United States Senate election in Iowa, 2020
- Election date: Nov. 3
- Registration deadline(s): Oct. 24
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Recount laws
- Early voting starts: Oct. 5
- Absentee/mail voting deadline(s): Nov. 2 (postmarked); Nov. 9 (received)
- Processing, counting, and challenging absentee/mail-in ballots
- Voter ID: Non-photo ID
- Poll times: 7 a.m. to 9 p.m
2022 →
← 2016
|
| U.S. Senate, Iowa |
|---|
 |
| Democratic primary Republican primary General election |
| Election details |
| Filing deadline: March 13, 2020 |
| Primary: June 2, 2020 General: November 3, 2020 Pre-election incumbent: Joni Ernst (Republican) |
| How to vote |
| Poll times: 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Voting in Iowa |
| Race ratings |
Sabato's Crystal Ball: Lean Republican Inside Elections: Toss-up |
| Ballotpedia analysis |
| U.S. Senate battlegrounds U.S. House battlegrounds Federal and state primary competitiveness Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2020 |
| See also |
U.S. Senate • 1st • 2nd • 3rd • 4th Iowa elections, 2020 U.S. Congress elections, 2020 U.S. Senate elections, 2020 U.S. House elections, 2020 |
Joni Ernst (R) defeated Theresa Greenfield (D), Rick Stewart (L), and Suzanne Herzog (I) in the election for U.S. Senate in Iowa on November 3, 2020.
The outcome of this race affected partisan control of the U.S. Senate. Thirty-five of 100 seats were up for election, including two special elections. At the time of the election, Republicans had a 53-45 majority over Democrats in the Senate. Independents who caucus with the Democrats held the two remaining seats. Republicans faced greater partisan risk in the election. They defended 23 seats while Democrats defended 12. Both parties had two incumbents representing states the opposite party's presidential nominee won in 2016.
Ernst was running for a second term in office after first being elected in 2014. That year, she defeated Bruce Braley (D) by a margin of 8.3 percentage points to flip Iowa's Class II Senate seat, which had been held by Tom Harkin (D) since 1984. Iowa had 31 Pivot Counties, which voted for Obama twice before backing Trump in 2016, the most of any state. During the 2018 midterm elections, Democratic candidates defeated Republican incumbents in two of Iowa's four congressional districts, switching the partisan control of U.S. House seats in the state from a Republican 3-1 majority to a Democratic 3-1 majority. As of August 19, 2020, three election forecasters rated the race a toss-up.
Stewart and Herzog completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey. Click here to view their responses.
This race was one of 89 congressional races that were decided by 10 percent or less in 2020.
For more information about the Democratic primary, click here.
For more information about the Republican primary, click here.
Election procedure changes in 2020
Ballotpedia provided comprehensive coverage of how election dates and procedures changed in 2020. While the majority of changes occurred as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, some changes occurred for other reasons.
Iowa modified its absentee/mail-in voting procedures for the November 3, 2020, general election as follows:
- Absentee/mail-in voting: Absentee ballot application forms were sent to all registered voters in the general election.
For a full timeline about election modifications made in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, click here.
Candidates and election results
General election
General election for U.S. Senate Iowa
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Joni Ernst (R) | 51.7 | 864,997 |
 | Theresa Greenfield (D) | 45.2 | 754,859 | |
 | Rick Stewart (L)  | 2.2 | 36,961 | |
 | Suzanne Herzog (Independent) | 0.8 | 13,800 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.1 | 1,211 | ||
| Total votes: 1,671,828 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. Senate Iowa
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Theresa Greenfield | 47.7 | 132,001 |
 | Michael Franken | 24.9 | 68,851 | |
 | Kimberly Graham | 15.0 | 41,554 | |
 | Eddie Mauro | 11.0 | 30,400 | |
 | Cal Woods (Unofficially withdrew) | 1.2 | 3,372 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.2 | 514 | ||
| Total votes: 276,692 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. Senate Iowa
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Joni Ernst | 98.6 | 226,589 |
| Other/Write-in votes | 1.4 | 3,132 | ||
| Total votes: 229,721 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Paul Rieck (R)
Candidate profiles
This section includes candidate profiles created in one of two ways. Either the candidate completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey or Ballotpedia staff created a profile after identifying the candidate as noteworthy.[2] Ballotpedia staff compiled profiles based on campaign websites, advertisements, and public statements.
Party: Republican Party
Incumbent: Yes
Political Office:
U.S. Senate (Assumed office: 2015)
Iowa State Senate (2011-2014)
Montgomery County Auditor (2005-2011)
Biography: Ernst graduated from Iowa State University in 1992 and obtained a master's in public administration from Columbus College in 1995. After graduating from Iowa State, Ernst joined the U.S. Army Reserves. She served for eight years before joining the Iowa National Guard in 2001. In 2003, Ernst deployed to Iraq, where she commanded a company of Iowa Guardsmen. She retired from the Guard at the rank of lieutenant colonel in 2015.
Show sources
Sources: Joni Ernst 2020 campaign website, "Meet Joni," accessed August 19, 2020; Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, "ERNST, Joni (1970-)," accessed August 19, 2020, U.S. Senate, "Meet Joni," accessed August 19, 2020, Des Monies Register, "Joni Ernst retires from the military," December 1, 2015
This information was current as of the candidate's run for U.S. Senate Iowa in 2020.
Party: Democratic Party
Incumbent: No
Political Office: None
Biography: Greenfield received a bachelor's degree from Minnesota State University, Mankato, in 1991. She worked as a regional and urban planner from 1992 to 2005. From 2005 to 2011, she worked as the director of real estate and division of Rottlund Homes of Iowa. Greenfield became president of Colby Interests, a Des Moines-area real estate and development company, in 2012.
Show sources
Sources: YouTube, "Commitment 2020 Senate Forum Pt. 1," May 19, 2020, YouTube, "Support," May 20, 2020, YouTube, "Knock," May 18, 2020, Greenfield's 2020 campaign website, "About Theresa," accessed May 22, 2020, Greenfield's 2020 campaign website, "Growing Opportunity in Rural Iowa," accessed May 22, 2020; LinkedIn, "Theresa Greenfield," accessed May 21, 2020
This information was current as of the candidate's run for U.S. Senate Iowa in 2020.
Party: Libertarian Party
Incumbent: No
Political Office: None
Submitted Biography: "I'm a native Iowan, born in Postville, raised in Maquoketa, living in Cedar Rapids. I earned my BA at Coe College and my MBA at the University of Chicago. After travelling overland from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia for two years I returned to Iowa and was a police officer in my hometown of Maquoketa. I then earned a degree in Diesel Mechanics from Kirkwood Community College, while also teaching myself welding, carpentry, HVAC, electrical, and plumbing skills. In 1976 I started a natural foods business, Frontier Natural Products Co-Operative, which now employs 300 people in Iowa and has over $200 million in annual sales. I retired in 1999 and returned to travelling, starting with hiking the entire Appalachian Trail start to finish. I studied French in Paris, Spanish in Spain, and Chinese in Beijing. I maintain a permanent apartment in Guatemala, where I work with an orphanage and a K-6 school with 150 children, while hiking the local volcanoes to earn money for these projects."
This information was current as of the candidate's run for U.S. Senate Iowa in 2020.
Party: Independent
Incumbent: No
Political Office: None
Submitted Biography: "Suzanne Herzog was one of seven children born and raised in rural Cedar Rapids where her family hosted foster children for Iowa DHS, and exchange students from South America, Europe and Africa. Scholarships, and detasseling corn to earn travel money enabled her to study Spanish and other cultures in Mexico and Costa Rica, and to participate in an American Cancer Society summer research program in high school. By 1993 she was raising her own two children when she completed an A.S. nursing degree, and went on to work for a VA hospital, and in emergency departments in Puerto Rico and Iowa for 17 years as a RN. She served on medical disaster relief teams in El Salvador in 2001, and in LA after Hurricane Katrina with FEMA in 2005. In 2008 while studying economics at Iowa State, another scholarship granted her statistics and survey methodology internship work and studies in Washington D.C. (a joint program of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the University of Maryland). She graduated with an economics B.S. degree in 2009. Her work since that time includes independent economics research, and professional analyses of healthcare systems."
This information was current as of the candidate's run for U.S. Senate Iowa in 2020.
