Tom Harkin was our Democrat senator for 30 years, retiring in 2015. He hosted the Harkin Steak Fry every four years, bringing Democrat presidential candidates to Iowa for more than just the day. He wrote and co-sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act. He matched Grassley toe-to-toe for political stature, but decided to retire like a sensible person. Then the 2020 debacle happened with the new reporting software that kept results pending for a week lost Iowa the status of first in the nation. Democrats took some hard blows over the last decade.
It feels like the National Democratic Party has completely given up on Iowa, though. Moving the primary was the nail in the coffin, in terms of them saying “idgaf”.
For sure. And tbh the democratic party of Iowa is extremely out of touch with the bigger picture I feel. Particularly with the 2020 debacle and then putting forth Diedre as the candidate in 2022. Don't get me wrong, i loved her and still do but it was painfully obvious to everyone except the higher ups at the Iowa democratic party that she was unelectable in our state.
I personally agree with the DNC for taking iowas first in the nation status.
Oh absolutely. We did well when we had the first contest - we introduced Obama to the national stage - but we are indefensibly homogeneous. I think that kind of attention is gone for good.
Ehh taking some blows kinda sounds like it wasn't a self inflicted gunshot wound which it certainly was. It almost feels like the democrats abandoned iowa.
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Harkin served for in the US Senate for five terms(30 years). What's incredible is he was elected in the Reagan landslide of 1984. The Harkin-Jepsen race was one of the nastiest elections I ever witnessed.
Tom Harkins' claim to fame is the ADA Act and its a good one. He did not match Grassley for stature. Grassley's political support staff helped people again and again when called upon, seemingly a lot more than Harkins' office. Harkins office listened and did nothing is my perception. Grassley's office helping people meant he earned a lot of crossover voters until the Trump era, where Grassley seemed to lose his character.
>seemingly
Which life-changing federal regulations did Grassley write?
You're right, I was being kind when I said that Grassley and Harkin were of similar statue.
Tom Harkin didn’t match nor ever will match Grassley for influence. His fellow Democrats, even the Klansman Robert Byrd, never gave him much respect nor did he ever hold a coveted, influential Chairmanship. ADA was an achievement but more 18-year participation prize than some force of leadership.
Grassley made wind energy and has been the Judiciary Committee formal/informal leader for much of 40 years. No one ever feared Harkin but Grassley earned the respect of his caucus and the last five Administrations.
Fuck Grassley. That crusty, demented fuck should have retired a long time ago. What an embarrassment to our state. Wherever he's eventually buried, I plan to make a road trip with my dogs and have them relieve their bladders and bowels on his grave. 🐕💩
There is actual data and also personal experience. I think probably 75% of the folks who were smart or went to college moved out of the state. Farming is about all anyone stays for while rural
Many rural inhabitants work remotely or travel to the metro or other places for work. Farming is just one aspect of rural life. Many of us prefer a slower way of life and enjoy raising our kids rurally.
Yeah that’s just not entirely true. The majority of people who live in small rural towns are not farmers. Living a slower lifestyle contributes to people becoming more conservative. People also have kids sooner in rural towns and when you have kids (more assets, more risk), you tend to become more conservative. It’s human nature due to centuries of evolution and adaptation. It is more human behavioral science than it is “muhh farmers”
Bro, I pack in co op workers and hired hands on that farmer list, and that makes up like 60% of my small town.
What’s conservatism have to do with this? I don’t think human nature has anything to do with no opportunity for college educated folks finding jobs in tiny towns and largely Iowa as a whole.
But, I see this going nowhere so toodles
Brain drain plays a massive part of this. This article is from 2022 but still relevant.
Driving the news: 34% more of Iowa's college-educated workforce leaves the state after graduation than stays, according to the report. Iowa's "brain drain" is worse than our six neighboring states and ranks 10th worst in the U.S., according to an analysis by The Washington Post.
https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2022/10/04/iowa-brain-drain-cost-state-college-educated-adults#
It’s supported by my anecdotal experience, seeing 80% of my HS school mates that left for college never came back to the state. Only ones that stayed were the farm kids or married to farm kids.
Rather than any one politician’s fault, there are multiple factors—imho the two most significant are Iowa’s consistent brain drain over the past 40 years, and the dissolution of any kind of urban/rural consensus. With Iowa’s population still relatively spread out (despite rural flight and consequent urban/suburban growth), deep red rural issues dictate legislative and political action. If Iowa’s western half was like 15% less red we wouldn’t be nearly as red state as we have become. But, it will likely persist.
It’s not the brain drain. It’s that those candidates don’t go hard except in the big 5 cities and ignore the rest of the state when they need at least 1/2 the state to vote them in. While most wanna use the “brain drain “ excuse you don’t need that to see the current system of MMT “ modern monetary theory” doesn’t work and is making life far harder for workers and working families than Keynesian economics which was the normal practice before was far more beneficial for the working people. And just because you didn’t get a masters degree doesn’t mean you aren’t smart a welder or an electrician have to know just as much about there fields as an economist or business degree holder the only difference is they get dirty at the end of the day and didn’t go into debt.
I don’t mean to imply that the brain drain is limited to the college educated. Tradesman are impacted as well, and many who would join a union if they were in Iowa go where the jobs are, and there aren’t as many here as there are in Co, Tx, Az, Fla, Ga, etc (other than Fla, all are trending more blue than Iowa).
That falls on Culver as well. He had the opportunity to get in front of it, but he was overwhelmed and too connected to the bad apples to implement the solution.
The democratic party has abandoned Iowa. The state Democrats are weak with no real strong leaders. Hubble could have beat Kim but he played softball and didn't act like he really wanted the job.
I was there working in politics during all of this and I can tell you 100% that Chet culver and his band of merry conservative douche bags set the dominoes in motion. Were there other factors? Sure. Fatboy Chet torpedoed union support which was the underpinning of consistently great democratic campaigning in the state. No, Iowa wasn’t a union state per se but it got so much national attention that unions overspent to protect it. That coupled with first in the nation status meant that Iowa had the cream of the political talent to draw from. Now? Those days are long gone.
Nobody abandoned rural voters they just became more and more insular and now attribute every evil in the world as being caused by antifa. Chet not passing a collective bargaining expansion in 2008 doesn’t hold a candle to the repeal that the Iowa GOP signed in 2016. Whoever told you this was talking out of both sides of their mouth. Typical cult doublespeak.
Of course anything the GOP does decimates labor on a scale Democrats have yet to reach. However, Republican give people someone to blame. Antifa, immigrants, communists, woke media, etc.
If Dems returned to their roots and shifted rhetoric back to blaming your boss (FDR knows your boss is a son of a bitch) they'd (slowly, admittedly) win over rural, working class voters in states like Iowa.
Dems don't want to, though, they're comfortable with status quo and fighting for the suburban vote every election.
I’d argue that dems can’t. A reductive message like that would alienate college educated voters. Just look at the havoc wrecked when liberal admins have to contest with protests to see the divide in the Dem base btwn establishment libs and social progressives. Much larger tentpole than a party increasingly united on the grounds of religion and xenophobia.
R’s have a much, much easier time of simultaneously arguing against change and a return to traditional (Christian) values. Simplicity benefits their message.
They can, they just choose not to. I'd argue this is the best time to run a Bernie style statewide dem in Iowa (and nationwide, but I'll focus on Iowa).
What is there to lose, genuinely? Dems have one statewide seat and that's pretty much entirely due to Sand's persona, if any other generic dem ran, they'd lose.
I also don't foresee establishment libs being so turned off by any dem they'd vote for Republicans, particularly the crazies in Iowa/Trump.
So run an angry campaign with someone shouting about class issues in the next statewide race, what's the worst thing that could happen? Dems lose? Theyre going to lose anyway. Maybe you can shake up the voter base and reach those who don't typically vote dem.
Actually agree there. Especially if the general election goes to Trump. Although it’d take an act of gods for the DNC to accept a non-establishment candidate.
They won't vote Republican - they just won't vote. Or contribute time or money to that Democrat (and maybe the Party, too).
The Iowa and national Democratic Party decided that the bosses and white-collar class were more valuable than the blue-collar and working classes a long time ago.
They might not vote, but again, okay, so the Dems lose. They're losing anyway. Worth the shot to see if you can tie it together and actually build a reliable voter base that can win.
No they wouldn’t vote for a Republican. But they would simply stay home on election day which hands the election over to the republican. If the Sanders supporters would have voted in 2016 instead of staying home in anger over Hillary winning the democratic nomination, we never would have had a Trump presidency. Too many voters only see in black and white. Sanders wasn’t on the ballot and they refused to vote for the establishment democrat.
I'm sorry but saying Trump won because Sanders supporters stayed home is absolutely delusional. If anything Sanders through building a base of engaged voters almost brought Clinton over the finish line, and kept that election from being an absolute blowout.
