Although, I respect Mr. Sand’s faith based values, this article reaffirms my opinion that he is not equipped to challenge Republicans’ lock on Iowa’s state government. Simply put, he is a Tom Miller style Democrat who doesn’t have the mindset needed for defeating contemporary Republican campaign strategies. His bipartisan rhetoric might please the NPR crowd but it is not the way to defeat Iowa’s majority support for conservative extremism.
I’ve been preaching this unpopular opinion about Iowa Democrats for eight years. During this time, statewide Democratic candidates have continued to lose races by pursuing outmoded and boring strategies.
This tends to work fine for district candidates in safe districts and long time (high name identification) Democratic incumbents in blueish districts. Sadly, it not sufficient for resurrecting Democratic control of state government.
As always, my concern is not about ideology (I.e., a preference for progressive or moderate Democrats). It is about tired old strategies versus smart strategies for attacking Republican extremism. It most definitely is not about turning the other cheek.
The last two Iowa Polls showed Sand's approval rating is higher than the governor's or Brenna Bird's. Even a majority of Republicans approve of his work. He gets a lot of local media coverage doing these town hall meetings and that has made him much more visible and better known than most previous state auditors. I think that has set him up pretty well for a governor's race against Bird (would be very difficult for any Democrat to beat Reynolds if she runs again).
Polls are not elections. As you point out, he leads Reynolds in a poll but would lose to her in an election. He has good name ID and hasn’t anything to draw negative attention (because he hasn’t done anything voters, not political junkies, know about). Assuming he stays committed to his Tom Miller style, a race with Bird, who would try to take him apart, would be a good hypothetical test of my theory. I’m willing to predict he would lose. I don’t think you would predict him to win. Iowa’s current political landscape is littered with the political corpses of statewide candidates who were “set up pretty well to run.” That feels good until walked into the race with weak campaigns from 20 years ago.
Iowa's partisan voting index is at least R+6, maybe more like R+7 or 8 by now. So any Democrat in a statewide race starts out at a disadvantage. I believe Bird would underperform and a good Democratic candidate would have a fighting chance against her. Sand has criticized Bird publicly many times, most recently on a virtual news conference this Monday about the abortion ban, when he reminded reporters that Bird said (in the context of the Iowa Supreme Court's abortion ruling) that we have much more work to do.
Your political strategy of focusing heavily on attacking "Republican extremism" is misguided and counterproductive for several reasons:
1. It fails to address substantive policy issues that voters care about. By fixating on labeling opponents as "extremists", politicians avoid having to make compelling arguments on topics like the economy, healthcare, education, etc.
2. It further polarizes the electorate and makes bipartisan cooperation even more difficult. Painting large swaths of the opposition as extremists shuts down dialogue and entrenches tribalism.
3. It can backfire by making the accusers seem shrill and alarmist. Overuse of "extremist" rhetoric risks desensitizing voters and undermining credibility when confronting genuine extremism.
4. It's an overly broad brush that unfairly tars many mainstream conservatives. Most Republican voters and officeholders hold views within the historical mainstream, not extremist positions.
5. It fails to reckon with the diversity of views within the Republican coalition. The GOP includes disparate factions that often disagree, not a monolithic bloc of extremists.
6. It's hypocritical, as those lobbing "extremist" accusations often downplay or excuse radical elements on their own side of the aisle.
7. It ignores the real reasons many voters are drawn to populist messages, instead dismissing their concerns as products of extremism.
8. It's a lazy substitute for the hard work of coalition-building and persuading skeptical voters. Claiming the moral high ground is easier than crafting an appealing vision.
A more constructive approach would involve engaging in good faith debates on policy, seeking common ground where possible, and appealing to shared values rather than demonizing the opposition.
Although, I respect Mr. Sand’s faith based values, this article reaffirms my opinion that he is not equipped to challenge Republicans’ lock on Iowa’s state government. Simply put, he is a Tom Miller style Democrat who doesn’t have the mindset needed for defeating contemporary Republican campaign strategies. His bipartisan rhetoric might please the NPR crowd but it is not the way to defeat Iowa’s majority support for conservative extremism.
I’ve been preaching this unpopular opinion about Iowa Democrats for eight years. During this time, statewide Democratic candidates have continued to lose races by pursuing outmoded and boring strategies.
This tends to work fine for district candidates in safe districts and long time (high name identification) Democratic incumbents in blueish districts. Sadly, it not sufficient for resurrecting Democratic control of state government.
As always, my concern is not about ideology (I.e., a preference for progressive or moderate Democrats). It is about tired old strategies versus smart strategies for attacking Republican extremism. It most definitely is not about turning the other cheek.
The last two Iowa Polls showed Sand's approval rating is higher than the governor's or Brenna Bird's. Even a majority of Republicans approve of his work. He gets a lot of local media coverage doing these town hall meetings and that has made him much more visible and better known than most previous state auditors. I think that has set him up pretty well for a governor's race against Bird (would be very difficult for any Democrat to beat Reynolds if she runs again).
Polls are not elections. As you point out, he leads Reynolds in a poll but would lose to her in an election. He has good name ID and hasn’t anything to draw negative attention (because he hasn’t done anything voters, not political junkies, know about). Assuming he stays committed to his Tom Miller style, a race with Bird, who would try to take him apart, would be a good hypothetical test of my theory. I’m willing to predict he would lose. I don’t think you would predict him to win. Iowa’s current political landscape is littered with the political corpses of statewide candidates who were “set up pretty well to run.” That feels good until walked into the race with weak campaigns from 20 years ago.
Iowa's partisan voting index is at least R+6, maybe more like R+7 or 8 by now. So any Democrat in a statewide race starts out at a disadvantage. I believe Bird would underperform and a good Democratic candidate would have a fighting chance against her. Sand has criticized Bird publicly many times, most recently on a virtual news conference this Monday about the abortion ban, when he reminded reporters that Bird said (in the context of the Iowa Supreme Court's abortion ruling) that we have much more work to do.
Your political strategy of focusing heavily on attacking "Republican extremism" is misguided and counterproductive for several reasons:
1. It fails to address substantive policy issues that voters care about. By fixating on labeling opponents as "extremists", politicians avoid having to make compelling arguments on topics like the economy, healthcare, education, etc.
2. It further polarizes the electorate and makes bipartisan cooperation even more difficult. Painting large swaths of the opposition as extremists shuts down dialogue and entrenches tribalism.
3. It can backfire by making the accusers seem shrill and alarmist. Overuse of "extremist" rhetoric risks desensitizing voters and undermining credibility when confronting genuine extremism.
4. It's an overly broad brush that unfairly tars many mainstream conservatives. Most Republican voters and officeholders hold views within the historical mainstream, not extremist positions.
5. It fails to reckon with the diversity of views within the Republican coalition. The GOP includes disparate factions that often disagree, not a monolithic bloc of extremists.
6. It's hypocritical, as those lobbing "extremist" accusations often downplay or excuse radical elements on their own side of the aisle.
7. It ignores the real reasons many voters are drawn to populist messages, instead dismissing their concerns as products of extremism.
8. It's a lazy substitute for the hard work of coalition-building and persuading skeptical voters. Claiming the moral high ground is easier than crafting an appealing vision.
A more constructive approach would involve engaging in good faith debates on policy, seeking common ground where possible, and appealing to shared values rather than demonizing the opposition.
Thank you for your comment. I look forward to responding soon.
👍