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| U.S. Senate election in Iowa, 2020: General election polls | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Date | Ernst
|
Greenfield
|
 Stewart
|
 Herzog
|
Other | Margin of error | Sample size | Sponsor |
| Quinnipiac University | Oct. 23-27, 2020 | 48% | 46% | -- | -- | 5% | ±2.8 | 1,225 | -- |
| Siena College Research Institute | Oct. 18-20, 2020 | 45% | 44% | 2% | 2% | 8% | ±3.9 | 753 | The New York Times |
| Insider Advantage | Oct. 18-19, 2020 | 43% | 48% | 5% | 0% | 3% | ±4.9 | 400 | Center for American Greatness |
| Scott Rasmussen | Oct. 15-21, 2020 | 43% | 48% | 2% | -- | 8% | ±3.5 | 800 | PoliticalIQ.com |
| Monmouth University | Oct. 15-19, 2020 | 47% | 47% | 1% | 1% | 3% | ±4.4 | 501 | -- |
| Click [show] to see older poll results | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Date | Ernst
|
Greenfield
|
Stewart
|
Herzog
|
Other | Margin of error | Sample size | Sponsor |
| Data for Progress | Oct. 8-11, 2020 | 43% | 47% | 2% | 1% | 6% | ±3.4 | 822 | -- |
| YouGov | Oct. 6-9, 2020 | 43% | 47% | -- | -- | 10% | ±3.5 | 1,048 | CBS News |
| Opinion Insight | Oct. 6-8, 2020 | 45% | 44% | -- | -- | 10% | ±3.5 | 800 | American Action Forum |
| Civiqs | Oct. 3-6, 2020 | 46% | 49% | 2% | 1% | 3% | ±3.9 | 756 | Daily Kos |
| Quinnipiac University | Oct. 1-5, 2020 | 45% | 50% | -- | -- | 5% | ±2.8 | 1,205 | -- |
| Data for Progress | Sept. 23-28, 2020 | 42% | 44% | 1% | 1% | 12% | ±3.6 | 743 | -- |
| Monmouth University | Sept. 18-22, 2020 | 47% | 47% | 1% | <1% | 4% | ±4.9 | 402 | -- |
| Selzer & Company | Sept. 14-17, 2020 | 42% | 45% | -- | -- | 12% | ±3.8 | 658 | The Des Moines Register |
| Public Policy Polling | Aug. 13-14, 2020 | 45% | 48% | -- | -- | 8% | -- | 729 | -- |
| Monmouth University | July 30 - Aug. 3, 2020 | 48% | 45% | 1% | 1% | 4% | ±4.9 | 401 | -- |
| RMG Research | July 27-30, 2020 | 36% | 40% | -- | -- | 24% | ±4.5 | 500 | U.S. Term Limits |
| SPRY Strategies | July 11-16, 2020 | 43% | 45% | -- | -- | 13% | ±3.7 | 701 | American Principles Project |
| Selzer & Co. | June 7-10, 2020 | 43% | 46% | -- | -- | 11% | ±3.8 | 674 | Des Moines Register |
Campaign finance
This section contains campaign finance figures from the Federal Election Commission covering all candidate fundraising and spending in this election.[3] It does not include information on fundraising before the current campaign cycle or on spending by satellite groups. The numbers in this section are updated as candidates file new campaign finance reports. Candidates for Congress are required to file financial reports on a quarterly basis, as well as two weeks before any primary, runoff, or general election in which they will be on the ballot and upon the termination of any campaign committees.[4]
| Name | Party | Receipts* | Disbursements** | Cash on hand | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joni Ernst | Republican Party | $30,567,997 | $30,265,789 | $528,415 | As of December 31, 2020 |
| Theresa Greenfield | Democratic Party | $56,358,302 | $56,328,076 | $30,236 | As of December 31, 2020 |
| Rick Stewart | Libertarian Party | $8,820 | $16,093 | $-7,273 | As of December 31, 2020 |
| Suzanne Herzog | Independent | $18,300 | $18,300 | $0 | As of December 31, 2020 |
|
Source: Federal Elections Commission, "Campaign finance data," 2020. This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
* According to the FEC, "Receipts are anything of value (money, goods, services or property) received by a political committee." |
|||||
Race ratings
- See also: Race rating definitions and methods
Ballotpedia provides race ratings from three outlets: The Cook Political Report, Inside Elections, and Sabato's Crystal Ball. Each race rating indicates if one party is perceived to have an advantage in the race and, if so, the degree of advantage:
- Safe and Solid ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge and the race is not competitive.
- Likely ratings indicate that one party has a clear edge, but an upset is possible.
- Lean ratings indicate that one party has a small edge, but the race is competitive.[5]
- Toss-up ratings indicate that neither party has an advantage.
Race ratings are informed by a number of factors, including polling, candidate quality, and election result history in the race's district or state.[6][7][8]
| Race ratings: U.S. Senate election in Iowa, 2020 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race tracker | Race ratings | ||||||||
| November 3, 2020 | October 27, 2020 | October 20, 2020 | October 13, 2020 | ||||||
| The Cook Political Report | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | Toss-up | |||||
| Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball | Lean Republican | Lean Democratic | Lean Democratic | Toss-up | |||||
| Note: Ballotpedia updates external race ratings every week throughout the election season. | |||||||||
Noteworthy endorsements
This section lists noteworthy endorsements issued in this election, including those made by high-profile individuals and organizations, cross-party endorsements, and endorsements made by newspaper editorial boards. It also includes a bulleted list of links to official lists of endorsements for any candidates who published that information on their campaign websites. Please note that this list is not exhaustive. If you are aware of endorsements that should be included, please click here.
Click the links below to see endorsement lists published on candidate campaign websites, if available:
| Noteworthy endorsements | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endorsement | Ernst (R) | Greenfield (D) | ||||
| Elected officials | ||||||
| President Donald Trump (R)[9] | ✔ | |||||
| Individuals | ||||||
| Former President Barack Obama (D)[10] | ✔ | |||||
Timeline
2020
2019
Campaign advertisements
This section shows advertisements released in this race. Ads released by campaigns and, if applicable, satellite groups are embedded or linked below. If you are aware of advertisements that should be included, please email us.
Joni Ernst
Supporting Ernst
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opposing Greenfield
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theresa Greenfield
Supporting Greenfield
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opposing Ernst
|
|
|
|
Satellite group ads
| Click "show" to the right to see satellite group ads. | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Opposing Ernst
| |||||||||||||
Debates and forums
October 15 debate
Ernst and Greenfield participated in a debate hosted by four Iowa media organizations on October 15, 2020.
- Click here to view a recording of the debate.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from KCCI.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from KTIV.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from Radio Iowa.
September 28 debate
Ernst and Greenfield participated in a debate at Iowa PBS studios on September 28, 2020.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from the Associated Press.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from the Des Moines Register.
- Click here for a roundup of the debate from The Gazette.
Campaign themes
- See also: Campaign themes
Ernst
Ernst's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Making 'Em Squeal Iowans work hard for their earnings and to balance their budgets. They expect the same from Congress. Washington must be held accountable for the years of negligence, reckless spending and mismanagement. That’s why Joni challenges the status quo and is making Washington squeal. Already, Joni has taken on the establishment and leads the fight to cut government waste, including eliminating perks for Washington insiders. Joni is Making ‘Em Squeal in Washington:
Growing Our Rural Economy Today, as Joni travels across Iowa on her 99 county tour, she meets with farmers, small businesses, medical professionals and manufacturers to hear about the opportunities and obstacles they face. Joni shares these stories and feedback with her Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate and works to find commonsense solutions that will continue to strengthen our economy, especially in rural Iowa. Joni fights to continue to help Iowa’s economy grow – meaning an influx of even more businesses to the state and a resulting increase in jobs. By ensuring markets remain open to exports for Iowa goods and promoting innovation that makes Iowa more competitive in today’s global marketplace, Iowa will continue its current upward economic and job growth trajectory. Joni’s Work to Enhance our Rural Economy:
Keeping America Safe and Secure Joni has dedicated her life to working on issues critical to our national security, ensuring our men and women in uniform are cared for, and helping veterans receive the benefits they deserve. Joni’s Life’s Work to Keep America Strong:
Defending Life and Liberty Through her service, Joni has unequivocally defended our state motto “our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.” That’s why she is taking a stand to stop liberal elites from destroying a key part of what makes us who we are. Joni’s Commitment to Our Values:
Bold Generational Change As the first woman elected to federal office in Iowa, the first female combat veteran, and now one of the first Republican women to serve on the Judiciary Committee, Joni is an independent voice for Iowa, who works across the aisle to challenge and change the out-of-touch ways of Washington. Joni’s Efforts to Bring Forward Real Reform:
|
” |
| —Joni Ernst's campaign website (2020)[46] | ||
Greenfield
Greenfield's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Health Care That means strengthening our existing laws like the Affordable Care Act, creating a public health insurance option for Iowans to buy into, and working to bring down the cost of co-pays, prescription drugs, and health care as a whole. But in Washington, big money from insurance and pharmaceutical corporate PACs influence policy — meaning common sense solutions, like reducing the cost of prescription drug prices, are stalling in Congress. Theresa is committed to strengthening and protecting rural hospitals and health care options in underserved rural areas. Theresa isn’t taking money from corporate PACs like those in the health care or pharmaceutical industry, so she is ready to fight for what’s best for Iowans. Economy & Jobs Unions built the middle class, and we should be working to strengthen their standing in our communities. When Theresa’s first husband, a union electrical lineman, died in a workplace accident, his union helped Theresa and her kids land on their feet. Theresa is standing up for union rights and has been endorsed by local labor unions across Iowa representing thousands of workers. Theresa supports a living wage, investing in our workforce, fighting for women to have equal opportunities and equal pay for equal work, and making sure people have the skills and tools they need to succeed in the 21st century workplace. She understands the importance of trade in Iowa’s economy, and supports the USMCA and the benefits it brings Iowa farmers and businesses. With her small business experience, she is passionate about helping entrepreneurs and startups with issues like increasing access to capital, expanding export opportunities, and cutting through burdensome red tape. Theresa is also committed to investing in our infrastructure to create good-paying jobs and help Iowa’s economy thrive. Education That starts with everything from expanding public pre-kindergarten to making sure Iowa’s workforce has the right skills for the 21st century, and includes investing in higher education and job training, like apprenticeships where Iowans can earn while they learn. We need to make sure that obtaining an education — often a ticket to a better life for so many Iowans — is affordable. Theresa is committed to fully funding Pell grants, and ensuring our educators have the compensation, resources, and respect they deserve — including the ability to organize and collectively bargain. Growing Opportunity in Rural Iowa Right now, Washington is failing our farmers. We’ve seen increased farm bankruptcies and reckless trade policies that have kept markets closed to farmers, and net farm income in Iowa has drastically fallen. We’ve got to commit to ending these irresponsible tariffs, unfair ethanol policies, and ensure we stand with our agricultural communities to pick up the pieces left in its wake. In our rural communities, we need to increase the access to capital for small businesses and family farms so they can get a fair shot and compete on a level playing field. That also means expanding access to rural broadband so businesses can thrive in all parts of Iowa. Racial Justice To start, we must protect voting rights. It’s long overdue for our state to restore voting rights to Iowans who have served their time — and in the U.S. Senate, Theresa will fight to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We also need justice for Black Americans killed by police. Theresa stands with the leaders across our state calling for change. Black America has endured countless incidents of hate crimes and systemic racism, including here in Iowa, and they deserve justice. Theresa supports policing reforms that demand more transparency, while enacting racial bias and de-escalation training and a ban on chokeholds. Theresa also strongly supports policies that tackle racial health disparities by expanding access to high quality, affordable health care. She supports creating new training tools so medical providers understand racial health disparities, including passing legislation like the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act. Theresa believes we must also improve outcomes in education by making early investments in our children to work towards universal pre-K and requiring the Department of Education to return to carrying out civil rights research. Our children are our future; all