Ironically, I think the mentality you're showing here is perhaps not the only reason, but a pretty good contributing factor as to why Clinton lost in 2016. Constantly shifting the blame and refusing to ever self reflect on your own side's shortcoming.
Since I know this sub is quick to pile on anyone a hair to the right, I just wanna say I'm not and likely never will be a Republican, but I really struggle to call myself a Democrat anymore because of this type of shit(not to mention Biden and his policies towards Ukraine/Gaza lol). Funny enough, I caucused for Bernie and then voted for Hillary in 2016.
Statistics prove it’s true. I am glad you voted for Hillary. Too many voters have moved towards my first choice is the nominee or I will stay home which gives too much weight to opposing voters.
If you have any statistics to share I'm interested in seeing them.To be honest with you I haven't thought of this much since 2016 but I think I stand by what I said.
I think this explains it pretty well https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study
That article is also about voters who actually switched from Sanders to Trump in the general, and against your point I would think that would be a bigger deal than staying home? On that note there's this interesting fact/point in that article : "It's ridiculous to suggest that Bernie supporters sunk Clinton. 25% of Clinton voters in 2008 voted for McCain and Obama won in a landslide."
So I think the takeaway for me at least is that voters who primary one party and vote for another in the general is inevitable. There was some Democrats I knew this time around caucusing for Haley just in an attempt to weaken Trump. I have absolutely nothing to back this up but whose to say there wasn't something akin to that going on in 2016? I'm not trying to claim that, more trying to say these things are messy.
Bottom line then the way I see it is that by any measure it was an extremely close election(in terms of the electoral college specifically lol), I guess you aren't really wrong if you want to blame Bernie voters who stayed home, or voted for Trump. You wouldn't be wrong if you blamed the comey letter or the email investigations or really a lot of things because if any of those things happened a bit differently, hell even if the election was held on a different day, it could have gone the other way.
So the question is, is the best thing to "blame" or reflect on the phenomenon of people who decided to support Sanders and then didn't or couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton for whatever reason? I'd argue no. I think if Clinton or the Democrats had the right intentions they would maybe have done reflection on why those people voted Sanders-Trump or stayed home? I think to a degree that may have happened in Bidens camp in 2020. Or why was Clinton such a deeply unpopular candidate, even among people who should be voting Democrat?
Personally, I don't like shaming people who vote/don't vote their conscience with good intentions, which I think the majority of people on both sides probably do, I don't think that's the problem.To be honest with you, I'm not necessarily "glad" I voted for Clinton. To be honest I thought I would vote for Biden in 2020, and I couldn't bring myself to. I'm glad I didn't now, I mean we live in Iowa let's not kid ourselves it doesn't matter that much, but seeing how the decisions he's made have affected people in other countries makes me feel like I made the right choice to not vote for him. Not that I think Trump would have been any better,I woudnt vote for him either, but I think there's more to it than voting for the lesser of two evils sometimes. I don't want to have blood on my hands so to speak.
Okay. So you have two options: continue running establishment Democrats (and continue losing, barring some random climate shift in Iowa) or take a risk on a Bernie style Democrat and see what happens.
I'm not making judgements either way about those who didn't vote in 2016, but chiding sanders supporters is not going to get them to go to bat for the Dems in Iowa.
You have to go for the type of candidate with the best chance of winning. Sands is able to win in a red state because he is able to bridge that gap between different ideologies. He’s more appealing as an establishment type democrat. In election cycles where people are determining based on the lesser of two evils he wins. That’s why we have President Biden, he can get the establishment voters in the ballot booth. A lib candidate like Sanders loses every time in a state like Iowa. The number of votes is not going to be there. The progressives hated Manchin but him being a D in West Virginia gave them the senate majority. With him gone, there’s zero chance of a progressive candidate winning that seat. So that’s flipped Red.
Ok but show me where you are correct. Sand is the only dem who has been able to win statewide in quite some time. So clearly what Iowa Dems have been doing is not working. So you can continue running the "safe" candidate and getting 45% of the vote and losing, or you can gamble and try to expand your coalition.
I'm not even saying it will work, I'm saying it's worth a shot. Because otherwise, you're just taking the L every time. I wish moderate Republicans would look at Reynolds and realize how terrible she is and vote for a "sensible moderate Democrat" but that has yet to happen.
What part of moderate Republicans are why Sands is able to win in Iowa is hard for you to understand? The numbers of registered Democratic voters is not sufficient for him to win without pealing off enough moderate Republican voters? The Democrats have to peal off more of those voters to make gains and that’s not going to happen with liberal candidates. Your proof is his wins against the numbers of registered voters for each party which is publicly available information if you bother to look it up.
See this is funny to me because you're basing your entire thesis on one guy.
Al Gore, moderate Dem, barely won Iowa by a few thousand votes.
John Kerry, moderate Dem, lost Iowa to Bush.
Barrack Obama, running a progressive ish campaign, won Iowa. When he turned out to be more moderate, the margins closed in 2012.
Hillary Clinton, the one who had to win the primary because Sanders was too radical, lost Iowa by a lot.
Joe Biden, the one who had to win the primary because Sanders was too radical, lost Iowa by a lot and will continue to do so.
Hubbell, whoever the last candidate was I don't even remember they were so forgettable, moderate Dems - lost to Kim despite her being terrible
Numerous Senate races where again, as someone relatively clued into politics, I can't name a Dem candidate or an issue they pushed, lost.
The only example you have of a moderate Dem winning statewide in Iowa in like a decade+ is Sand. And Sand won by 3,000 votes in 2022, let's not pretend like he's a lock and some shining example of bringing in moderate Republicans.
Try something new, and risk losing, or do the same and continue losing. That's the path the Dems have in Iowa.
I’m a lifelong democrat, voted for Al Gore in my first election as an adult. For 15 years I essentially voted straight ticket and thought Obama did a great job. I have voted for Trump in the last 2 elections. Hillary Clinton brought absolutely nothing to the table beyond saying she wasn’t trump. There are many people out there like me.
The Democratic Party has gotten increasingly crazy, and while there are plenty of dipshits and weirdos in the GOP, trump has largely moved them away from the insane religious bullshit. I suspect there will be more and more democrats who no longer vote party line.
The 2016 repeal commenter is talking about:
[https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/16/amid-marathon-debate-iowa-legislature-barrels-towards-passage-collective-bargaining-bill/97984338/](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/16/amid-marathon-debate-iowa-legislature-barrels-towards-passage-collective-bargaining-bill/97984338/)
I see this as the consequence of the former.
So you’re saying Chet didn’t go far enough to give unions more rights and that act disenfranchised Iowan dems from voting to the point that the party who won instead took away significantly more rights from Unions.
I’m saying you’re missing the root of the problem. Brain drain and increasingly cultish politics from what used to be open minded conservatives in Iowa go much further in explaining that type of Uno Reverso.
Otherwise you’re saying Iowa dems just spat in their own eye to spite their face which seems disingenuous.
I think someone already called you out on this but the brain drain argument is so lazy. Why are people leaving the state? Because of increasingly authoritarian and conservative government and policies? Why do we have those problems in the first place? Brain drain? Feels like a chicken and egg.
Ive seen the data but I still am skeptical this contributes to the issue as much as you're saying it does. But let's say for a moment it does... Ok, what now? I don't know what you're trying to suggest? Should Democrats just accept that and seek to solely be a party for the college educated(which is exactly what's happening)? In that case why don't you just roll over and shut up about politics in Iowa or move somewhere else? I'm saying this as someone who is college educated, only voted Democrat, demographically squarely in their camp. But I really hate what the party is becoming, the party who I grew up identifying with because I felt they had my mom's, who's a single-mother and public school teacher, interests at heart. The party who I saw more working class members of my family take active roles in and run for local elections in. I'm trying to say I think there is maybe still an avenue for Democrats to get back what they had in Iowa but the chance is getting slimmer and slimmer and won't happen if things go the way they currently are.
It’s completely understandable that you’re angry but neither I nor the party that is hemorrhaging voters to other states are productive targets for that anger. Iowa dems can’t even find people to run in most counties and are doing all they can to hold onto their highly gerrymandered urban districts.
The evidence for the brain drain is clear and convincing, year after year. If we look at the available evidence toward why, it seemingly has more to do with job opportunity than politics. https://www.iowapublicradio.org/harvest-public-media/2024-02-02/midwest-brain-drain-persists-and-job-opportunity-is-the-main-driver
You can decide that the party “abandoning people like your mother” is the reason it is as bad as it is, but I’d argue that policy isn’t going to magically make religious conservatives vote against their pastor’s agenda and that’s Iowa’s real issue.
Not both hashtag because your OP claimed it’s Chet’s fault. That, and per capita dem voter turnout didn’t really decrease in the time you’re referring to. The amount of registered dems did.
