Sizing up Wahls vs. Turek after Democratic primary shake-up

Feb. 16 edition of "KHOI's Capitol Week"

Nathan Sage with Josh Turek in Mason City on February 16. Photo first published on the Turek campaign’s Facebook page.

It was one of those Mondays. There was so much breaking news that I replaced a big chunk of what Spencer Dirks and I planned to talk about on the show, squeezing in time to work on the format in between the eight subcommittee meetings I attended to kick off “funnel week” at the Iowa legislature.

This post is reaching you later than usual, because on Tuesday I attended or listened in another dozen or so subcommittee or committee meetings and then celebrated a loved one’s birthday over dinner.

Let’s get right to it. The audio file from the February 16 edition of “KHOI’s Capitol Week” is at the top of this message; you can also find it and subscribe through any podcast platform. Here’s the written recap of what Spencer and I discussed. If your email provider truncates this message, you can read it without interruption here.

Nathan Sage ends U.S. Senate campaign…

Sunday afternoon, Nathan Sage announced that he made the “incredibly difficult decision” to end his Senate campaign.

I have always been honest about the impact of money in my personal story, but that reality is even more undeniable when running for office. As a true grassroots campaign, we simply were unable to raise the financial resources necessary to keep this campaign viable. In today’s political environment, it takes extraordinary sums of money to compete, to communicate, to travel the state, and to ensure our message reaches voters. Too often, that system favors those with wealth, powerful connections, and established influence.

The news was sad but not surprising. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Sage’s campaign was spending far more than it was raising during the last six months of 2025. It’s so hard to compete in a statewide race as a first-time candidate.

We haven’t heard the last from Sage. He said in his statement on Sunday, “I am not done speaking truth to power and holding republicans, and even democrats, accountable. I will continue fighting for working class people and pushing for elected leaders and a government that truly listens to and fights for our voices in Washington.”

I saw Sage speak at several events last year, and I never heard anyone say they didn’t like what they heard. I don’t know what his future holds, but he’s talking about issues that matter to Democratic voters.

…and endorses Josh Turek

On Monday afternoon, Sage endorsed State Representative Josh Turek at a joint event in Mason City. (Douglas Burns of The Iowa Mercury posted the video.) Sage said only 2 percent of Congress comes from the working class, and he’s supporting Turek “because he comes from the same kind of working class family I do.” State Representative J.D. Scholten also endorsed Turek after ending his own Senate bid last August.

Turek has often talked about his family’s economic struggles during his childhood, and how they relied on public assistance programs.

I was not expecting Sage to come out of the gate criticizing the other Democrat running for Senate, but he had very harsh words about State Senator Zach Wahls. From his remarks to the crowd in Mason City:

“My interactions with people, what they don’t understand is I read people very, very well,” Sage said. “I’m very good at understanding when people are actually sincere, when they’re fake, when they are lying to me and when they don’t give a shit. I’ll just be blunt honest with you: Zach Wahls does not give a shit. He is a artificial, fake politician that wants the next notch in his belt to be able to follow his career path of being in Washington. He cares about that. I am not going to beat around the bush about that. Josh Turek, on the other hand, was a human being to me.”

From an interview with the Des Moines Register:

Sage said he’s spoken with both Turek and Wahls, and he doesn’t believe Wahls is “really here to fight for us.”

“I don’t trust him,” Sage said. “He comes off as not genuine, not authentic. He comes off as fake. He comes off as somebody that just thinks he’s supposed to be there.”

Speaking to the Cedar Rapids Gazette:

“I wanted to meet with Josh. I wanted to see him for the man he is. I wanted to see Zach for the man he was. And to be honest, it was actually easy,” Sage said. “Josh is a real person. We had a real conversation. … It was very easy to connect with Josh. It was very easy to understand Josh.

“On the flip side of it, Zach was the artificial person he is. It was very not real. He had his staff there. He didn’t give me the courtesy that Josh did where (their conversation was) man-to-man. … It was more of another transactional moment for Zach.”