of our children. Additionally, as a businesswoman, Theresa prioritizes supporting Black business ownership by helping Iowans in every zip code achieve their American dream, as specifically noted in her “Small Towns, Bigger Paychecks” plan. Black business owners have long been denied the same opportunities as other entrepreneurs and are more likely to be denied a loan or to face more obstacles to getting the funding they need. For example, Black residents in Polk County were denied loans at a rate that is more than 2 times the county average. Let’s end discriminatory lending practices, invest more in local nonprofits and Community Development Financial Institutions, that provide low-interest loans for minority business owners, so that all Iowans have the opportunity to be a part of our small business community. For Theresa, there’s always more to learn and more work to do, so please email info@GreenfieldforIowa.com to share your thoughts, experiences and suggestions. Military & Veterans In the Senate, she will fight to ensure we take care of our brave men and women in uniform both on and off the battlefield. That means when our soldiers return home, they have access to the best and most efficient health care our nation can provide at the Veterans Administration as well as paths to finding and keeping good-paying civilian jobs. Retirement Security Public Safety In the Senate, Theresa will fight for legislation that keeps our kids and our communities safe. Whether it’s working to expand background checks, funding critical gun violence research, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and other criminals, such as those on the No Fly list, she will bring people together to find commonsense solutions to ensure we address gun violence. Our communities in Iowa are also suffering at the hands of the opioid epidemic, and have seen a failure to act from Washington. Theresa is committed to working with community leaders to ensure they have the support they need to compassionately treat those who need help overcoming addiction. Reproductive Rights For decades, politicians in Washington and in states across the country have attacked women’s health care rights with the goal of shutting down Planned Parenthood and pushing rigid, uncompromising restrictions that jeopardize women’s health and safety and interfere in complicated and deeply personal decisions. Thousands of people in the heartland rely on Planned Parenthood for their health care, serving a crucial part of our population. Theresa believes all women, regardless of where they live or how much money they make, should have access to safe, high-quality, affordable health care. And at a time when maternal wards of rural hospitals are closing, leaving pockets of Iowa without the care they need to safely deliver children, Theresa knows we need to expand our compassionate care to every corner of Iowa. Theresa is proudly endorsed by EMILY’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America, and she will always work to defend women’s rights and health. Environment We can’t afford to have Senators who question and deny the science, who refuse to act when the future of our kids and grandkids are on the line, and who consistently put the needs of Big Oil over Iowans suffering. Theresa is proudly endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, and understands the gravity of our climate crisis requires smart, principled leadership. In the Senate, Theresa will fight for good-paying clean energy jobs and defend and strengthen our environmental laws that are under attack from the corporate special interests in Washington. She will also be focused on solutions that protect Iowans from the effects of climate change, including securing infrastructure funding to strengthen our defenses against flooding to save communities across Iowa. Immigration Reform Theresa is committed to working with both parties on a plan that is true to our American values, fair to taxpayers, tough on workplace enforcement and border security, and rooted in practical solutions like reducing wait times for legal immigration and putting more technology and security on the border. Theresa will stand up for what’s right, including supporting the DREAM Act, and will focus on keeping families together while implementing policies that grow Iowa’s economy, encourage innovation, and create jobs. LGBTQ+ Equality She has spent much of her professional life working in small businesses, and has seen firsthand the strength that comes from a diverse and inclusive workplace. In the Senate, Theresa would proudly support legislation like the Equality Act that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Political Corruption
|
” |
| —Theresa Greenfield's campaign website (2020)[47] | ||
Stewart
Stewart's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
End All Wars Foreign Wars - defending our country from foreign enemies is the most important role of government. We need a strong defense department to protect our homeland security from those who would do us harm. What we have, however, is an offensive military designed to fight wars all over the world. None of these foreign wars have made America safer for Americans. Instead, they have made us many enemies and only a few rapscallion friends, at the cost of trillions of dollars. A simple rule is this - no foreign military action can last more than 7 days without a declaration of war by Congress. If there is a true military emergency the President can still act instantly, after which Congress has a week to think it over. This will end all our current foreign wars and prevent them in the future, while still safeguarding our country from aggression. The War on Drugs - putting aside for a moment the ludicrousness of a war on inanimate objects, this war is a century old and has enjoyed 106 consecutive years of expensive failure. Fighting it for another 5 or 10 or 50 years won't change anything except the total amount of misery it has rained down on American citizens. Legalizing all drugs is the only possible way to reduce the harm they cause. We did it with alcohol, we did it with tobacco, and we can do it for all the other things millions of Americans want to use responsibly. As for irresponsible drug users, we can still punish their misbehavior when they actually hurt someone, as we do with drunken drivers when they run over pedestrians. Tariff Wars - tariffs are taxes on Americans. It is hard to overestimate their harm, or to underestimate their benefit. Even the people whom you might guess would come out ahead in a tariff war seldom do, because economies are extraordinarily complicated and second order effects almost impossible to predict. A free trade America would be stronger, richer, more competitive, less vulnerable, and infinitely less complicated. Furthermore a free trade America would send a strong signal around the world - tariffs are for losers. The 'Unconditional War on Poverty' - was declared by LBJ on January 8, 1964. Since then we have spent $22 trillion, and our current poverty rate is almost exactly the same. Fifty-six years of failure is enough - new thinking is necessary. Eliminating every means-tested anti-poverty program and replacing them with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an old idea whose time has come. It could be tied to a Universal high deductible health insurance policy and thus help solve America's expensive health care problem as well. A huge chunk of the Federal bureaucracy could be eliminated, disincentives to work would be eliminated, and a sense of fairness for all Americans would be created. We don't need a War on Poverty, we need programs that eliminate poverty. End All Economic Nonsense In an attempt to be generous, however, I will only suggest ending egregious economic nonsense, arbitrarily defined as economic nonsense costing taxpayers more than $1,000,000,000,000. First - balance the Federal budget. The annual budget deficit was almost $1 trillion in the year ending September 30, 2019, before the Coronavirus outbreak. There are many reasons why economists sometimes claim budget deficits are not problematic, but it's not so popular to explain why they are a good idea. Usually it boils down to 'we can, therefore we should' spend money. The unstated assumption is Federal spending is good for Americans. I agree it is always good for a few Americans, but see zero evidence it is good for all Americans, which should be the standard by which Federal spending is judged. Spending more money than you are currently collecting in taxes just pushes the payback onto future generations. America is a rich country and we can afford to pay as we go, balancing the Federal budget puts us on the right track. Second - reduce the national debt, which right now stands at over $20 trillion. The last American president who made a serious effort to pay off the national debt was Calvin Coolidge in the early 1920s. One hundred years later and not a single president has bothered to even try to reduce it. The biggest problem with the national debt is political - it gives politicians cover for wasting money. There is no practical reason for having any debt at all, except if the United States is under attack from abroad, when no expense is spared in defending ourselves from aggression. A modest budget surplus every year, applied to the national debt, would be painless to taxpayers and good discipline for politicians. Let's do it. Third - abolish the Federal Reserve. The original excuse for creating the Federal Reserve came from rich bankers, who got tired of paying for their own irrational exuberance. It was supposed to be a lender of last resort, with a dual mandate of price stability and low unemployment. Although these goals are contradictory the Fed has done poorly on both counts. From 1776 through the Fed's arrival in 1913 total inflation was 14%. Since then total inflation has been 2,504%. Meanwhile we have had the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and now the Coronavirus depression. In all three instances the Fed has only managed to partially make up for the problems it created in the first place. Money is not evil, but politicians are, and they should not be given the power to print money to spend (usually for the sole purpose of buying votes). Fourth - reform entitlement programs. The biggest economic nonsense of all is a promise to pay people later, if they will pay their taxes today, when basic arithmetic says we will not be able to do so. 'Saving' Social Security and Medicare sounds like a good idea, but they can't be saved in their current form because politicians are hooked on lying about what it will take. It will be smarter to reform these programs today, so they can last forever. This will require either perpetually honest politicians, or privatization. I have more confidence in the latter. Some people are fearful Wall Street will just get rich from privatization, but that is highly unlikely, since competition will force efficiencies up and prices down. Administrative fees for a broad based index fund, an intelligent choice for a private pension fund like a 401(k), are as low as zero percent today. Sweden has private pension funds - there is no reason America does not. Simplify Government First - no bill in Congress should be longer than five pages. This is short enough that 75% of Americans could read the bill for themselves. Second - an automatic 10 year sunset clause on every spending bill. This gives an idea 10 years to prove its worth, after which it will only continue if it is re-authorized. Third - Congress should be required to read every bill before voting on it. Right now nobody in Congress reads anything they are voting on. Who does? Lobbyists, who also write the bills in the first place.Congress has abdicated its responsibility to legislate. Fourth - every bill in Congress can only deal with one subject. No more tanks and fighter planes added to a Coronavirus stimulus package, for instance. Fifth - Every regulation must be written and passed by Congress, not administrative agencies.As noted above, it only took Congress 906 pages to write the Affordable Care Act, but bureaucrats needed to add 20,000 more pages. Congress, and only Congress, should pass the laws we are all required to follow.[45] |
” |
| —Rick Stewart's campaign website (2020)[48] | ||
Herzog