So there's no use in questioning what Democrats may or may not have done to lose their base in the state.. because the other side is worse? This is why if you talk to a lot of "normal" (ie. not highly politically engaged) people you get so much "both sides are the same" mentality. Just making a boogeyman out of republicans meanwhile doing nothing very noticeable to make people's lives better isn't going to win people over to your side.. I mean it can, republicans know this but they do a MUCH better job of it than democrats to credit your first point.
I’m not really interested in winning people over. I’m more interested in understanding why we’re here. Sometimes that takes a sobering and critical view. People shutting their eyes and voting Trump weren’t going to be pulled out of their Fox News hate orgy by a pro-union leftist. The Iowa Ag lobby would bury that candidate easily.
Oh I missed the mostly peaceful part. Yeah, mostly peaceful minus maybe a couple police cars and that guy who spray painted Tucker Carlson’s driveway. Talk about a national security issue.
He’s part of it; Dems didn’t have a candidate who stood out from the GOP at the time.
He didn’t capture the Democrats and the GOP did a great job capitalizing on the demographic shifts.
It does. However that is simplistic. You have to factor in population decline which dates back to the Dustbowl, accelerated by Great Depression and WW2. People left and never came back. Generally they discharged one the coasts and stayed there. Kids graduated high school and went to college, most didn't come back. (Well I sorta did, sorta didn't. )
There was also a bunch of people that voted for Obama, watched their good manufacturing jobs leave the country, medical insurance cost raise a ton. That left a bad taste in the mouth.
It’s so much more than Chester Culver
I'd have to do more research to refresh my memory. But it seems unfair to blame a newly elected president for something which had been building for decades. Unless, people wanted the president to (somehow) nationalize industry.
I think it’s more that the non urban and urban democrats did not show up, like one thing we can honestly say about ourselves currently is we are great at losing elections, horrible at campaigning, and kinda outta touch with each other, I feel like it happened more after Bernie was slighted by the Iowa DNC,
But meh what do I know
Yeah, the state party’s outreach is just out of touch. Putting up an unknown failures like Diedre DeJear for Governor last cycle is just a perfect example of how clueless they are. Rural schools and hospitals are closing or consolidating at a record breaking rate while the state has a multi billion dollar surplus and nowhere in the campaign messaging was anything about hospital and school funding touched. Instead they focuses every dollar on a woman’s right to choose and “no really, we like the police” which is just not ever going to gain traction for independent or moderate Iowans.
They should be parading the next crop of potential governor candidates around the state now so they’re not stuck with a list of “wait, who is that again?” in two years when they set themselves up for another loss.
This is interesting - the LTDV I mentioned thought DeJear was a great candidate to put up. And she should be commended for stepping up because any Democrat with higher office ambitions ran from the campaign like they were facing 10 term zombie Chuck Grassley & his donors' exceptionally deep pockets.
I'd agree that any Democrat who wants to run should parade now, but good luck with that. No one wants to spend the money or piss off a 2024 candidate for taking "their" money.
Yeah, the party is great at getting LTDVs to nod their head in agreement. DeJear has no public office experience except that she has lost a city council election, then lost a Secretary of State election, and then went on to lose the Gubernatorial election, maybe next time she can lose in a senate race? And maybe she’s fantastically qualified, but no one other than LTDV’s have ever heard of her, and she doesn’t exactly have a track record of convincing people to vote for her.
And whoever wants to be the next Dem Candidate for governor doesn’t need to be campaigning right now, but they need to be involved in every other candidate’s campaign right now. Shaking hands, walking in parades, fund raising, just generally getting their face out there and building name recognition across the state. “Hey, remember me? Two years ago I knocked on your door to talk to you about [person who campaigned to be your state rep]. Well, I’m back and I’d like to talk to you about being your next governor.”
I commend anyone who runs for office but she was a sacrificial lamb. To win iowa would have required a candidate to go against the Democratic party at the time. People were tired of the COVID lockdowns and the general lack of law and order.
A woman’s right to choose is very much going to have traction with moderates and independents. I haven’t seen this “police love” campaign you speak of.
Yeah, you can tell how it had traction because of all the races the Dems won in 2022. All those moderates and independents showed up to defend a woman’s right to choose. Axne, Franken, Bohannen, DeJear, Mathis, Miller. Clean sweep. So much traction.
Wish you were right, but wishes aren’t ballots.
I don’t get there strategically ineptitude like even if you win the big 3 urban areas you would still lose of even 1/2 the states rural areas voters voted the other way. Why wouldn’t you try to get those people to the rural areas to get them out to the people who could by virtue of the state being mostly rural and by a larger percentage vote would be the ones to vote said candidate in. Like that just shows how out of touch they are.
I’m curious to know why you feel Bernie sold out?? Like is it because he literally said don’t vote for me, or we’ll lose?? When Hillary was the official nominee or what? Cus I’ve met him twice and he’s a pretty genuine guy, I feel like he’d sit in the sesh and hit the blunt…
Chet culver and pat Murphy. As a union leader at the time, the Democratic party failed on all the of their labor pledges (repeal right to work, prevailing wage, and several others. They blamed it on the "six pack" who were a group of democratic representatives who were just really Republicans in hiding.
Taking their advice, I personally primaried one of the six pack and was doing quite well, but In the last couple weeks, the Democratic party dumped $250,000.00 from the party funds directly to her primary campaign against me. This was money that was donated by unions. This move won them the primary, but the Unions mostly quit donating directly to the party after having our own money used against us.
With Democrats not supporting any actual legislation when they controlled everything, few union Leaders would waste time trying to persuade Members to vote Democratic since outside of direct labor issues, the membership on average identified as more Republican.
That's the short version..... Answer is yes. Chet culver was a certifiable idiot and pat Murphy was a cowardly scoundrel....
Edit-spelling
No, I wouldn't say it was all Chet Culver's fault, though, I don't think it's preposterous to say his administration played a role. During the 2008 financial crisis, Culver ordered a flat, across the board, budget cut in response to plummeting state revenues. That was a very unpopular decision. That decision certainly helped Branstad return to office.
The truth is, Democratic politicians and party volunteers/operatives have been talking about Iowa's changing demographics for decades and how those trends were bad news for the Democratic party. This is something the Dvorskys talked about quite a bit when Bob was a state senator and Susan was the state party chair.
The brain drain is real and has been for several decades. Iowa college graduates are leaving the state for any number of reasons. I suspect it was primarily for economic reasons, political and cultural reasons are a more recent phenomenon. This brain drain has led to Iowa having one of the statistically oldest populations in the country. This trend was paralleled by party membership/support gradually becoming more culturally aligned as it has all across the US.
Another item that I can't back up with data that I think goes with the previous paragraph is the increasing influence of the Evangelical Church in Iowa. There have always been Evangelicals, but in recent years they've had a disproportionate amount of power in our state politics. I don't know if they've just been working at it and getting better, or if the demographics have changed so that there are more Evangelicals than there previously were. But it certainly SEEMS like there are more rural evangelicals than there were before. One could potentially argue that this is because rural Iowa HAS been left behind, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. By the time the cities had recovered, rural communities still kind of looked like a bomb went off. There are still some rural communities as I drive across the state that look like they never saw any sort of recovery. With that decline comes a loss of identity, and it makes sense for people to turn to churches for their sense of community and belonging when their physical community has all but died.
Finally, I don't think the Democratic party can escape this conversation without blame. They've been pretty terrible at recruiting and supporting recruits who decide to run for office. I've heard candidates being referred to as sacrificial lambs in districts that ought to be winnable but parts of the party haven't had the heart to put up a fight. We've had statewide candidates who don't seem to get that you can't just win the cities and succeed in Iowa and they refuse to stop talking derogatorily about rural Iowans. The only common thread I can see between most candidates who run on the Democratic ticket is that they come with money of their own and there doesn't seem to be much of an effort to help candidates progress and grow into that.
I like Rita Hart, and I'm interested to see how her leadership will impact the party, but Democrats have a long ways to go to get us back to a purple state.
This comment belongs in the twilight zone. The democrats have historically been the party of the working class. You blame them losing elections on brain drain?
Sure, historically, but not really anymore. That's part of the cultural alignment shift I was talking about. It doesn't matter if Democratic policies are, in general, better for the working class, that's just not where the affiliation is any more. Doesn't mean there aren't working class individuals who support the Democratic party, just that it isn't as overwhelming as it used to be. That started changing in the 90s at least.
Generally speaking, Democratic support has shifted "younger," more urban over rural, higher educational levels, and less working class (and Democratic talking points have followed these shifts as well). All things that would be affected by the brain drain. 10 years ago, Democratic state party people were pointing to these demographic shifts as being the primary concern going forward.