From Burns’ piece for The Iowa Mercury:

Sage said Wahls is guilty of what journalist Mark Leibovich terms the “DC scalp stare.” That’s when people at parties and other social events in the nation’s capital look over the heads of those with whom they are talking to see if more important people are approaching.

“Zach will look at you, look past you,” Sage said. “He doesn’t look at you in the eyes.”

In a statement released Sunday, Wahls highly praised Sage, saying he was right to say that “if Democrats want working-class Iowans to trust us again, we have to earn back that trust by showing up and actually making Iowans’ lives better.” Wahls added, “I admire Nathan’s courage to speak truth to power, take on corrupt corporate interests, challenge the broken political status quo, and push this race to be about real life for real people.”

Where things stand in the Senate Democratic primary

I’m not in the predictions game, but I will say this: both Wahls and Turek have a solid chance to win the June 2 primary. It’s not like some other Democratic primaries, such as the races in the first and third Congressional district, where one contender is the heavy favorite and the other is a long shot.

Wahls and Turek have a lot in common. Both are quite knowledgeable about public policy and are good public speakers. They have similar positions on the issues and voting records in the state legislature.

Both have lots of high-profile supporters, including many local officials and current and former state legislators. The best-known Wahls backers include former U.S. Representative Dave Loebsack, former Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, 2018 nominee for governor Fred Hubbell, and former presidential candidate Howard Dean. Turek’s most prominent supporters include former Attorney General Tom Miller, former Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson, and 2014 nominee for governor Jack Hatch.

Both have raised a lot of money for their Senate campaigns. As we mentioned on the show a couple of weeks ago, Wahls led in fundraising for the fourth quarter and ended the year with more cash on hand (though some of that cash is restricted for use in the general election). But Turek will have the resources to compete in a statewide primary.

Zach Wahls’ case to Democratic voters

The Democratic primary is shaping up to be a battle over who is best positioned to stand up for working class Iowans.

Wahls has lined up far more labor union endorsements—at least eighteen, if his campaign website is up to date. Organized labor is not as influential in Iowa Democratic politics as it was a generation or two ago, but it’s still an important constituency. Turek has some labor endorsements, but fewer and from smaller locals.

Wahls is positioning himself as more outspoken on some issues that matter to voters, like reproductive rights. Both candidates are pro-choice, but last month, the Wahls campaign highlighted a few important abortion votes that Turek missed as a member of the Iowa House. (Turek’s campaign has good explanations for all of those absences.)

Wahls has rolled out more federal policy proposals, including a plan released in January, which would raise taxes on the wealthy to shore up Social Security. While all of the Democrats running for Senate have talked about wealthy interests paying their fair share, only Wahls has put out a detailed proposal.

Finally, Wahls is advocating for some political reforms, like term limits and a state constitutional amendment to limit the influence of dark money. He’s positioning himself as someone who isn’t beholden to anyone and will stand up to leaders, including in his own party. (While the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hasn’t formally endorsed in this race, Turek is their preferred candidate.)

Along those lines, longtime Iowa campaign operative Pete D’Alessandro (who has held senior positions with Bernie Sanders’ campaign) endorsed Wahls on Monday. From the news release: “He’s proven he can win in competitive counties, has represented rural and small town Iowa, and he understands that we can’t keep running the same playbook and expect different results. Zach’s focus on taking on corporate monopolies and putting power back in the hands of Iowa families is how Democrats can win again in places we’ve been losing for far too long. He has my full support.”

The Wahls campaign released a memo on Tuesday that fleshed out several of those points to argue he “is the strongest nominee to win statewide.”