Herzog's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Economic Opportunity Improving Our Democracy So here we are with plenty of mistakes to learn from. The patience of the American people is wearing out for good reason. We must now take actions that deal with these past catastrophic mistakes and be diligent to prevent future disasters. I will make sure we are acknowledging all the detailed implications for trade policies and make sure that Congress does its duty to manage them. I will work to protect policies put in place to prevent another financial crisis, and I will advocate for more effective monitoring and enforcement of the financial sector. I will be a catalyst for bold changes to our failed health insurance market model to end corporate monopolies and empower people with access to affordable quality care where no one falls through the cracks or is threatened with financial ruin to get the care they need. I will demand that our Justice Department clearly acts in the best interest of the American people, and I will promote the continual development of a more efficient and fair justice system with the funding it requires to serve all Americans better. I will work with members of Congress to more responsibly manage tax policy in a way that benefits average Americans more. We can have a robust, appropriately-regulated, free-market economy that limits the national debt. I will make sure that we develop and support federal programs that promote access to training and education in order to provide plenty of opportunities for Iowans and Americans to succeed. In doing this we will adapt to increasing changes in technology, and can lead the way with beneficial exchanges of ideas and resources with the people of other nations as well. I will promote economic justice with proposals in addition to increasing the minimum wage: earned income tax credit expansion, partial cost tax credits to companies for new skills training for lower wage earners, expanded federal financial aid for certain quality training programs for displaced workers… and my healthcare reform proposals offer your more economic security and promotes health maintenance as a valuable human capital investment. Since corporations just received an unreasonably large reduction in taxes with no reduction in loopholes, this is the perfect time to eliminate the tax deduction for offering the employee benefit of health insurance. You will be empowered with better coverage unrelated to employment and your employer will have to increase wages or other more meaningful benefits like paid time off to retain you in this tight labor market. We will have further leverage with the possibility of repealing part of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” as necessary. Now it’s not all doom and gloom- we know that each of these administrations did a thing or two right. So let’s also work together to identify what worked, and learn from our successes to build on them. Iowans are known as people who tend to have each other’s backs- just try to pull over on a country road and not have someone stop to make sure you are OK. That kind of respect and consideration for our fellow Iowans and Americans are what will change the legislative process in Washington so that we all may prosper together. Learning from Our Mistakes So instead of only opting for “check-book justice” (letting white collar criminals off the hook in favor of limiting potential collateral damage), we could have held those most responsible for the catastrophic financial crisis accountable. White collar crime had been more effectively dealt with during the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 1980s with around 800 convictions (after persistent special prosecutors pressured the DOJ to act). Later- after 2001, many scandalous Enron executives were indicted and went to jail. Upon both those occasions, and the great financial crisis of 2008, congress responded with new regulatory legislation to prevent similar future crises (some of which is already under threat). As Iowans and Americans we need to consider what economic justice is, and how we should pursue and defend it. Considering Economic Justice Then we went overboard by passing legislation that reduced the U.S. corporate tax rate even more than U.S. corporations in general were asking for. (Congressman John Delaney- probably the most moderate candidate running in the 2020 general election, points this out- suggesting that corporations were seeking a tax rate reduction from over 30% to around 25% (the Obama administration had suggested a rate of around 27%), but the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” dropped it to 21%!). This legislation makes the corporate tax cut permanent, while changes in individual rates are set to expire in 2025. So considering the obvious implications, and the concern of watchdog groups like the Center of Public Integrity – (https://publicintegrity.org/business/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/did-billionaires-pay-off-republicans-for-passing-the-trump-tax-bill/) it is truly concerning that any significant part of the U.S. population would put so much blind faith in a figure like Trump to serve them any degree of economic justice. Are we- as a culture, really so vulnerable to marketing schemes? Does anyone really believe that a guy who survived in the business world by going bankrupt (putting his creditors on the line by incurring great loss- then in turn getting paid to just keep marketing the Trump brand to limit what would otherwise be a total loss for investors) is really a reasonable option as a champion for economic justice? His party will one day have to answer for supporting an individual with such an opaque and questionable past- having settled a law suit for his trade-school scam, running a phony charitable foundation, not divesting adequately from personal business so that his personal brand can benefit more from his public office, using his campaign and the presidency to promote foreign business investments (truly an exhausting and disheartening list of facts – easily verified with public information- no further investigation necessary. It is our duty as Iowans and Americans to be more judicious about the individuals we deem worthy of public trust. Where We Stand Now: Our national debt outlook is going from bad to worse! According to the Peterson Foundation (non-partisan organization established in 2008 to raise awareness of America’s long term fiscal challenges and “put America on a fiscally sustainable path and protect the American Dream” https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/08/how-have-tax-cuts-affected-the-economy-and-debt-heres-what-we-know-so-far) this year Congressional Budget Office calculations put this year’s deficit at $164 billion larger because of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”(TCJA) provisions. “Over the 2018–2028 period, the cumulative deficit would be $1.9 trillion higher — $1.3 trillion from the direct effects of the legislation and $0.6 trillion from increased interest payments.” Take some time to consider the PF “Top 10 Reasons Why the National Debt Matters” https://www.pgpf.org/fiscal-top-ten … Or at least consider the first one, “The national debt is a bipartisan priority for Americans”, noting that about 74% of voters agree that managing the national debt should be a top-three priority for the President and Congress. “Five Things that we Have Learned Since the Tax Cuts Were Enacted” -The main points: The strong subsequent economic growth will be temporary as the stimulus effects wane, revenue growth was weak this past year in spite of economic expansion, and there are actually more tax breaks than before (a total of 216 before the TCJA, now after implementation there are 223), and trillion dollar deficits again- yikes! https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/10/five-things-that-we-have-learned-since-the-tax-cuts-were-enacted Trump recently expressed dismay at the fact that many corporations were using the tax cuts as an opportunity fund stock buy-backs. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic economic principles and acting on his misguided notions is hurting the country. Pulling out of the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations was a very short-sighted and costly, missed opportunity. I am not just saying this because I live in an important agricultural state and the American Farm Bureau Federation “estimated that under the TPP annual net farm income would have increased by $4.4 billion, driven by an increase of direct U.S. agricultural exports of $5.3 billion per year upon full implementation of the TPP agreement as compared to a scenario in which the U.S. fails to pass the agreement while the remaining member countries proceed apace.” https://www.fb.org/issues/trade/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-agreement/ (There see “Get the Full Report – Comments Re…” for potential projections related to soybeans, etc.) Trump recklessly gave up a crucial opportunity to be in a much more powerful negotiating position to put pressure on China when he failed to recognize the value of being part of this powerful trading partnership with China’s neighbors. We are not the only country that is concerned with losing intellectual property and the TPP was an important opportunity to actually start moving forward on that front as well. Before Trump was in office the U.S. had submitted the most powerful provisions with regard to intellectual property during the negotiations, but when we left the table- 22 provisions from the original agreement were suspended or changed, as 11 other countries went on to ratify it as the CPTPP. The Center for Strategic & International Studies points out “Even with these provisions suspended, however, the IP chapter offers the most advanced and detailed standards on intellectual property in a trade agreement to date. It gives substantial protections to companies operating abroad from having their innovations stolen.” https://www.csis.org/analysis/tpp-cptpp What’s more- “U.S. absence from the new deal puts it at a competitive disadvantage in trading with CPTPP countries, particularly in contested sectors such as agriculture”… “A study by the Peterson Institute estimates the United States moves from a $131 billion gain under TPP to a $2 billion loss under CPTPP. Meanwhile, a study by the government of Canada’s chief economist estimates that Canada will benefit considerably more from CPTPP relative to TPP, in part due to the absence of U.S. competition.” (More on concerns or inadequacies of the proposed TPP noted later in this section) I am having a hard time finding the “art” in no deal. In the meantime our president has spent his time sitting down with treacherous dictators in North Korea and Russia (achieving nothing but shame), as we keep missing our curtain call to be on the world stage with collaborative international partners. Members of the senate were neglectful in not speaking out on Trump’s reckless trade tariffs and historically disproved notions on protectionism in modern international trade. Sadly some farmers in Iowa nobly feel they may just be “taking one for the team” in the hopes of better circumstances post U.S.-China trade negotiations. We are not yet fully realizing the implications of likely long-term market opportunity losses as other countries are prepared to step into the void left behind by Trump’s haphazard, unfocused trade policies. Some might be doing all right for now with a small piece of the 12 billion dollar federal aid package (increased since these comments were originally written), but as one farmer stated last year on Iowa Public Radio- he would much rather be selling what he produced than receiving tax-payer funded subsidies- least of all as a matter of pride, and more-so because international market relations so painstakingly established should not be so recklessly lost. A real deal might have included efforts to isolate the agriculture sector from intellectual property trade issue deliberations, with input from trade negotiating experts and real diplomats instead of the devil-may-care-slap-on-tariffs experiment. This might have prevented Midwest agriculture from having to pay the price for Silicon Valley’s international business challenges. U.S. importers, American consumers and manufactures are actually the ones paying for the tariffs. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-who-pays-for-tariffs-trade-war-costs-2019-1 Trade negotiations have always offered imperfect relationships between: nations, citizens and governments, corporations and consumers, laborers and corporations, human rights interests and corporations or governments, environmental concerns and all those other entities… the list goes on. But international trade agreements can be (and have generally been) a crucial catalyst for good that lifts people out of poverty and promotes citizen diplomacy with a better understanding of our world as people of different nations interact. Even though the TPP emphasized stronger safeguards for intellectual property, the environment, and labor rights- some detractors felt it went too far on the first and not enough on the other two issues. https://www.economist.com/asia/2016/11/19/trading-down It was a massive proposal that included 12 pacific countries including the U.S. Canada and Japan (all together they account for two-fifths of the world economy). It is now a big missed opportunity for the U.S. to build better relations with much of Asia and be a leader in setting higher standards for fair trade that benefits the citizens of all the nations involved. Stepping out left a void that invited China to get more involved crafting international trade policy for the region. Closer to home it looks as if we have brighter opportunities on the horizon to do the right thing as we take a hard look at proposals for the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement), but only if we are really vigilant! The absolutely best run down I have seen that describes the deal and the opportunities we have to improve or botch it up is offered by this article: https://hightowerlowdown.org/issue/june-2019/ (a must read!) It is from a small, progressive periodical “The Hightower Lowdown” that does an amazingly great job laying out the facts on the ground. Here- in summary: the main glimmer of hope is the chance to end “Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunals” that Hightower accurately describes as “autocratic, plutocratic, corporate-controlled “courts” empower multinational corporations to obtain unlimited taxpayer dollars through specious lawsuits claiming that their special NAFTA privileges are restricted by the people’s democratically enacted laws–laws intended to protect consumers, workers, the environment, and other social/economic interests.” The vigilance part is where members of Congress have to step in and stand up to big pharmaceutical corporations, big oil, suppression of labor rights, negligent food production standards, and the fact that its impact for job creation in our country is being unrealistically oversold. My goal is to join members of Congress who Hightower describes as part of a “rising opposition by the majority of Americans to government by and for corporate interests.” (Not unlike what I propose in my approach to healthcare reform.) My favorite quote from the article because it sets the right legislative tone – “The USMCA is a momentous battle that’s more about people’s democratic power than trade. It unites folks across the left-right political spectrum, it’s worth the fight, and it’s winnable.”