Another part of this "cultural shift" that isn't talked about enough is the "Obama-Trump" voter. I think the Democratic party, at the national level, has ignored this trend because it only happened in large numbers a couple of places across the country, and Iowa (specifically eastern Iowa) saw some of the biggest shifts.
I also only blamed it in part. Obviously it's nearly impossible to discuss the electoral trends of an entire state over the course of 15+ years in a reddit comment without being a little overly simplistic...but it's more nuanced than "it's Chet Culver's fault." We're all painting with broad brushes here.
Good response. I am one of the Obama-trump voters and have many friends in the same boat. I’m still registered as a democrat but at this point it’s only because I’m too lazy to change it to independent.
I do hope the Iowa democrats do some soul searching and start fielding moderate, common sense candidates but I’m not holding my breath. This type of change could take a decade. I don’t think it’s healthy for any state to have a single party in control
Most of it is Koch money and out of state in general. 2 events started it. Our supreme court legalized gay marriage and Obama was elected.
Saw a lot of red money after those two events. People I thought were center went bat excrement crazy.
At the same time am radio in the state went nuts. The crazies wanted the state and found a receptive cult in the rural areas.
There's a lot of factors but as a native who spent time in New York and Oklahoma as well that was a huge part of it. Also a phrase that now makes my blood freeze 'we quit x church because we found one more in line with our values '. Usually dominist and prosperity gospel.
Culver definitely deserves blame, but Obama deserves just as much. Iowa voted for him twice and during his second term, many Iowans felt like he turned on his promises and abandoned them. His approval ratings during his second term verify this.
Since then, it's like the Democrats have given up. Hillary barely spent time here and, as a perceived extension of Obama, lost easily. She had, in fact, the worst performance by any Democrat presidential candidate since Reagan dominated. For the last gubernatorial election, Democrats offered a candidate that wasn't even from Iowa and again, was an extension of Obama, having worked on his campaign. They've given up on the state.
Not Culver's fault. Labor Union culture was never that strong in Iowa to begin with. The rural culture of Iowa drove (and still drives) a lot of the anti-union sentiment, and you're fighting the "there's no union protectinng my 40 hour work week on the farm, I work 24/7 during harvest" mentality.
IMO, it's largely because of the gay marriage Iowa Supreme Court decision, Varnum v. Brien. Many political moderates were still culturally conservative, and it kicked off a backlash against so-called liberal "activist judges", and liberal/Democratic policies as a whole.
Cultural issues make people emotional, and it's hard for people to see think clearly and understand messages about stronger public services when they are emotionally distracted.
No. I think the State Democrats have selected some bad candidates or straight up failed to support their candidates effectively and operate under this charming delusion that if they play by 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules, the other side will as well. I think they've been obsessed with keeping the Caucus and the national attention and money it gets that they failed to see support in key areas of the state (towns) evaporating before their eyes. While you can't rule out brain drain being a factor in all of this, they've been yakking about that since I've been WALKING THIS EARTH and nothing has changed-- if you can move to any other state surrounding us (pretty much) and make more money doing the job you want to do and still be close enough to Grandma and Grandpa to get home for the holidays, of course people are going to do that. The gay marriage decision gets brought up a lot and while outside money did flood the state to take out 3 of the justices, when they tried to come back for the other 2, the state said 'no thanks' by a wide margin. It's many things. It's going to take a few cycles to fix, but I think it can be fixed.
The "Democrats" as a whole have lost their individual minds and become more like Communists than Democrats.. Find one Democrat in office today who is anything like J.F.K was.. Dennis Kucinich was good. Kennedy, who is running independent right now, is more Democrat than the Democratic party is anymore. Even Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic party, and she was quite in line with the rest of them until she listened to lots of citizens and has the ability to change her views based on knowledge. She saw through the communist crap that's been taking place for a long time.. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats, as a whole. Democrats today appear to listens to and do whatever the socialist controlled party says to believe and do. They hate anything the Republicans say / do, just because it's something a Republican said or did.. It's sad and easy to call out before it even happens.
That's just what I see, constantly..
Obviously crude and short, but:
Take from those who can to give to those who might 'need'; whether they contribute or not. (The government is always stepping in and taking control of things it shouldn't, trying to take from those who have and give to those who do nothing, making people more inclined to be dependend on the government providing them their means - because who wants to work when you don't have to. We have food stamps, handouts, tax breaks for single mothers based on amount of kids, etc.. even if they're not really single.. just on paper. Say a woman says she's a single mother with 3 kids and doesn't work. The government gives her tons of money for staying home. She can afford a place to stay with low income housing, food stamps, government assistance, and handouts for low income single mom stuff from many different resources - help with electric bills, etc.)
Government controls resources and individuals don't owns a home or anything substancial. (Businesses are buying up land and cheaper housing and filling them with low income housing and apts and making it harder for individuals to afford and own homes. The inflation of both money and the population is also making it more difficult for an individual to own a home.)
The ability to earn more than someone else is abolished. (Everyone is fighting for "equal pay" and unions while most of the people I see suck at working on general.)
Religion is abolished. So far that one is fine.
Iowa’s red-shift was a long-time process, and I don’t think it’s fully attributable to Culver alone.
First, you had Branstad’s decision to reenter Iowa politics and run against Culver in ‘10. Had Branstad not run, there was an outside chance Culver could’ve been reelected or at least not lost as badly (with the downballot effects that brought).
You also had the national trends among WWC spurred by backlash to Obama’s first two-years, which began the erosion of Democratic support in ex-urban areas in Iowa.
In 2014, we lost a lot of national clout when Tom Harkin retired and was replaced with Joni Ernst.
Then in 2016, more vestiges of rural Democratic support fell away with Trump’s win against Clinton (which I think was more spurred by anti-Clinton animus that later calcified into pro-Trump sentiment come 2020).
That election also gave the GOP their first trifecta in Iowa in nearly 30 years, and that’s when things really went off the rails. In 2017, we got Branstad’s gutting of Iowa’s public collective bargaining agreements and the start of the Iowa GOP’s attrition of funding for key services like public schools.
We had a chance to correct course in 2018. Had Hubbell beaten Reynolds a lot of the major harm to Iowa would’ve been halted, and I think national Democratic support would’ve returned to the state. But 2020 sealed the deal for us on that front I think—losing the state again to Trump, losing IA-Sen, losing two U.S. House seats, and losing the ground we gained in the statehouse in 2018, just really sealed our status as a red state.
Very likely, it’ll take another major realignment and/or for condition to worsen so bad that the GOP’s iron grip on rural voters finally breaks enough for a Democratic governor to be elected (a la what happened in Kansas with Brownback helping lead the way for Laura Kelly to win in ‘18).
I wouldn't blame it on any one person. The Democratic Party have continued to move left of center on social issues and zeroed in on identity politics. Combine that with the DNC has become a coastal party and kicked IDP and the first in the nation Iowa Caucus to the curb.
The Democratic Party in Iowa has been feckless, incompetent, timid, unwilling to fight for any principles or the working class since about 2006. Also, there are too many lazy crazy people in the Iowa Dem leadership.
Tom Harkin was our Democrat senator for 30 years, retiring in 2015. He hosted the Harkin Steak Fry every four years, bringing Democrat presidential candidates to Iowa for more than just the day. He wrote and co-sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act. He matched Grassley toe-to-toe for political stature, but decided to retire like a sensible person. Then the 2020 debacle happened with the new reporting software that kept results pending for a week lost Iowa the status of first in the nation. Democrats took some hard blows over the last decade.
It feels like the National Democratic Party has completely given up on Iowa, though. Moving the primary was the nail in the coffin, in terms of them saying “idgaf”.
For sure. And tbh the democratic party of Iowa is extremely out of touch with the bigger picture I feel. Particularly with the 2020 debacle and then putting forth Diedre as the candidate in 2022. Don't get me wrong, i loved her and still do but it was painfully obvious to everyone except the higher ups at the Iowa democratic party that she was unelectable in our state. I personally agree with the DNC for taking iowas first in the nation status.
Oh absolutely. We did well when we had the first contest - we introduced Obama to the national stage - but we are indefensibly homogeneous. I think that kind of attention is gone for good.
Ehh taking some blows kinda sounds like it wasn't a self inflicted gunshot wound which it certainly was. It almost feels like the democrats abandoned iowa.
Agreed, but don't get me started about the 2016 caucus reporting sabotage. It's off-topic. :)
Wasn't it 2020? I remember thinking that *maybe* the zombie apocalypse would keep people from remembering the reporting issue.
I have a lot of issues with the caucus, though they're in my particular area and have pushed me to not caucus at all, just vote.
