accomplished something and you've built for the future.

But running might not be the best thing for you, and it may be bad enough that it's better if nobody runs. Google yourself. If the first thing you find is damaging or embarrassing, know that the other side will use not only against you but against the rest of the ticket. We dodged a bullet last cycle in one area district.

Look at every social media account you've ever had all the way back to MySpace and Friendster and be prepared to answer for anything you ever posted. If you can find it, they WILL find it.

You will have to raise money. "If every Democrat in my district donates $5" is not a plan. Even if you can name the rare counter example, Magic Internet Money is not a plan. "The state party will pay for it" is not a plan. This doesn't mean "the party doesn't care about rural districts." But at some point they have to look at numbers and odds. What limited resources they have will be spent on the swing districts. Triage is cold and cruel and you will probably be triaged out like I was.

The deal is: You, personally, will have to cold call people and ask for money, starting with family, friends, and working out to party donors. You will hate this. Everyone from Joe Biden on down hates this. It's the only way.

"Money isn't the only thing." True. But without it nothing else happens. Volunteers are great but they need lit to drop, signs to put up, and something to stuff envelopes with. That's not free. You don't have to match your opponent dollar for dollar. But you have to have enough cash to be visible and credible.

"If every independent votes for me, I'll win" is not winning math. That's drawing to an inside straight. Unaffillated voters vote pretty much the same way as their neighbors who register with a party. Again, you personally winning is not the only big picture goal.

"I'll talk about the issues." You're already an idealist for taking on this tough race, and that's good. That's how it's supposed to be. That's not how it is. Your small campaign will not be able to change this.

How long have you lived in your town and been active in the community? Do people know your family? In a lot of districts this matters more than "issues." I ran a year after I moved into the district and I was VERY clearly an outsider. I was a terrible fit, but it was me or no one.

How's your job? Can you afford, professionally or economically, to take time away from work - vacation days, an unpaid leave of absence? Would you even be allowed to do that? (Yes, you have some rights, but good luck with that.) It's not fair that people who are financially better off have an advantage in politics - but it's that way with EVERYTHING.

All those tough things said, my people in the district were very grateful I did what I did, and I'm proud of it. It was a learning experience that made me better able to help other candidates. I like to think my little campaign helped Bill Clinton and Tom Harkin win Louisa County. I made some long term friends. And some of the people who helped me went on to bigger and better things.

I'll end on a couple positive recommendations.

You should spend as much of your time as possible doing the things that only you can do. That means talking to voters and it means the lion's share of the money asking. It also means your Human Being Stuff - being a partner/parent/adult child, your day job, and your other personal stuff that can't be delegated. But everything, on the campaign side and personal side, should be delegated when possible. Candidate spouses are the real heroes.

Finally, be yourself. Not everybody is going to like you. But everyone hates a phony.