My life’s work makes it an ideal time to be running for U.S. Senate because the country is finally on the verge of making affordable, quality healthcare a reality for all if we lead the way with the right perspective, experience, and understanding of the details. I spent most of my life taking care of people- directly caring for them in times of crisis or need. My role was also to make sure that people have access to the resources and information they need to improve their lives. My goal in studying economics was to help determine the best ways to empower people. I have been keeping an eye on healthcare-services and health-insurance market developments for decades. For several years now I have been offering legislators constructive conversations and well-substantiated proposals to get us moving in the right direction. Some leaders show signs of being ready to stand up to corporate special interest groups to simplify this convoluted system in the best interest of Iowans and Americans- though from my perspective, too many are dragging their feet. We now have a historic opportunity achieve long-awaited changes that will be more effectively negotiated and enacted by Congress with the right leadership from Iowa’s first independent U.S. Senator.
The choices will be better and more affordable because finally health insurers will have to answer to you- the consumer, and be forced to operate in a competitive, transparent, consumer-focused, well-regulated U.S. health insurance market.
We all know this convoluted system has too many moving parts that need to be dismantled if we expect to move forward. Small to medium business owners will be delighted to lose all those silly number-of-employee and small-group-plan schemes so that their business will be free to develop in its own best interest and in the best interest of its employees. They will be free to offer more direct benefits that impact every employee regardless of health status- like better pay, better working conditions, flexible schedules, or more generous paid time off.
There are a lot of great solutions out there to learn from, but our combination will be unique.
Enjoy other great links and resources to help you understand the facts on the ground, and to get you excited about more positive changes we can realize together:
Pilzer, Paul Zane., and Richard Lindquist. The End of Employer-Provided Health Insurance: Why It’s Good for You, Your Family, and Your Company. Wiley, 2015.)
Improving Democracy
Iowa’s U.S. senators have failed to execute the duties of their office responsibly when it comes to enforcing checks and balances on abuses of power by the current administration. I will enforce and defend this duty as one of 3 basic founding principles of our democracy (see these essential principles as defined by a real democracy expert, Larry Diamond ) – Unchecked, reckless trade policies with wrecking-ball-style tariffs are deeply hurting Iowa farmers with no guarantee of eventual benefit. Our state’s agriculture sector shouldn’t be paying the price for Silicon Valley’s intellectual property theft issues and a competent negotiator with any understanding of international markets would have understood this. (See my Economics section for how Trump lost real bargaining power and influence on China when just a few days into his administration he stumbled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.) Many members of Congress should have acted long ago to stop Trumps misuse of the Trade Expansion Act (which allows the executive branch to impose tariffs only on the grounds of national security). I won’t be sitting on the sidelines when it comes to acting in the best interest of Iowans and Americans and will diligently perform the duties of my office. Individual Rights Dignity and respect for human life is all of our concern. I will ensure that women have what they need to make the best decisions for themselves, the human beings potentially developing within them, and their families. Jurisdiction over one’s own being is an inalienable human right. I am dedicated to defending all basic human and constitutional amendment rights. We can balance the right to bear arms with laws to promote public safety- for freedom from threats of violence and tragic loss of life. I am no fan of labels. Identifying as “pro-life” should likely prompt us to regard lives affected by tragedy, warfare, or poverty as equally worthy of our focus and protection. “Pro-choice” considerations should take into account how access to opportunities and resources can support or impede individuals in determining the best options for themselves and their families. Regardless of your personal beliefs, or your political party affiliation- I sincerely want to hear and acknowledge your concerns so that we may effectively substantiate and address them together. Every woman must have proprietary rights and jurisdiction over her own being, and we must acknowledge that the quality of life of the human being that develops within her is ultimately her responsibility. Even as we seek to assert our personal beliefs about life, we still have to acknowledge that with the onset of pregnancy, women still maintain the inalienable right to choose- whether or not to continue such a profound daily personal investment. Anything a woman sustains within her- with each and every breath, each and every moment of physical, mental and emotional energy- for all ethical and legal purposes, IT IS HER. At the point where the developing human being can potentially be sustained apart from the mother, then critical life and death healthcare decisions must be made in the best interest of both mother and baby. She and her loved ones are in the best position to make those decisions with the support of healthcare professionals. The imposition of our will or religious notions upon the lives of others is reckless- Imposing our will upon another from our own limited vantage point for critical life and death decisions constitutes recklessness with other people’s lives. Human development is a critical time that will forever impact life after birth, so why on earth would we ever strive to limit thoughtful, well-informed decisions at any point during its course? Circumstances change – We cannot presume to always be able to make the critical decision of whether or not to sustain a pregnancy throughout its course based only upon the circumstances at the time of conception. In healthcare we respond to changing health conditions throughout people’s lives and empower them with information and treatment choices to help them make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones. It is wrong to deny the fact that the health and well-being of mother and baby are inextricably linked until birth. The very difficult and complicated healthcare decisions that are made in late-term abortions may occur much less often than you have been told by activist groups. (Get a better understanding of state and national abortion statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm). Dignity and respect for life is maintained in these circumstances as with most other critical healthcare events in life- with detailed documentation and healthcare provider accountability. Justice in life – We grant the responsibility of life-and-death decision-making to individuals and institutions in society over vast jurisdictions; law enforcement in our communities and military leaders in our world. Justice in life means preserving a woman’s inalienable right to jurisdiction over her own being. She is often primarily responsible for the potential well-being of her family. It is truly shocking to see any political party advocate so much government overreach into these profoundly personal issues where decision-making is already in perfectly capable hands. Quality of Life- From the perspective of a mother, a healthcare provider, and a justice-focused economist- I will work to preserve and pass legislation that empowers you to make the important decisions that impact your daily lives most. Such legislation includes protections for deliberate, thoughtful decisions made before and during pregnancy that forever impact quality of life for you and your children. (Learn more about some horribly-misguided recent regulations that will likely result in more unplanned pregnancies and health hardships: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/ask-kff-alina-salganicoff-answers-3-questions-on-final-title-x-regulations-for-family-planning-clinics/) Did you know that federal funding restrictions have been renewed annually since the 1970s so that low income women (in some states more than others) have very limited access to abortion services? Understand the Hyde Amendment- which blocks federal funds from being used to pay for abortion outside of a few exceptions: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/perspective/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/ (Please also see the Economics tab as you consider what economic justice should look like.) From what I have gathered, I believe the vast majority of Iowans share a similar view on this issue. As your senator I will strive to advance proposals on issues that most Iowans support. A senator’s role is not to impose political party positions or religious notions upon her constituents. I would not have run for office if I did not sincerely believe that most Iowans agree that we cannot compromise on individual rights for women. I am personally very familiar with the traditional anti-choice perspective: My parents were raised as Catholics in Milwaukee schools, and later they transitioned to non-denominational Christian, Evangelical-style religious practice when I was a teenager. Today I am finding that many Catholics and Evangelicals support a woman’s right to self-determination and access to all family planning choices. But from my perspective as a young child, no two people were more concerned about preventing abortions than my parents. They had 7 of their own children within 9 ½ years. My mother volunteered for an organization called “Birthright” in the 1970’s- which generally sought to persuade women to maintain pregnancies. So when I was a young child my mother offered our crowded home as refuge for several women throughout the course of their pregnancy. Later my family took in multiple foster children- sometimes for years at a time. Such was my mother’s passion that she was willing to personally invest whatever she could to influence the decision to carry a pregnancy to term- no matter what. Few anti-choice advocates would offer such a personal sacrifice today- though it remains legal and generally acceptable to offer your support to women and encourage them to make the sort of decisions you advocate. However, it is a detrimental waste of time to try to turn back the clock on individual rights. Women are no longer 2nd class citizens in our country and realistically I believe we know as Americans that ultimately such human-rights transgressions will not stand. In the meantime our failure to defend these rights only perpetuates hardship and human suffering- particularly for the most vulnerable women, children and families who struggle most to manage difficult circumstances. Join me in striving to empower others to make the most thoughtful, deliberate and responsible decisions for themselves and their families. As we enable others to achieve their own ideal of self-fulfillment, they in turn will have more to contribute to their communities.