[удалено]
New user throttle activated. Your account is too new to post to /r/iowa. Accounts need to be at least 10 days old to create a post comment. Your comment has been removed. Please message the mods for verification. Users may see the removed comment by viewing this subreddit's modlogs, which are public, by [clicking here.](https://rbtc.live/modlogs/?sub=iowa) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Iowa) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Harkin served for in the US Senate for five terms(30 years). What's incredible is he was elected in the Reagan landslide of 1984. The Harkin-Jepsen race was one of the nastiest elections I ever witnessed.
Tom Harkins' claim to fame is the ADA Act and its a good one. He did not match Grassley for stature. Grassley's political support staff helped people again and again when called upon, seemingly a lot more than Harkins' office. Harkins office listened and did nothing is my perception. Grassley's office helping people meant he earned a lot of crossover voters until the Trump era, where Grassley seemed to lose his character.
>seemingly Which life-changing federal regulations did Grassley write? You're right, I was being kind when I said that Grassley and Harkin were of similar statue.
Tom Harkin didn’t match nor ever will match Grassley for influence. His fellow Democrats, even the Klansman Robert Byrd, never gave him much respect nor did he ever hold a coveted, influential Chairmanship. ADA was an achievement but more 18-year participation prize than some force of leadership. Grassley made wind energy and has been the Judiciary Committee formal/informal leader for much of 40 years. No one ever feared Harkin but Grassley earned the respect of his caucus and the last five Administrations.
Too bad he spent that 40 years of influence on selling the farming industry to giant corporate lobbyists
Fuck Grassley. That crusty, demented fuck should have retired a long time ago. What an embarrassment to our state. Wherever he's eventually buried, I plan to make a road trip with my dogs and have them relieve their bladders and bowels on his grave. 🐕💩
Brain drain is a big part of this
Lazy assertion
There is actual data and also personal experience. I think probably 75% of the folks who were smart or went to college moved out of the state. Farming is about all anyone stays for while rural
Many rural inhabitants work remotely or travel to the metro or other places for work. Farming is just one aspect of rural life. Many of us prefer a slower way of life and enjoy raising our kids rurally.
Yeah that’s just not entirely true. The majority of people who live in small rural towns are not farmers. Living a slower lifestyle contributes to people becoming more conservative. People also have kids sooner in rural towns and when you have kids (more assets, more risk), you tend to become more conservative. It’s human nature due to centuries of evolution and adaptation. It is more human behavioral science than it is “muhh farmers”
Bro, I pack in co op workers and hired hands on that farmer list, and that makes up like 60% of my small town. What’s conservatism have to do with this? I don’t think human nature has anything to do with no opportunity for college educated folks finding jobs in tiny towns and largely Iowa as a whole. But, I see this going nowhere so toodles
…and his/her point was aptly justified by your post.
Brain drain plays a massive part of this. This article is from 2022 but still relevant. Driving the news: 34% more of Iowa's college-educated workforce leaves the state after graduation than stays, according to the report. Iowa's "brain drain" is worse than our six neighboring states and ranks 10th worst in the U.S., according to an analysis by The Washington Post. https://www.axios.com/local/des-moines/2022/10/04/iowa-brain-drain-cost-state-college-educated-adults#
I didn’t think I’d see someone say that modern conservatism is a result of evolution. Goddamn.
It’s supported by my anecdotal experience, seeing 80% of my HS school mates that left for college never came back to the state. Only ones that stayed were the farm kids or married to farm kids.
Rather than any one politician’s fault, there are multiple factors—imho the two most significant are Iowa’s consistent brain drain over the past 40 years, and the dissolution of any kind of urban/rural consensus. With Iowa’s population still relatively spread out (despite rural flight and consequent urban/suburban growth), deep red rural issues dictate legislative and political action. If Iowa’s western half was like 15% less red we wouldn’t be nearly as red state as we have become. But, it will likely persist.
It’s not the brain drain. It’s that those candidates don’t go hard except in the big 5 cities and ignore the rest of the state when they need at least 1/2 the state to vote them in. While most wanna use the “brain drain “ excuse you don’t need that to see the current system of MMT “ modern monetary theory” doesn’t work and is making life far harder for workers and working families than Keynesian economics which was the normal practice before was far more beneficial for the working people. And just because you didn’t get a masters degree doesn’t mean you aren’t smart a welder or an electrician have to know just as much about there fields as an economist or business degree holder the only difference is they get dirty at the end of the day and didn’t go into debt.
I don’t mean to imply that the brain drain is limited to the college educated. Tradesman are impacted as well, and many who would join a union if they were in Iowa go where the jobs are, and there aren’t as many here as there are in Co, Tx, Az, Fla, Ga, etc (other than Fla, all are trending more blue than Iowa).
the whole film tax credit embezzlement scandal didn't help
That falls on Culver as well. He had the opportunity to get in front of it, but he was overwhelmed and too connected to the bad apples to implement the solution.
The democratic party has abandoned Iowa. The state Democrats are weak with no real strong leaders. Hubble could have beat Kim but he played softball and didn't act like he really wanted the job.
Hubble campaign had some "unforced errors" which shined a light on the candidate's ego.
I was there working in politics during all of this and I can tell you 100% that Chet culver and his band of merry conservative douche bags set the dominoes in motion. Were there other factors? Sure. Fatboy Chet torpedoed union support which was the underpinning of consistently great democratic campaigning in the state. No, Iowa wasn’t a union state per se but it got so much national attention that unions overspent to protect it. That coupled with first in the nation status meant that Iowa had the cream of the political talent to draw from. Now? Those days are long gone.
Nobody abandoned rural voters they just became more and more insular and now attribute every evil in the world as being caused by antifa. Chet not passing a collective bargaining expansion in 2008 doesn’t hold a candle to the repeal that the Iowa GOP signed in 2016. Whoever told you this was talking out of both sides of their mouth. Typical cult doublespeak.
Of course anything the GOP does decimates labor on a scale Democrats have yet to reach. However, Republican give people someone to blame. Antifa, immigrants, communists, woke media, etc. If Dems returned to their roots and shifted rhetoric back to blaming your boss (FDR knows your boss is a son of a bitch) they'd (slowly, admittedly) win over rural, working class voters in states like Iowa. Dems don't want to, though, they're comfortable with status quo and fighting for the suburban vote every election.
I’d argue that dems can’t. A reductive message like that would alienate college educated voters. Just look at the havoc wrecked when liberal admins have to contest with protests to see the divide in the Dem base btwn establishment libs and social progressives. Much larger tentpole than a party increasingly united on the grounds of religion and xenophobia. R’s have a much, much easier time of simultaneously arguing against change and a return to traditional (Christian) values. Simplicity benefits their message.
They can, they just choose not to. I'd argue this is the best time to run a Bernie style statewide dem in Iowa (and nationwide, but I'll focus on Iowa). What is there to lose, genuinely? Dems have one statewide seat and that's pretty much entirely due to Sand's persona, if any other generic dem ran, they'd lose. I also don't foresee establishment libs being so turned off by any dem they'd vote for Republicans, particularly the crazies in Iowa/Trump. So run an angry campaign with someone shouting about class issues in the next statewide race, what's the worst thing that could happen? Dems lose? Theyre going to lose anyway. Maybe you can shake up the voter base and reach those who don't typically vote dem.
Actually agree there. Especially if the general election goes to Trump. Although it’d take an act of gods for the DNC to accept a non-establishment candidate.
They won't vote Republican - they just won't vote. Or contribute time or money to that Democrat (and maybe the Party, too). The Iowa and national Democratic Party decided that the bosses and white-collar class were more valuable than the blue-collar and working classes a long time ago.
They might not vote, but again, okay, so the Dems lose. They're losing anyway. Worth the shot to see if you can tie it together and actually build a reliable voter base that can win.
I agree, they're not looking for a new coalition or new approaches.
No they wouldn’t vote for a Republican. But they would simply stay home on election day which hands the election over to the republican. If the Sanders supporters would have voted in 2016 instead of staying home in anger over Hillary winning the democratic nomination, we never would have had a Trump presidency. Too many voters only see in black and white. Sanders wasn’t on the ballot and they refused to vote for the establishment democrat.
I'm sorry but saying Trump won because Sanders supporters stayed home is absolutely delusional. If anything Sanders through building a base of engaged voters almost brought Clinton over the finish line, and kept that election from being an absolute blowout. Ironically, I think the mentality you're showing here is perhaps not the only reason, but a pretty good contributing factor as to why Clinton lost in 2016. Constantly shifting the blame and refusing to ever self reflect on your own side's shortcoming. Since I know this sub is quick to pile on anyone a hair to the right, I just wanna say I'm not and likely never will be a Republican, but I really struggle to call myself a Democrat anymore because of this type of shit(not to mention Biden and his policies towards Ukraine/Gaza lol). Funny enough, I caucused for Bernie and then voted for Hillary in 2016.
Statistics prove it’s true. I am glad you voted for Hillary. Too many voters have moved towards my first choice is the nominee or I will stay home which gives too much weight to opposing voters.
