6 Comments
User's avatar
Ann Balentine's avatar

Thank you Laurie for a great analysis

Suzan Erem's avatar

Thanks Laura, more great analysis. What do you think about Lahn claiming he can bust up Big Ag when that's beyond the power of a governor? Or how he phrases his education policy as if he'll stop religious and rightwing teachers from pushing their ideology, a policy I suspect will actually be aimed at public school teachers?

Sharon Lawrence's avatar

I am not an iowan but i have seen some of the Turek commercials. Impressive and awe inspiring would be understatements. At a time when politicians are so cowardly & self serving Turek stands out.

Dan Cohen's avatar

Thanks for weeding through the primary results and providing a clear summary.

Cyrus Winters's avatar

There is this idea that a Trump endorsement can rescue a bad candidate, (think Ken Paxton), but I think Feenstra was a historically weak candidate. I also think there is still a thread of independence among Iowa GOP voters, and they don't like being taken for granted. Feenstra took them for granted, and when he did speak he was as smooth as 40 grit sandpaper. Lahn is a better candidate, but the general election scrutiny of his domicile, his investments, etc, will be a gauntlet. As fas as the Senate, I think Dems just decided that Turek was a more compelling candidate. Wahls is not done, but he'll need to try again.

Laura Belin's avatar

Sand is already hammering on the "lives in Kansas" angle. If Lahn has a lot of baggage, Sand has the resources to tell Iowans about it.

I would not be surprised to see Wahls run again in 2028, when (presumably) the Senate seat will be open again.