Promoting Democracy by Example: I am very concerned about the state of our democracy and I know many of you are as well. Please share your thoughts on this topic when you see me in your part of the state, or send me (suzanne@herzogforussenate.com) your concerns and ideas. Many of us shared concerns about the political process before the 2016 general election, and many more did after. Larry Diamond, a well-democracy expert, outlined some great points for us to consider when he spoke on Iowa Public Radio- June 24th. He also offers a book- “Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency” I think most of us can admit to being guilty of complacency at some point in our lives and failing to be as vigilant as we should to keep our government as functional as possible. Join me in taking a closer look at what’s happening today and let’s work together to achieve a democracy we all truly can be proud of. Both of Iowa’s U.S. senators have failed to execute the duties of their office responsibly when it comes to enforcing checks and balances on abuses of power by the current administration (failing to do what was within their power to limit reckless, devastating trade policies among them). Not only should more of our members of congress acted long ago to stop Trump’s misuse of the Trade Expansion Act (which allows the executive branch to impose tariffs only on the grounds of national security), but they should have spoken out about how his actions diminish support for democracy around the world. Validating dictators is devastating to the people they oppress in their countries. Damaging and disregarding important relationships with our allies limits our ability to protect our national interests and advocate for democratic ideals in other nations. Reneging on crucial international agreements when the parties involved have complied (yes- pulling out of the nuclear deal) damages our credibility potentially weakens future negotiations. We have now displayed incompetency in understanding international priorities and an inability to recognize and employ more effective negotiating strategies. Throwing away all our bargaining chips in one reckless move- the Trump administration’s consistent style of recklessness with our lives and the lives of people in other nations, at the very least should be denounced by our members of Congress. I agree with Mr. Diamond that President Trump is “violating and undermining democratic norms” with his words and behavior- and that he uses “the kind of language, posture, and rhetoric that we get from dictators- not from a democratically elected president.” Attacking our free press instead of answering to it with the consideration and dignity the office of the presidency requires is beyond irresponsible. No one unwilling to confront unpleasant realities, or defend their ethics should offer themselves for public office. Regardless of our political party affiliation (or lack of it), we really have to take a stand against this destructive style of politics. There are ways we can promote our position without degrading our democracy. I respect opposing points of view from Trump supporters, and I want to listen carefully to your grievances and concerns about the political process as well. Mr. Diamond’s analysis also offers us some hopeful suggestions on ways we can repair the broken parts so that democracy to serve us all better. Your thoughts on his ideas, and other great solutions you might suggest are welcome and important. People from both major political parties have acknowledged that their party could do more to objectively examine their leaders and give other party members more voice and consideration for potential leadership roles (one of the reasons I support term limits for members of congress). On this topic, for now I give the last words for consideration to former Republican Senator Jeff Flake: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/full-text-jeff-flake-on-trump-speech-transcript-343246 Promoting Economic Justice: The field of economics is often misunderstood. I am guided by ideals like this one noted from my Economic Development textbook: “As a social science, economics is concerned with people and how best to provide them with material means to help them realize their full human potential.” Amartya Sen- the 1998 Nobel laureate in economics, offers 3 core values of development that are considered essential components when we think of economic justice, including: “Sustenance- the Ability to Meet Basic needs (A basic function of all economic activity is to provide as many people as possible with means for overcoming helplessness and misery from a lack of food, shelter, health and protection)” “Self-Esteem: To Be a Person (a sense of worth and self-respect, and of not being used as a tool by others for their own ends)” “Freedom from Servitude: To Be Able to Choose (the sense of emancipation from alienating material conditions of life and from social servitude to nature, ignorance, other people, misery, institutions, and dogmatic beliefs).” (Economic Development 9th Ed. – Todaro and Smith, Addison- Wesley 2006, pp 21-25) We should keep these basic principles in mind as we consider how to be good neighbors to the rest of the world. We can collaborate better with foreign governments to advance America’s goals and the greater good, preserving the respect that people of other nations hold for us. We have to build and maintain powerful coalitions to limit and influence rouge governments that disregard these basic principles for their own people or the people of other nations. Iowa’s Senators can set a better example of leadership for the nation, and America can be a better example of democracy for the rest of the world. Responsible Gun Ownership and Public Safety In the past year or two my job has required me to review hospital medical records in a neighboring state where there are regularly countless young shooting victims of street violence. Just reading their stories is a traumatic, heartbreaking experience- much less understanding that many of these young survivors will struggle with severe physical and mental disabilities for the rest of their lives. Legislative and public policy solutions are taking shape and they need momentum to attack this critical challenge from all sides- economic incentives, community engagement with law enforcement, and gun licensing and tracking considerations among them. For a start, I agree with Senator Angus King’s positions: expanding background checks to most firearm transactions, limiting the size of magazines, and making purchasing a gun for someone not allowed to have one a federal crime. The effectiveness of proposed “red-flag” laws depends upon the willingness of local law enforcement to implement them- so they may be most effective if legislated on the state level with federal funding incentives for monitoring and reporting purposes. The young man I mentioned earlier, likely among the most knowledgeable and responsible gun owners around, is now my campaign treasurer. He has some thoughtful ideas for proposals that I plan to have him share on our website in more detail in the coming months. We must foster his generation’s participation in advancing the most effective solutions. Non-Partisan Service
Senators need to make best efforts to represent ALL the constituents of Iowa- not just those who endorse the same opinions or beliefs. Religious and corporate interest groups have invaded the political process and have far too frequently been extended a party welcome-mat, only to parade over the best interests of the general public. The loudest (or most well-funded) positions are increasingly promoted and legislatively imposed upon us against the will of majority. This only leads to a lack of faith in our political system and civil unrest. Fostering division and stagnation in order to maintain a position of political influence with this winner-take-all mentality will eventually lead to the demise of those who indulge in these tactics- but not until the majority of us suffer from missed opportunities and unjust limitations. For instance, my healthcare reform proposals (see Healthcare Reform), recognize that the answers to effective and efficient health care and health insurance markets lie in between political extremes. The long-outdated and inefficient employer-provided health insurance model in the U.S. should have ended long ago, and made way for robust individual, transparent, and competitive healthcare services and insurance markets that are adequately regulated in the best interest of consumers. It is time to finally stand up to the corporate lobby groups which have been all too involved in crafting our healthcare reform legislation, and overcome the political party inertia that keeps us from ending this broken market model that is a detriment to consumers, businesses, and our economy. This process involves acknowledging both the benefits and the failures of the Affordable Care Act- and embracing a healthier, judiciously-regulated free-market model. I believe private insurers (and other healthcare “middle-men” – like pharmacy benefit managers) will agree to play by the rules in a simpler, more transparent, competitive market- now that this convoluted, complex system is being revealed as unsustainable. These corporate entities have less incentive to struggle against reform now that public sentiment threatens their existence. Correcting market failures looks far more attractive than an increasing government takeover. Today there are more just and sensible free market solutions that both democrats and republicans can embrace in a middle-ground effort to move the country forward. I will propose and promote immediately actionable legislation that will positively impact Iowans and Americans in the first year or two of my term of public service. I can achieve this because of the genuine bi-partisan (and more-importantly; in-the-best-interest-of-the-majority) rationale that will underpin my legislative proposals. A Senator’s public statements should foster fact-finding, objective assessments, and collaboration. The integrity and function of our government should be held more sacred than any party platform. We must restore respect for an objective judicial confirmation process and not allow any single entity or private-interest group (currently- like the Federalist Society) to continue to have the most influence on judicial appointments. There is a difference between seeking ways to make government more just and efficient, and harboring a disdain for government in general. To work in government, we must uphold the ideal of its practical necessity- recognizing what an amazingly positive and powerful force it can be to improve opportunities, and promote justice and quality of life. Recklessly dismantling public policies, government agencies and institutions that have served so many so well- an act which is often irrationally justified by identifying such policies or legislative origins with the other party, can no longer be condoned. None of us welcome wasteful government spending and much of it still needs to be addressed. But failing to recognize the true value of the parts of government that work well, and protect the best interests of the general public- is incredibly costly to us all. We can promote the parts of government that (when objectively observed) give us the most beneficial “bang for our buck” and minimize waste. We should be able to acknowledge where legislation falls short of addressing targeted issues, and identify unintended consequences so improvements can be made without back-tracking. Suzanne’s Idea of More Functional Government Government in its best sense offers fairness and efficiency. Primary government responsibilities include maintaining fair playing fields for both businesses and consumers- ones that offers economic opportunities to as many individuals as possible. The legislative proposals that I will offer and support, will be mindful of these principles. These days, there is so much great access to public information and so much past experience to learn from, that we can develop legislative policies that balance governmental responsibilities with private economic incentives