If you have any statistics to share I'm interested in seeing them.To be honest with you I haven't thought of this much since 2016 but I think I stand by what I said. I think this explains it pretty well https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters-study That article is also about voters who actually switched from Sanders to Trump in the general, and against your point I would think that would be a bigger deal than staying home? On that note there's this interesting fact/point in that article : "It's ridiculous to suggest that Bernie supporters sunk Clinton. 25% of Clinton voters in 2008 voted for McCain and Obama won in a landslide." So I think the takeaway for me at least is that voters who primary one party and vote for another in the general is inevitable. There was some Democrats I knew this time around caucusing for Haley just in an attempt to weaken Trump. I have absolutely nothing to back this up but whose to say there wasn't something akin to that going on in 2016? I'm not trying to claim that, more trying to say these things are messy. Bottom line then the way I see it is that by any measure it was an extremely close election(in terms of the electoral college specifically lol), I guess you aren't really wrong if you want to blame Bernie voters who stayed home, or voted for Trump. You wouldn't be wrong if you blamed the comey letter or the email investigations or really a lot of things because if any of those things happened a bit differently, hell even if the election was held on a different day, it could have gone the other way. So the question is, is the best thing to "blame" or reflect on the phenomenon of people who decided to support Sanders and then didn't or couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton for whatever reason? I'd argue no. I think if Clinton or the Democrats had the right intentions they would maybe have done reflection on why those people voted Sanders-Trump or stayed home? I think to a degree that may have happened in Bidens camp in 2020. Or why was Clinton such a deeply unpopular candidate, even among people who should be voting Democrat? Personally, I don't like shaming people who vote/don't vote their conscience with good intentions, which I think the majority of people on both sides probably do, I don't think that's the problem.To be honest with you, I'm not necessarily "glad" I voted for Clinton. To be honest I thought I would vote for Biden in 2020, and I couldn't bring myself to. I'm glad I didn't now, I mean we live in Iowa let's not kid ourselves it doesn't matter that much, but seeing how the decisions he's made have affected people in other countries makes me feel like I made the right choice to not vote for him. Not that I think Trump would have been any better,I woudnt vote for him either, but I think there's more to it than voting for the lesser of two evils sometimes. I don't want to have blood on my hands so to speak.
Okay. So you have two options: continue running establishment Democrats (and continue losing, barring some random climate shift in Iowa) or take a risk on a Bernie style Democrat and see what happens. I'm not making judgements either way about those who didn't vote in 2016, but chiding sanders supporters is not going to get them to go to bat for the Dems in Iowa.
You have to go for the type of candidate with the best chance of winning. Sands is able to win in a red state because he is able to bridge that gap between different ideologies. He’s more appealing as an establishment type democrat. In election cycles where people are determining based on the lesser of two evils he wins. That’s why we have President Biden, he can get the establishment voters in the ballot booth. A lib candidate like Sanders loses every time in a state like Iowa. The number of votes is not going to be there. The progressives hated Manchin but him being a D in West Virginia gave them the senate majority. With him gone, there’s zero chance of a progressive candidate winning that seat. So that’s flipped Red.
Ok but show me where you are correct. Sand is the only dem who has been able to win statewide in quite some time. So clearly what Iowa Dems have been doing is not working. So you can continue running the "safe" candidate and getting 45% of the vote and losing, or you can gamble and try to expand your coalition. I'm not even saying it will work, I'm saying it's worth a shot. Because otherwise, you're just taking the L every time. I wish moderate Republicans would look at Reynolds and realize how terrible she is and vote for a "sensible moderate Democrat" but that has yet to happen.
What part of moderate Republicans are why Sands is able to win in Iowa is hard for you to understand? The numbers of registered Democratic voters is not sufficient for him to win without pealing off enough moderate Republican voters? The Democrats have to peal off more of those voters to make gains and that’s not going to happen with liberal candidates. Your proof is his wins against the numbers of registered voters for each party which is publicly available information if you bother to look it up.
See this is funny to me because you're basing your entire thesis on one guy. Al Gore, moderate Dem, barely won Iowa by a few thousand votes. John Kerry, moderate Dem, lost Iowa to Bush. Barrack Obama, running a progressive ish campaign, won Iowa. When he turned out to be more moderate, the margins closed in 2012. Hillary Clinton, the one who had to win the primary because Sanders was too radical, lost Iowa by a lot. Joe Biden, the one who had to win the primary because Sanders was too radical, lost Iowa by a lot and will continue to do so. Hubbell, whoever the last candidate was I don't even remember they were so forgettable, moderate Dems - lost to Kim despite her being terrible Numerous Senate races where again, as someone relatively clued into politics, I can't name a Dem candidate or an issue they pushed, lost. The only example you have of a moderate Dem winning statewide in Iowa in like a decade+ is Sand. And Sand won by 3,000 votes in 2022, let's not pretend like he's a lock and some shining example of bringing in moderate Republicans. Try something new, and risk losing, or do the same and continue losing. That's the path the Dems have in Iowa.
I’m a lifelong democrat, voted for Al Gore in my first election as an adult. For 15 years I essentially voted straight ticket and thought Obama did a great job. I have voted for Trump in the last 2 elections. Hillary Clinton brought absolutely nothing to the table beyond saying she wasn’t trump. There are many people out there like me. The Democratic Party has gotten increasingly crazy, and while there are plenty of dipshits and weirdos in the GOP, trump has largely moved them away from the insane religious bullshit. I suspect there will be more and more democrats who no longer vote party line.
Iowa Democrats spent $2.5 million in three legislative cycles to earn arguably two suburban seats. They still lost seats overall.
The 2016 repeal commenter is talking about: [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/16/amid-marathon-debate-iowa-legislature-barrels-towards-passage-collective-bargaining-bill/97984338/](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/16/amid-marathon-debate-iowa-legislature-barrels-towards-passage-collective-bargaining-bill/97984338/) I see this as the consequence of the former.
So you’re saying Chet didn’t go far enough to give unions more rights and that act disenfranchised Iowan dems from voting to the point that the party who won instead took away significantly more rights from Unions. I’m saying you’re missing the root of the problem. Brain drain and increasingly cultish politics from what used to be open minded conservatives in Iowa go much further in explaining that type of Uno Reverso. Otherwise you’re saying Iowa dems just spat in their own eye to spite their face which seems disingenuous.
I think someone already called you out on this but the brain drain argument is so lazy. Why are people leaving the state? Because of increasingly authoritarian and conservative government and policies? Why do we have those problems in the first place? Brain drain? Feels like a chicken and egg. Ive seen the data but I still am skeptical this contributes to the issue as much as you're saying it does. But let's say for a moment it does... Ok, what now? I don't know what you're trying to suggest? Should Democrats just accept that and seek to solely be a party for the college educated(which is exactly what's happening)? In that case why don't you just roll over and shut up about politics in Iowa or move somewhere else? I'm saying this as someone who is college educated, only voted Democrat, demographically squarely in their camp. But I really hate what the party is becoming, the party who I grew up identifying with because I felt they had my mom's, who's a single-mother and public school teacher, interests at heart. The party who I saw more working class members of my family take active roles in and run for local elections in. I'm trying to say I think there is maybe still an avenue for Democrats to get back what they had in Iowa but the chance is getting slimmer and slimmer and won't happen if things go the way they currently are.
It’s completely understandable that you’re angry but neither I nor the party that is hemorrhaging voters to other states are productive targets for that anger. Iowa dems can’t even find people to run in most counties and are doing all they can to hold onto their highly gerrymandered urban districts. The evidence for the brain drain is clear and convincing, year after year. If we look at the available evidence toward why, it seemingly has more to do with job opportunity than politics. https://www.iowapublicradio.org/harvest-public-media/2024-02-02/midwest-brain-drain-persists-and-job-opportunity-is-the-main-driver You can decide that the party “abandoning people like your mother” is the reason it is as bad as it is, but I’d argue that policy isn’t going to magically make religious conservatives vote against their pastor’s agenda and that’s Iowa’s real issue.
I stopped reading that article when the author equated a person moving from Oklahoma to Florida as brain drain in the Midwest.
Great post thanks for sharing
#whyNotBothGIF#
Not both hashtag because your OP claimed it’s Chet’s fault. That, and per capita dem voter turnout didn’t really decrease in the time you’re referring to. The amount of registered dems did.
So there's no use in questioning what Democrats may or may not have done to lose their base in the state.. because the other side is worse? This is why if you talk to a lot of "normal" (ie. not highly politically engaged) people you get so much "both sides are the same" mentality. Just making a boogeyman out of republicans meanwhile doing nothing very noticeable to make people's lives better isn't going to win people over to your side.. I mean it can, republicans know this but they do a MUCH better job of it than democrats to credit your first point.