Josh Turek’s case to Democratic voters

Electability is that the center of Turek’s argument to Democrats—which makes sense, since it was the most effective point for Mike Franken in Iowa’s 2022 primary for Senate. Turek has won two elections in an Iowa House district that Donald Trump carried. Of the six Democrats who won in 2024 in Iowa legislative districts that voted for Trump, Turek was the top overperformer. He’s also from the western part of the Iowa where Democrats have struggled.

In contrast, Wahls grew up in a white collar family in solid blue Johnson County and has not faced a GOP opponent in either of his Iowa Senate races.

From the beginning, Turek’s campaign has centered his inspiring personal story–from having 21 surgeries by the age of 12 to becoming a Paralympic gold medalist. He is proud to be the first permanently disabled Iowa legislator and alludes to his disability in speeches and social media posts that urge others to join him in the “push for change.”

Someone’s polling Iowa Democrats about the Senate primary

Late Monday afternoon, a couple of readers flagged a new poll asking Iowa Democrats about the Senate primary. I was able to take the survey myself before our show. Respondents were asked whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of four politicians: Turek, Wahls, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senator Bernie Sanders.

Then there’s this question: “When thinking about the Democratic primary, which lane appeals to you more?”

The choices are “Josh Turek, who is backed by Chuck Schumer,” or “Zach Wahls, who is aligned with Bernie Sanders.”

Incidentally, Wahls endorsed Elizabeth Warren (not Sanders) before the 2020 Iowa caucuses.

I didn’t have time to reach out before the show, but on Monday evening I asked both campaigns whether they commissioned this survey. Staff for both Wahls and Turek have told me they didn’t commission the poll.

Regardless of who was testing the message, we will hear that rhetoric a lot before the primary. Jesse Case, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local 238, sent statements on Monday to Iowa media saying Wahls “has been showing up for Iowa workers long before Nathan Sage or Josh Turek even got recruited to run by D.C. consultants and Chuck Schumer.” He praised Wahls for walking picket lines and showing up to union halls, adding, “That’s why Zach Wahls is the overwhelming choice of labor and working people in this election, because Iowa families deserve a candidate who will always stand up for what’s right and not cave to D.C. insiders and party bosses.”

UPDATE: On February 19, Politico published a polling memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee that indicated they commissioned this survey. The memo said Wahls led Turek 30 percent to 23 percent, with 42 percent undecided. “Among voters initially undecided on the ballot, respondents were asked which candidate they were more aligned with in the Democrat primary lane. Undecided Democrat voters break more than 3-to-1 toward Wahls.”

Poll shows competitive Senate race in Iowa

Speaking of polls, a survey by Change Research, released on February 9 found likely Republican nominee Ashley Hinson with a three-point lead over all three Democratic candidates for Senate. But after hearing descriptions of the candidates, Hinson led Wahls by 48 percent to 46 percent, and Hinson and Turek were tied at 46 percent.

I’m always cautious about this kind of poll because I haven’t seen the descriptions of the candidates used. But both candidates touted the results as showing Iowa’s Senate race is winnable. A statement from Turek’s campaign said: “Turek is the only candidate in the Democratic Primary who has ever even run against a Republican, let alone beaten one. He is the Democrat that represents the reddest district won in 2024 and overperformed Harris by 13 points, 50% better than any other Democrat in the state of Iowa.“

It must has be worrying for Republicans to see Hinson at only 46 to 48 percent. But she’s not yet well known outside of her district.

On a related note, last September I mentioned on the show that Hinson has repeatedly name-checked Wahls in her public statements. I don’t recall hearing her mention Turek publicly.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee also is elevating Wahls. Here was their reaction to Sage ending his campaign on Sunday: “Looks like Nathan Sage finally saw the writing on the wall: Radical Zach Wahls has won over Democrats’ progressive base and catapulted to the lead in Iowa’s messy primary,” said NRSC Regional Press Secretary Samantha Cantrell.

The Wahls campaign has cited this as evidence Republicans are most worried about Wahls, but it could easily mean the opposite: Republicans would rather have Hinson face Wahls in the November election.