to provide and protect public goods like healthcare, infrastructure, and the environment in practical, effective ways. I will offer and promote proposals that increase government transparency and simplify the legislative process to untangle and eliminate numerous, unrelated objectives within single pieces of legislation. Not only do we have to work harder to eliminate pork-barrel legislation, but we have to conduct a legislative process offers clarity and an opportunity for understanding and feedback from the American people. Running for office requires transparency. Those who do not want their finances or behavior examined for ethics and legality should not run for office. I will take every opportunity to support legislation that requires accountability from all public office holders as transparency is essential to a functional democracy. It seems the interpretation of senatorial duty for some, is to impose their personal perspectives- however narrow-minded, upon their constituents. As senator, my obligation will be to offer factual information to the constituents I serve, as well as to seek a true understanding of the impact that legislative polices have had, or will have, on their lives. With your input I will more accurately determine what is truly in the best interest of Iowans. The government shutdown was needlessly reckless. We are still experiencing the resulting negative economic impact months later. The Congressional Budget Office’s estimation of $11 billion down the drain cannot possibly take into account for all the opportunity costs to Americans due to the lack of ongoing essential government services during that time. The power of the purse has traditionally been the responsibility of the legislative branch. Once a bipartisan solution had been reached last December, a responsible Senate would have over-rode the president’s misguided veto- regardless of party affiliations. That is how our system of checks and balances should have worked. Functional oversight should have been in force from the beginning of the Trump administration in order to hold our president to higher ethical standards. Such a new and blatant disregard for transparency and conflicts of interest, concerns for America’s relationships with our allies and a perplexing pandering to regimes that act contrary to our values should have been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans want this. Both Republicans and Democrats have been speaking out against misguided and unethical policies associated with the Trump administration, but low standards for the highest office in the country have been allowed to prevail without checks and balances. We have all been hurt by this- regardless of party affiliation. Now is your chance to send me to the U.S. Senate as your voice of reason to demand higher ethical standards for all who have been granted the public’s trust in any office. The Herzog Commitment for Potential Government Shut-downs: Any time the federal government is shut down long enough for government workers to miss a payroll cycle, I will establish a relief fund for affected government workers and contractors – personally initiating funding with the equivalent of 30% my federal compensation for that year. I will invite other members of the Senate to do the same or contribute what they can. As your Senator I will not neglect my duty to public service and I accept that senators should not be immune to such costly, preventable government dysfunction. In 2008 I spent the summer in Washington D.C. on scholarship (a program offered by a collaboration with the Federal Office of Management and Budget and the University of Maryland). As I worked with federal government data and attended class at U of M, I was also introduced to several of the major U.S. government statistical agencies (on-site visits to: Bureaus of Economic Analysis, Justice Statistics, Labor, and Census, the Energy Information Administration, National Centers for Health and Education statistics…). It is important that we as tax-payers are aware of how we fund an amazing amount of important data to keep the general public, institutions and industries informed. There is truly a sense of pride and public duty among these government employees to provide accurate, objective information. Consider getting a better sense of any public issue with information from any one of many trusted sources. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/index.htm https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs I really love our nation’s capital. I first explored Washington D.C. with my son during his high school senior spring break. He was thrilled to have been accepted at George Washington University- his first choice. We exhausted ourselves in 3 days, wrapping up the campus tour quickly so that we could move on to taking in our national treasures. What a great sense of vast community and purpose we experienced- mingling with people from every walk of life on the metro, and covering as much of the National Mall grounds as we could. This was the beginning of more amazing life experiences for both of us. He embraced his education, his community, and his work there while I was frequently drawn back for extended stays. I had great opportunities to experience federal government engagement by participating in a summer internship or briefly lobbying for a non-profit. Attending a health information management conference would end up being just another opportunity to enjoy D.C. with my son. After living there for more than a decade, he moved to Chicago, but I still feel almost as connected to our nation’s capital as I do to Iowa. It has been heartbreaking to observe it being diminished by yet another election not supported by popular vote, and the turmoil that ensued, with increasing threats to functional government in the form diminishing dignity and accountability. I believe we as Iowans are the solution. We are known for being there for each when times get tough. I believe we are independent thinkers with a knack for civility and respect for our neighbors. I am prepared to honorably represent you in the U.S. Senate with a collaborative, inclusive, non-partisan voice. On Capitol Hill we can exemplify what respectful, intelligent, collaborative legislation is- guiding the nation in a way Iowans can truly be proud of. Staying Ever Vigilant Our Veterans are a precious minority of Americans (currently around 8% of the population). Regardless of having experienced combat or not, they all put their individual interests on hold for the greater good of the country. Our debt to many veterans is never truly repaid, but we can strive to do as much as possible to honor our obligations to them for their service. I cared for vets in Iowa City during nursing school, and then in Puerto Rico at the VA hospital as a new RN. I remember the people I cared for graciously receiving their care, even though sometimes the VA facilities where I worked struggled to manage limited resources. The quality and availability of VA care varies throughout the nation. Vets in every area of the country should have options to get the medical and mental health care that best meets their specific needs. A couple of my siblings have received good care within the VA medical system, but it is important to also support those who would benefit more from other sources outside the VA as necessary to offer timely, effective treatment. Other concerns for vets- like education funding, and policies that protect their individual rights or their family’s economic well-being, need to be effectively promoted and funded. Not only will I champion their domestic interests, but I will be among the loudest of advocates to make sure we employ their services in only the most worthy endeavors with the resources they need to minimize risk. Education I will be reaching out to teachers and school administrators to help develop the best proposals to address inadequate teacher compensation so that we may establish reliable, long-term economic advantages for teachers. I will work to advance federal economic incentives for states to invest and maintain more reliable funding for quality public education – a public good that benefits us all in the long-run (especially if expanded to quality early childhood education programs made more generally accessible throughout the nation). We need to respond to teachers’ concerns about how standardized testing over-emphasis for education-quality evaluations interferes with truly effective teaching. Though I view states as playing the primary role in tackling these issues, some practical federal minimum requirements and targeted grants for nationally-recognized issues are also needed. When we later address this topic in more detail I will be excited to share with you some ideas for empowering people of all ages with more affordable, practical, and worth-while educational opportunities. Somewhat similar to healthcare- our complex and convoluted higher education payment and pricing system has to change. I endorse developing more national service options in addition to military service to that offer similar education-funding benefits for time served. Environmental Issues Subsidies that create the wrong economic incentives for the fuel industry and industrial agriculture are prohibitively costly in terms of environmental damage (with little if any significant benefit to taxpayers) and must end. We must advance renewable fuel standards judiciously, making sure that farmers have plenty of advanced notice of any regulatory or legislative change so they may prepare to adapt and plan for the future. They will likely have to anticipate more biomass alternatives soon to replace higher-input crops for fuel production. We must also keep rare bi-partisan momentum going and get the recent proposals for a carbon tax ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763 ) through Congress, and I plan to fight for the most meaningful legislation on that front. Iowa is a national renewable energy leader as a major provider of wind power and according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) it is one of only 4 states that account for more than half of U.S. wind electricity generation. ( https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php ) Our wind generation has more than doubled since 2011 and during that time coal-fired electricity generation decreased from its peak (from 40 down to 29 million MWh). So as a state we took advantage of one of the best natural resources we had, complimented it with relatively low wind farm construction costs, and set mandatory program requirements. I offer this example because each state has unique contributions to offer to promote energy efficiency and protect our environment. I acknowledge scientific findings that should inspire us to urgently embrace innovative energy solutions. Immigration I spent summers in Costa Rica and Mexico as an exchange student during high school and am grateful for these enlightening, wonderful experiences. Those experiences were a stark contrast to what I observed working with a medical relief team in El Salvador 2001. There is evidence that recklessly withdrawing funding to Latin-American countries (that had been effectively limiting violence and economic hardships) in the past year or two by the Trump administration- has significantly contributed to the humanitarian crisis on our Southern border. The President also neglected to build on effective investments and what we learned from the Obama administration’s efforts to deal with illegal immigration. We clearly can do better than scrapping the previous progress we made during previous administrations and engaging in inhumane, short-sighted policies. Preserving Our Democracy’s Essential Separation of Church and State |
” |
| —Suzanne Herzog's campaign website (2020)[49] | ||
Pivot Counties
- See also: Pivot Counties by state
Thirty-one of 99 Iowa counties—31 percent—are Pivot Counties. Pivot Counties are counties that voted for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012 and for Donald Trump (R) in 2016. Altogether, the nation had 206 Pivot Counties, with most being concentrated in upper midwestern and northeastern states.