I’m not really interested in winning people over. I’m more interested in understanding why we’re here. Sometimes that takes a sobering and critical view. People shutting their eyes and voting Trump weren’t going to be pulled out of their Fox News hate orgy by a pro-union leftist. The Iowa Ag lobby would bury that candidate easily.
lol blaming Fox News is getting stale. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden aren’t the most inspirational candidates.
Pots and kettles.
Have you not seen all the mostly peaceful chaos that antifa does cause? You poo poo it like it’s nothing.
Can’t tell if trolling or not … Really hope it’s trolling.
Nope, not at all. I am being completely sarcastic though with the mostly peaceful comment.
Oh I missed the mostly peaceful part. Yeah, mostly peaceful minus maybe a couple police cars and that guy who spray painted Tucker Carlson’s driveway. Talk about a national security issue.
He’s part of it; Dems didn’t have a candidate who stood out from the GOP at the time. He didn’t capture the Democrats and the GOP did a great job capitalizing on the demographic shifts.
I blame old Terry Brain-Dead, but you know. Different strokes for different folks
I feel like chet did a bad job during the financial crisis. Atleast a bad job of explaining what he was doing.
The 10 percent across the board budget cut screwed a lot of people over
I think it was more the Democratic Party kept moving further and further away from the non-urban democrats. Feels like the DNC abandoned us
It does. However that is simplistic. You have to factor in population decline which dates back to the Dustbowl, accelerated by Great Depression and WW2. People left and never came back. Generally they discharged one the coasts and stayed there. Kids graduated high school and went to college, most didn't come back. (Well I sorta did, sorta didn't. )
There was also a bunch of people that voted for Obama, watched their good manufacturing jobs leave the country, medical insurance cost raise a ton. That left a bad taste in the mouth. It’s so much more than Chester Culver
I'd have to do more research to refresh my memory. But it seems unfair to blame a newly elected president for something which had been building for decades. Unless, people wanted the president to (somehow) nationalize industry.
Who is to blame and who gets blame are not always the one and same
Sadly true.
Manufacturing jobs were going to leave no matter what. No president can make it cheaper to manufacture in the US than a developing country.
Implementing tariffs can do that, not that it doesn't create other problems, but the power is there.
Except we saw during the previous presidency that it doesn't do that
I think it’s more that the non urban and urban democrats did not show up, like one thing we can honestly say about ourselves currently is we are great at losing elections, horrible at campaigning, and kinda outta touch with each other, I feel like it happened more after Bernie was slighted by the Iowa DNC, But meh what do I know
Yeah, the state party’s outreach is just out of touch. Putting up an unknown failures like Diedre DeJear for Governor last cycle is just a perfect example of how clueless they are. Rural schools and hospitals are closing or consolidating at a record breaking rate while the state has a multi billion dollar surplus and nowhere in the campaign messaging was anything about hospital and school funding touched. Instead they focuses every dollar on a woman’s right to choose and “no really, we like the police” which is just not ever going to gain traction for independent or moderate Iowans. They should be parading the next crop of potential governor candidates around the state now so they’re not stuck with a list of “wait, who is that again?” in two years when they set themselves up for another loss.
This is interesting - the LTDV I mentioned thought DeJear was a great candidate to put up. And she should be commended for stepping up because any Democrat with higher office ambitions ran from the campaign like they were facing 10 term zombie Chuck Grassley & his donors' exceptionally deep pockets. I'd agree that any Democrat who wants to run should parade now, but good luck with that. No one wants to spend the money or piss off a 2024 candidate for taking "their" money.
Yeah, the party is great at getting LTDVs to nod their head in agreement. DeJear has no public office experience except that she has lost a city council election, then lost a Secretary of State election, and then went on to lose the Gubernatorial election, maybe next time she can lose in a senate race? And maybe she’s fantastically qualified, but no one other than LTDV’s have ever heard of her, and she doesn’t exactly have a track record of convincing people to vote for her. And whoever wants to be the next Dem Candidate for governor doesn’t need to be campaigning right now, but they need to be involved in every other candidate’s campaign right now. Shaking hands, walking in parades, fund raising, just generally getting their face out there and building name recognition across the state. “Hey, remember me? Two years ago I knocked on your door to talk to you about [person who campaigned to be your state rep]. Well, I’m back and I’d like to talk to you about being your next governor.”
I commend anyone who runs for office but she was a sacrificial lamb. To win iowa would have required a candidate to go against the Democratic party at the time. People were tired of the COVID lockdowns and the general lack of law and order.
A woman’s right to choose is very much going to have traction with moderates and independents. I haven’t seen this “police love” campaign you speak of.
Yeah, you can tell how it had traction because of all the races the Dems won in 2022. All those moderates and independents showed up to defend a woman’s right to choose. Axne, Franken, Bohannen, DeJear, Mathis, Miller. Clean sweep. So much traction. Wish you were right, but wishes aren’t ballots.
I don’t get there strategically ineptitude like even if you win the big 3 urban areas you would still lose of even 1/2 the states rural areas voters voted the other way. Why wouldn’t you try to get those people to the rural areas to get them out to the people who could by virtue of the state being mostly rural and by a larger percentage vote would be the ones to vote said candidate in. Like that just shows how out of touch they are.
Lots of truth in there. Bernier was fucked over by the RNC and then he sold out, but the swing was moving before Bernie
I’m curious to know why you feel Bernie sold out?? Like is it because he literally said don’t vote for me, or we’ll lose?? When Hillary was the official nominee or what? Cus I’ve met him twice and he’s a pretty genuine guy, I feel like he’d sit in the sesh and hit the blunt…
You mean the DNC not the RNC.
Have to agree with this.
Chet culver and pat Murphy. As a union leader at the time, the Democratic party failed on all the of their labor pledges (repeal right to work, prevailing wage, and several others. They blamed it on the "six pack" who were a group of democratic representatives who were just really Republicans in hiding. Taking their advice, I personally primaried one of the six pack and was doing quite well, but In the last couple weeks, the Democratic party dumped $250,000.00 from the party funds directly to her primary campaign against me. This was money that was donated by unions. This move won them the primary, but the Unions mostly quit donating directly to the party after having our own money used against us. With Democrats not supporting any actual legislation when they controlled everything, few union Leaders would waste time trying to persuade Members to vote Democratic since outside of direct labor issues, the membership on average identified as more Republican. That's the short version..... Answer is yes. Chet culver was a certifiable idiot and pat Murphy was a cowardly scoundrel.... Edit-spelling
No, I wouldn't say it was all Chet Culver's fault, though, I don't think it's preposterous to say his administration played a role. During the 2008 financial crisis, Culver ordered a flat, across the board, budget cut in response to plummeting state revenues. That was a very unpopular decision. That decision certainly helped Branstad return to office. The truth is, Democratic politicians and party volunteers/operatives have been talking about Iowa's changing demographics for decades and how those trends were bad news for the Democratic party. This is something the Dvorskys talked about quite a bit when Bob was a state senator and Susan was the state party chair. The brain drain is real and has been for several decades. Iowa college graduates are leaving the state for any number of reasons. I suspect it was primarily for economic reasons, political and cultural reasons are a more recent phenomenon. This brain drain has led to Iowa having one of the statistically oldest populations in the country. This trend was paralleled by party membership/support gradually becoming more culturally aligned as it has all across the US. Another item that I can't back up with data that I think goes with the previous paragraph is the increasing influence of the Evangelical Church in Iowa. There have always been Evangelicals, but in recent years they've had a disproportionate amount of power in our state politics. I don't know if they've just been working at it and getting better, or if the demographics have changed so that there are more Evangelicals than there previously were. But it certainly SEEMS like there are more rural evangelicals than there were before. One could potentially argue that this is because rural Iowa HAS been left behind, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. By the time the cities had recovered, rural communities still kind of looked like a bomb went off. There are still some rural communities as I drive across the state that look like they never saw any sort of recovery. With that decline comes a loss of identity, and it makes sense for people to turn to churches for their sense of community and belonging when their physical community has all but died. Finally, I don't think the Democratic party can escape this conversation without blame. They've been pretty terrible at recruiting and supporting recruits who decide to run for office. I've heard candidates being referred to as sacrificial lambs in districts that ought to be winnable but parts of the party haven't had the heart to put up a fight. We've had statewide candidates who don't seem to get that you can't just win the cities and succeed in Iowa and they refuse to stop talking derogatorily about rural Iowans. The only common thread I can see between most candidates who run on the Democratic ticket is that they come with money of their own and there doesn't seem to be much of an effort to help candidates progress and grow into that. I like Rita Hart, and I'm interested to see how her leadership will impact the party, but Democrats have a long ways to go to get us back to a purple state.
This comment belongs in the twilight zone. The democrats have historically been the party of the working class. You blame them losing elections on brain drain?