Feenstra using taxpayer funds for political ads

We spent a couple of minutes on my reporting from this past weekend, about how U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra is using part of his Congressional office budget for radio ads and direct mail. In case you missed it:

All of these ads are legal, because Feenstra’s office went through the approval process for “franking” funds. Still, I find it unseemly when members of Congress use taxpayer funds for political advertising. Feenstra’s campaign had more than $3.2 million cash on hand as of December 31. He didn’t need to use official funds for four postal mailings in a three-week period in January.

According to Federal Communications Commission documents I reviewed, Feenstra’s office spent more than $30,000 on radio ads leading up to the caucuses, and will spend more than $30,000 on another radio ad, which was set to debut on February 16.

Iowans in Congress vote to uphold Trump tariffs

We briefly covered some news from Congress. Funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security lapsed on Friday night. It looks like this shutdown could go on for a while, but the House and Senate are both out on recess this entire week, which blows my mind. Congress is more dysfunctional than the Iowa legislature.

I sense Democrats will hold out for quite some time, demanding reforms to ICE like no masks, required body cams, and no entering homes without a judicial warrant. Republicans don’t appear to be open to any of those concessions.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted for the first time on whether to repeal President Trump’s tariffs. If it were up to Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Hinson, Zach Nunn, and Feenstra, Congress would have continued to dodge the issue. Several times, they’ve gone along with procedural tricks, and they tried again last week to prevent any floor vote on tariffs until after July 31.

However, House leaders were unable to get a majority to approve that rule. So a resolution disapproving Trump’s tariffs against China did come to the floor, and all four Iowans voted to uphold the tariffs. (Iowa’s Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have stuck with Trump on all tariff votes in the upper chamber too.)

Nunn was the guest on the latest episode of “Iowa Press” on Iowa PBS, where he was asked about his tariff votes. Here’s part of his answer: “I still believe that the first article of the Constitution says that Congress should be leading this. But I do support the president in holding offenders accountable.”

How can Nunn say “Congress should be leading,” when he has tried to avoid any votes on the tariffs? There are strong arguments that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional.

In defending the tariffs on Canada, Nunn relayed what a dairy farmer supposedly told him about our northern neighbor’s unfair trading practices. I have the impression that this policy is costly for many other farmers, who rely on fertilizer made with Canadian potash.

Lots of Democratic candidates and organizations put out statements last week blasting the Iowans’ tariff votes. I expect this to become a 2026 campaign issue.

Funnel week arrives at the statehouse

We spent most of the second half of the program on news from the Iowa legislature. Monday kicked off “funnel week,” an important deadline.

Most bills that aren’t related to taxes or spending must get through at least one committee in the Iowa House or Senate by February 20 to stay alive. So the schedules has been really packed. One day last week there were more than 70 scheduled subcommittees. I attended eight subcommittee meetings on Monday of this week and more on Tuesday.

Legislature misses K-12 school funding deadline, again

One deadline the legislature didn’t meet this year was finalizing school funding within 30 days of the governor submitting her budget. It’s been years since they met this deadline, which is in Iowa Code.

Last Thursday, top Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate highlighted the failure, which has real-world consequences for school districts. State Representative Tracy Ehlert, the ranking Democrat on the Iowa House Education Committee, said in a statement, “School funding should be the first budget item completed for each session, because public education must be our priority. As districts work to finalize budgets, make staffing decisions, and prepare classrooms for students, the lack of timely action leaves educators and families in a difficult position.”

Senate approves 1.75 percent school funding increase

We mentioned on our previous show that Senate Republicans were pushing to increase per pupil funding for public K-12 schools by just 1.75 percent, with some additional one-time money. Last Tuesday, the Senate approved that bill (Senate File 2201), with three Republicans (Charlie McClintock, Jeff Taylor, and Cherielynn Westrich) joining all seventeen Democrats to oppose it. That got my attention, because the Senate usually passes spending bills on straight party-line votes.

We didn’t have time on the show to dig into the Senate debate, but there were some great floor speeches. I hope to put up some clips on my YouTube channel.

House Republicans pushing for 2.25 percent school funding hike

On Monday, we finally saw the House Republican counter-offer on school funding: a 2.25 percent increase per pupil, with some additional funding (including $14 million for paraeducator pay).

At the House subcommittee on the Senate bill Monday, every speaker opposed 1.75 percent as far below the level schools need. During the full Iowa House Appropriations Committee meeting a few hours later, Republicans rolled out their amendment. Democrats all voted against the bill in committee, and will oppose it when it comes to the House floor, likely later this week.

Robin Opsahl covered the Appropriations Committee meeting for Iowa Capital Dispatch. The Senate’s proposal would raise per pupil funding from $7,988 this year to $8,133 for fiscal year 2027. The House amendment would raise the level to $8,168 per-pupil in K-12 schools.

Although Republicans are not complying with the statutory deadline for approving school funding, they are way ahead compared to last year, when neither chamber debated school funding until April.

Other controversial education bills moving forward

Because of the new developments in the Senate race, I had to cut a bunch of legislative news from this week’s show. So many controversial education bills are eligible for floor debate in the Iowa House. We highlighted a few last week; on Monday night’s show, I flagged two more that sparked heated discussions in committee.

House File 2512 is informally known as the “Charlie Kirk” bill. It would require the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners to disqualify or revoke the licenses of any educators “for publicly celebrating any act of politically motivated violence, including the unlawful killing of Charles J. Kirk.” The bill would be retroactive to September 10, 2025.

There are obvious First Amendment problems with the bill, and several lawsuits filed by Iowa teachers are pending in federal courts. House Education Committee chair Skyler Wheeler added to the constitutional problems by amending the bill in committee. The new language would revoke educator licenses for “encouraging or leading” a student protest. In addition, schools would have to add one day to the academic year for every day there was a student walkout.

Republican State Representatives Tom Moore and Chad Ingels joined every Democrat on the committee to vote against the bill.

House File 2486 would require schools to adopt dress code policies. The bill calls for “appropriate” clothing for an educational setting: “Presentable, promoting personal hygiene, neatness, and modesty.” Several Democrats on the committee, including State Representatives Angel Ramirez, Tracy Ehlert, and Elinor Levin, have worked with kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. They argued passionately that strict dress code policies would be stigmatizing for kids whose families cannot afford to send them to school in neat, clean clothes. Some families don’t have access to laundry or even running water. Again, Moore and Ingels joined every committee Democrat to vote against advancing the bill.

The newest Republican lawmaker, State Representative Wendy Larson, is running this bill. She expressed surprise in committee that the dress code bill was controversial. She should be ready for more passionate objections from Democrats when the bill comes to the House floor.

Latest round of attacks on public libraries

Over the past week, I’ve attended several subcommittee meetings on bills targeting public libraries. We had time to discuss two on the show.

House File 2309 popped up last Wednesday, and the room was packed for the 7:30 am subcommittee meeting. This bill has a lot of moving parts. Libraries would be prohibited from disseminating “material harmful to minors” without parental consent. Lots of books that don’t meet the legal definition of obscenity but do contain some sexual content would be considered “presumptively harmful” to children. The bill creates civil and criminal liability for libraries and librarians that violate the policy, and it would lift the “obscenity exemption” that currently shields libraries from many lawsuits.

State Representative Charley Thomson, who introduced the bill and chaired the subcommittee, denied that it would ban any books. Librarians and others warned that it would expose libraries and cities to costly litigation. Republicans advanced the bill anyway. I posted the video from this subcommittee on my YouTube channel.

On Monday, I attended a subcommittee on Senate File 2119, which would remove the obscenity exemption for Iowa schools and public libraries. We’ve seen versions of this in past years.