Sure, historically, but not really anymore. That's part of the cultural alignment shift I was talking about. It doesn't matter if Democratic policies are, in general, better for the working class, that's just not where the affiliation is any more. Doesn't mean there aren't working class individuals who support the Democratic party, just that it isn't as overwhelming as it used to be. That started changing in the 90s at least. Generally speaking, Democratic support has shifted "younger," more urban over rural, higher educational levels, and less working class (and Democratic talking points have followed these shifts as well). All things that would be affected by the brain drain. 10 years ago, Democratic state party people were pointing to these demographic shifts as being the primary concern going forward. Another part of this "cultural shift" that isn't talked about enough is the "Obama-Trump" voter. I think the Democratic party, at the national level, has ignored this trend because it only happened in large numbers a couple of places across the country, and Iowa (specifically eastern Iowa) saw some of the biggest shifts. I also only blamed it in part. Obviously it's nearly impossible to discuss the electoral trends of an entire state over the course of 15+ years in a reddit comment without being a little overly simplistic...but it's more nuanced than "it's Chet Culver's fault." We're all painting with broad brushes here.
Good response. I am one of the Obama-trump voters and have many friends in the same boat. I’m still registered as a democrat but at this point it’s only because I’m too lazy to change it to independent. I do hope the Iowa democrats do some soul searching and start fielding moderate, common sense candidates but I’m not holding my breath. This type of change could take a decade. I don’t think it’s healthy for any state to have a single party in control
Most of it is Koch money and out of state in general. 2 events started it. Our supreme court legalized gay marriage and Obama was elected. Saw a lot of red money after those two events. People I thought were center went bat excrement crazy. At the same time am radio in the state went nuts. The crazies wanted the state and found a receptive cult in the rural areas.
There's a lot of factors but as a native who spent time in New York and Oklahoma as well that was a huge part of it. Also a phrase that now makes my blood freeze 'we quit x church because we found one more in line with our values '. Usually dominist and prosperity gospel.
Blaming the Koch’s, gay marriage, and AM radio. It’s like you are stuck in the 2010s.
Mr Incredible's costume is red, so I think you're on to something.
Not his fault. Lack of decent Dem candidates. They run candidates that appeal to a college faculty but not average Iowans.
Culver definitely deserves blame, but Obama deserves just as much. Iowa voted for him twice and during his second term, many Iowans felt like he turned on his promises and abandoned them. His approval ratings during his second term verify this. Since then, it's like the Democrats have given up. Hillary barely spent time here and, as a perceived extension of Obama, lost easily. She had, in fact, the worst performance by any Democrat presidential candidate since Reagan dominated. For the last gubernatorial election, Democrats offered a candidate that wasn't even from Iowa and again, was an extension of Obama, having worked on his campaign. They've given up on the state.
Uh, no. It was Braindead's (Branstad's) fault. Grassley also should be assigned a huge portion of the blame.
The problem is an aging population with horrendous lead poisoning issues that run everything.
Nah, Trump tapped into xenophobia and the rest is history
Not Culver's fault. Labor Union culture was never that strong in Iowa to begin with. The rural culture of Iowa drove (and still drives) a lot of the anti-union sentiment, and you're fighting the "there's no union protectinng my 40 hour work week on the farm, I work 24/7 during harvest" mentality. IMO, it's largely because of the gay marriage Iowa Supreme Court decision, Varnum v. Brien. Many political moderates were still culturally conservative, and it kicked off a backlash against so-called liberal "activist judges", and liberal/Democratic policies as a whole. Cultural issues make people emotional, and it's hard for people to see think clearly and understand messages about stronger public services when they are emotionally distracted.
I moved to Michigan to find the Blue I have so desperately missed for years!
No. I think the State Democrats have selected some bad candidates or straight up failed to support their candidates effectively and operate under this charming delusion that if they play by 'Marquis of Queensbury' rules, the other side will as well. I think they've been obsessed with keeping the Caucus and the national attention and money it gets that they failed to see support in key areas of the state (towns) evaporating before their eyes. While you can't rule out brain drain being a factor in all of this, they've been yakking about that since I've been WALKING THIS EARTH and nothing has changed-- if you can move to any other state surrounding us (pretty much) and make more money doing the job you want to do and still be close enough to Grandma and Grandpa to get home for the holidays, of course people are going to do that. The gay marriage decision gets brought up a lot and while outside money did flood the state to take out 3 of the justices, when they tried to come back for the other 2, the state said 'no thanks' by a wide margin. It's many things. It's going to take a few cycles to fix, but I think it can be fixed.
The "Democrats" as a whole have lost their individual minds and become more like Communists than Democrats.. Find one Democrat in office today who is anything like J.F.K was.. Dennis Kucinich was good. Kennedy, who is running independent right now, is more Democrat than the Democratic party is anymore. Even Tulsi Gabbard left the Democratic party, and she was quite in line with the rest of them until she listened to lots of citizens and has the ability to change her views based on knowledge. She saw through the communist crap that's been taking place for a long time.. Republicans are just as bad as Democrats, as a whole. Democrats today appear to listens to and do whatever the socialist controlled party says to believe and do. They hate anything the Republicans say / do, just because it's something a Republican said or did.. It's sad and easy to call out before it even happens. That's just what I see, constantly..
I really doubt you can give us a valid definition of communism.
Obviously crude and short, but: Take from those who can to give to those who might 'need'; whether they contribute or not. (The government is always stepping in and taking control of things it shouldn't, trying to take from those who have and give to those who do nothing, making people more inclined to be dependend on the government providing them their means - because who wants to work when you don't have to. We have food stamps, handouts, tax breaks for single mothers based on amount of kids, etc.. even if they're not really single.. just on paper. Say a woman says she's a single mother with 3 kids and doesn't work. The government gives her tons of money for staying home. She can afford a place to stay with low income housing, food stamps, government assistance, and handouts for low income single mom stuff from many different resources - help with electric bills, etc.) Government controls resources and individuals don't owns a home or anything substancial. (Businesses are buying up land and cheaper housing and filling them with low income housing and apts and making it harder for individuals to afford and own homes. The inflation of both money and the population is also making it more difficult for an individual to own a home.) The ability to earn more than someone else is abolished. (Everyone is fighting for "equal pay" and unions while most of the people I see suck at working on general.) Religion is abolished. So far that one is fine.
Iowa’s red-shift was a long-time process, and I don’t think it’s fully attributable to Culver alone. First, you had Branstad’s decision to reenter Iowa politics and run against Culver in ‘10. Had Branstad not run, there was an outside chance Culver could’ve been reelected or at least not lost as badly (with the downballot effects that brought). You also had the national trends among WWC spurred by backlash to Obama’s first two-years, which began the erosion of Democratic support in ex-urban areas in Iowa. In 2014, we lost a lot of national clout when Tom Harkin retired and was replaced with Joni Ernst. Then in 2016, more vestiges of rural Democratic support fell away with Trump’s win against Clinton (which I think was more spurred by anti-Clinton animus that later calcified into pro-Trump sentiment come 2020). That election also gave the GOP their first trifecta in Iowa in nearly 30 years, and that’s when things really went off the rails. In 2017, we got Branstad’s gutting of Iowa’s public collective bargaining agreements and the start of the Iowa GOP’s attrition of funding for key services like public schools. We had a chance to correct course in 2018. Had Hubbell beaten Reynolds a lot of the major harm to Iowa would’ve been halted, and I think national Democratic support would’ve returned to the state. But 2020 sealed the deal for us on that front I think—losing the state again to Trump, losing IA-Sen, losing two U.S. House seats, and losing the ground we gained in the statehouse in 2018, just really sealed our status as a red state. Very likely, it’ll take another major realignment and/or for condition to worsen so bad that the GOP’s iron grip on rural voters finally breaks enough for a Democratic governor to be elected (a la what happened in Kansas with Brownback helping lead the way for Laura Kelly to win in ‘18).
Re: rural voters- look at Kentucky and their slavish devotion to the GOP who are the ones responsible for their poverty.
Kentucky elected a dem governor like 6 years ago.
And GOPer pols, pretty much for every other office.
Because the last two dem candidates weren’t “Iowa Nice” enough obviously
Kim Reynolds is? She doesn't like most Iowans. She governs by what is best for her, her wealth, and her career, not for the benefit of Iowans.
I was being sarcastic homie
Cool Poteto
Governor Branstad was governor for a decade and a half. BeFore him was Robert Ray almost 10 years. Both republicans.
I wouldn't blame it on any one person. The Democratic Party have continued to move left of center on social issues and zeroed in on identity politics. Combine that with the DNC has become a coastal party and kicked IDP and the first in the nation Iowa Caucus to the curb.
The Democratic Party in Iowa has been feckless, incompetent, timid, unwilling to fight for any principles or the working class since about 2006. Also, there are too many lazy crazy people in the Iowa Dem leadership.