Even though nothing in any Iowa library’s collection would meet the legal definition of “obscenity,” lots of books have sexual content that may be offensive to some people. So librarians worry that lifting the exemption would prompt many to file suit, and it would be costly for libraries to defend various books in court as not obscene.

Again, Republicans advanced the bill over the objection of the Democrat on the subcommittee. You can watch the Senate subcommittee meeting here.

I’ll have more to say about the library bills after the funnel deadline.

Total abortion ban off the table for this year

We had one more breaking news story on Monday afternoon: House Republicans canceled a planned subcommittee on an effort to entirely ban so-called “elective abortion.” House File 2332 was supposed to be in subcommittee Tuesday morning. It would declare that life begins at conception, and it would make it a class A felony to perform an abortion, with few exceptions.

State Representative Jon Dunwell, one of 24 co-sponsors of the bill, confirmed to the Des Moines Register that it was not a temporary delay.

“It’s not going to happen this year,” he said. “So as I kind of worked through and realized this didn’t have the caucus where it needed to be at this point, I decided to kind of refocus our resources and our efforts upon some other life initiatives.”

I’m not surprised that many of the 67 House Republicans would prefer not to vote on this bill, especially during an election year. Iowa’s current near-total abortion ban is already unpopular, and this proposal is even more extreme. On the other hand, voting against an abortion ban would anger a large segment of the GOP base.

Dunwell, who works for the social conservative group The FAMiLY Leader, talked about bringing the proposal back another year. But he’s not seeking re-election to the Iowa House. Someone else will have to pick up the ball.

House advances abortion medication restrictions

New restrictions on abortion medication are eligible for House floor debate after the Health and Human Services Committee approved House File 2563 last Thursday.

This one was fast-tracked: only about an hour after the early morning House subcommittee, the full HHS committee considered the bill. It’s a companion to the Senate bill we discussed on last week’s show. It would outlaw the use of telemedicine for abortion in Iowa and would require doctors to provide information to women seeking abortions about “abortion reversal” (not supported by science). There would also be many new reporting requirements for physicians.

Professional organizations in the medical and public health fields are very concerned about this bill, which you can see from the lobbyist declarations.

Bills pending to increase lawmakers’ security

Lawmakers are considering several bills that would enhance the safety of elected officials, following last summer’s political assassinations in Minnesota and the September killing of Charlie Kirk.

Maya Marchel Hoff reported on these proposals for the Lee Newspaper group. From her article:

Proposals include allowing Iowa’s members of Congress, statewide elected officials and members of the Legislature to request their name be redacted from­ public county assessor or county ­recorder documents, and allowing home security system reimbursement for lawmakers.

Another state Senate proposal would allow for issuing members of the Iowa General Assembly a professional permit to carry weapons, which they could bring anywhere in the ­state at all times, including on school grounds.

Lawmakers from both parties have said they receive more threats, and worries about personal safety can deter people from running for the legislature.

Renewable energy siting bill still alive

I’m watching several bills that limit local authority in some way. We only had time to talk about one of these on the show. House Study Bill 692 would limit county ordinances on wind turbines and solar arrays. Dozens of counties have enacted setback rules that are de facto bans on new renewable energy installations.

Proponents say this is a property rights issue. Landowners who want to install solar panels or wind turbines should not be blocked by overly restrictive county rules. Counties would retain some regulatory authority.

The lobbyist declarations on this bill reveal some strange bedfellows: supporters include the Iowa Association of Business and Industry and the Sierra Club Iowa chapter. The Iowa Farm Bureau Association opposes the bill.

There was strong bipartisan support for this policy on the House Commerce Committee, where it passed by 19 votes to 3 on Monday. Similar bills introduced by Republican State Senator Mike Klimesh didn’t have enough GOP support to get out of the Senate Commerce Committee for the past two years.

That’s all for now. I’ve got another full day ahead of me at the capitol. Thanks for reading or listening!