| Counties won by Trump in 2016 and Obama in 2012 and 2008 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| County | Trump margin of victory in 2016 | Obama margin of victory in 2012 | Obama margin of victory in 2008 | ||||
| Allamakee County, Iowa | 24.15% | 4.17% | 14.25% | ||||
| Boone County, Iowa | 13.69% | 6.64% | 7.63% | ||||
| Bremer County, Iowa | 13.68% | 2.68% | 9.31% | ||||
| Buchanan County, Iowa | 15.02% | 13.87% | 18.48% | ||||
| Cedar County, Iowa | 17.78% | 4.59% | 9.64% | ||||
| Cerro Gordo County, Iowa | 7.66% | 13.38% | 20.83% | ||||
| Chickasaw County, Iowa | 22.94% | 11.07% | 20.74% | ||||
| Clarke County, Iowa | 28.02% | 1.47% | 2.25% | ||||
| Clayton County, Iowa | 22.78% | 7.03% | 17.17% | ||||
| Clinton County, Iowa | 5.12% | 22.84% | 23.03% | ||||
| Des Moines County, Iowa | 6.89% | 18.41% | 23.04% | ||||
| Dubuque County, Iowa | 1.23% | 14.71% | 20.77% | ||||
| Fayette County, Iowa | 19.36% | 11.96% | 16.60% | ||||
| Floyd County, Iowa | 14.84% | 14.63% | 21.88% | ||||
| Howard County, Iowa | 20.49% | 20.95% | 25.78% | ||||
| Jackson County, Iowa | 19.27% | 16.89% | 24.39% | ||||
| Jasper County, Iowa | 18.13% | 7.07% | 7.50% | ||||
| Jefferson County, Iowa | 0.47% | 15.97% | 20.23% | ||||
| Jones County, Iowa | 19.08% | 7.78% | 10.40% | ||||
| Lee County, Iowa | 16.02% | 15.49% | 16.01% | ||||
| Louisa County, Iowa | 28.37% | 0.64% | 4.25% | ||||
| Marshall County, Iowa | 8.31% | 9.36% | 9.35% | ||||
| Mitchell County, Iowa | 24.04% | 3.37% | 12.31% | ||||
| Muscatine County, Iowa | 6.26% | 15.88% | 15.64% | ||||
| Poweshiek County, Iowa | 6.53% | 9.35% | 11.75% | ||||
| Tama County, Iowa | 20.28% | 7.43% | 12.19% | ||||
| Union County, Iowa | 27.49% | 3.86% | 3.70% | ||||
| Wapello County, Iowa | 20.60% | 11.88% | 13.53% | ||||
| Webster County, Iowa | 21.52% | 5.84% | 8.51% | ||||
| Winneshiek County, Iowa | 0.79% | 14.74% | 22.65% | ||||
| Worth County, Iowa | 21.68% | 14.53% | 22.42% | ||||
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump (R) won Iowa with 51.1 percent of the vote. Hillary Clinton (D) received 41.7 percent. In presidential elections between 1848 and 2016, Iowa voted Republican 69.76 percent of the time and Democratic 30.23 percent of the time. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, Iowa voted Democratic three times and Republican the other two times.[50]
Presidential results by legislative district
The following table details results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections by state House districts in Iowa. Click [show] to expand the table. The "Obama," "Romney," "Clinton," and "Trump" columns describe the percent of the vote each presidential candidate received in the district. The "2012 Margin" and "2016 Margin" columns describe the margin of victory between the two presidential candidates in those years. The "Party Control" column notes which party held that seat heading into the 2018 general election. Data on the results of the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections broken down by state legislative districts was compiled by Daily Kos.[51][52]
| In 2012, Barack Obama (D) won 61 out of 100 state House districts in Iowa with an average margin of victory of 19.1 points. In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won 35 out of 100 state House districts in Iowa with an average margin of victory of 18.8 points. Clinton won four districts controlled by Republicans heading into the 2018 elections. |
| In 2012, Mitt Romney (R) won 39 out of 100 state House districts in Iowa with an average margin of victory of 13.3 points. In 2016, Donald Trump (R) won 65 out of 100 state House districts in Iowa with an average margin of victory of 24.5 points. Trump won 10 districts controlled by Democrats heading into the 2018 elections. |
| 2016 presidential results by state House district | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| District | Obama | Romney | 2012 Margin | Clinton | Trump | 2016 Margin | Party Control |
| 1 | 30.96% | 67.78% | R+36.8 | 22.23% | 73.81% | R+51.6 | R |
| 2 | 41.86% | 56.83% | R+15 | 27.53% | 67.70% | R+40.2 | R |
| 3 | 31.57% | 67.31% | R+35.7 | 20.73% | 74.78% | R+54.1 | R |
| 4 | 15.63% | 83.55% | R+67.9 | 12.95% | 81.67% | R+68.7 | R |
| 5 | 33.00% | 65.90% | R+32.9 | 22.28% | 73.69% | R+51.4 | R |
| 6 | 44.39% | 54.40% | R+10 | 32.54% | 62.36% | R+29.8 | R |
| 7 | 46.87% | 51.82% | R+5 | 31.96% | 62.86% | R+30.9 | R |
| 8 | 43.04% | 55.84% | R+12.8 | 28.52% | 67.11% | R+38.6 | R |
| 9 | 54.26% | 44.65% | D+9.6 | 39.33% | 55.29% | R+16 | D |
| 10 | 40.15% | 58.39% | R+18.2 | 25.64% | 69.78% | R+44.1 | R |
| 11 | 42.76% | 56.17% | R+13.4 | 30.87% | 64.40% | R+33.5 | R |
| 12 | 46.14% | 52.95% | R+6.8 | 30.92% | 64.32% | R+33.4 | R |
| 13 | 54.28% | 44.37% | D+9.9 | 42.30% | 52.03% | R+9.7 | D |
| 14 | 59.33% | 39.34% | D+20 | 47.69% | 47.27% | D+0.4 | D |
| 15 | 57.12% | 41.17% | D+16 | 41.89% | 51.48% | R+9.6 | D |
| 16 | 52.01% | 46.46% | D+5.5 | 41.84% | 51.76% | R+9.9 | R |
| 17 | 41.10% | 57.71% | R+16.6 | 25.76% | 70.01% | R+44.3 | R |
| 18 | 41.98% | 56.88% | R+14.9 | 28.11% | 67.52% | R+39.4 | R |
| 19 | 40.80% | 57.87% | R+17.1 | 36.54% | 56.73% | R+20.2 | R |
| 20 | 48.77% | 49.62% | R+0.9 | 35.39% | 59.04% | R+23.6 | R |
| 21 | 45.01% | 53.64% | R+8.6 | 29.35% | 65.17% | R+35.8 | R |
| 22 | 36.78% | 62.08% | R+25.3 | 29.64% | 65.50% | R+35.9 | R |
| 23 | 40.72% | 57.80% | R+17.1 | 27.37% | 66.81% | R+39.4 | R |
| 24 | 39.86% | 58.79% | R+18.9 | 25.77% | 69.86% | R+44.1 | R |
| 25 | 44.34% | 54.14% | R+9.8 | 34.15% | 59.72% | R+25.6 | R |
| 26 | 50.18% | 48.59% | D+1.6 | 39.62% | 53.52% | R+13.9 | D |
| 27 | 47.15% | 51.07% | R+3.9 | 30.50% | 64.42% | R+33.9 | R |
| 28 | 47.30% | 51.30% | R+4 | 31.76% | 62.81% | R+31.1 | R |
| 29 | 56.05% | 42.50% | D+13.6 | 40.78% | 53.23% | R+12.5 | D |
| 30 | 47.66% | 50.85% | R+3.2 | 38.47% | 54.84% | R+16.4 | R |
| 31 | 61.55% | 36.86% | D+24.7 | 49.75% | 43.99% | D+5.8 | D |
| 32 | 72.88% | 25.37% | D+47.5 | 63.69% | 30.28% | D+33.4 | D |
| 33 | 67.30% | 31.37% | D+35.9 | 59.50% | 34.55% | D+25 | D |
| 34 | 68.16% | 30.10% | D+38.1 | 60.44% | 33.19% | D+27.2 | D |
| 35 | 77.01% | 21.48% | D+55.5 | 70.40% | 23.46% | D+46.9 | D |
| 36 | 65.21% | 33.12% | D+32.1 | 63.13% | 29.46% | D+33.7 | D |
| 37 | 43.30% | 55.35% | R+12 | 42.10% | 50.50% | R+8.4 | R |
| 38 | 49.33% | 49.21% | D+0.1 | 42.85% | 49.84% | R+7 | R |
| 39 | 43.02% | 55.76% | R+12.7 | 43.93% | 48.99% | R+5.1 | R |
| 40 | 49.31% | 49.53% | R+0.2 | 50.25% | 43.32% | D+6.9 | D |
| 41 | 67.93% | 30.50% | D+37.4 | 69.25% | 24.10% | D+45.2 | D |
| 42 | 49.85% | 48.83% | D+1 | 51.15% | 42.19% | D+9 | R |
| 43 | 50.58% | 48.29% | D+2.3 | 52.50% | 41.03% | D+11.5 | R |
| 44 | 42.52% | 56.60% | R+14.1 | 44.97% | 47.76% | R+2.8 | R |
| 45 | 60.66% | 36.80% | D+23.9 | 57.79% | 31.85% | D+25.9 | D |
| 46 | 59.66% | 37.96% | D+21.7 | 57.22% | 33.12% | D+24.1 | D |
| 47 | 52.11% | 46.29% | D+5.8 | 38.31% | 54.96% | R+16.6 | R |
| 48 | 47.95% | 50.46% | R+2.5 | 36.50% | 56.98% | R+20.5 | R |
| 49 | 46.50% | 51.88% | R+5.4 | 36.62% | 55.49% | R+18.9 | R |
| 50 | 42.94% | 55.95% | R+13 | 30.36% | 64.36% | R+34 | R |
| 51 | 55.19% | 43.48% | D+11.7 | 35.67% | 58.91% | R+23.2 | R |
| 52 | 56.04% | 42.88% | D+13.2 | 37.76% | 56.73% | R+19 | D |
| 53 | 60.98% | 37.92% | D+23.1 | 47.69% | 46.65% | D+1 | D |
| 54 | 44.96% | 53.94% | R+9 | 32.11% | 62.71% | R+30.6 | R |
| 55 | 55.19% | 43.44% | D+11.8 | 43.51% | 50.62% | R+7.1 | R |
| 56 | 52.01% | 46.73% | D+5.3 | 34.91% | 59.80% | R+24.9 | R |
| 57 | 49.00% | 49.98% | R+1 | 37.25% | 57.49% | R+20.2 | R |
| 58 | 55.60% | 43.22% | D+12.4 | 37.06% | 57.82% | R+20.8 | R |
| 59 | 56.29% | 42.22% | D+14.1 | 51.94% | 40.87% | D+11.1 | D |
| 60 | 50.15% | 48.91% | D+1.2 | 45.19% | 48.75% | R+3.6 | R |
| 61 | 63.73% | 35.14% | D+28.6 | 52.34% | 42.07% | D+10.3 | D |
| 62 | 76.37% | 22.58% | D+53.8 | 62.14% | 32.64% | D+29.5 | D |
| 63 | 49.95% | 48.93% | D+1 | 39.04% | 55.06% | R+16 | R |
| 64 | 57.83% | 41.00% | D+16.8 | 40.27% | 53.42% | R+13.1 | D |
| 65 | 66.77% | 31.71% | D+35.1 | 61.58% | 31.29% | D+30.3 | D |
| 66 | 57.43% | 41.04% | D+16.4 | 53.11% | 39.91% | D+13.2 | D |
| 67 | 49.18% | 49.50% | R+0.3 | 47.22% | 45.74% | D+1.5 | R |
| 68 | 54.45% | 44.08% | D+10.4 | 48.20% | 44.50% | D+3.7 | R |
| 69 | 65.87% | 32.63% | D+33.2 | 52.73% | 40.24% | D+12.5 | D |
| 70 | 63.00% | 35.67% | D+27.3 | 53.85% | 39.20% | D+14.7 | D |
| 71 | 56.62% | 42.23% | D+14.4 | 48.02% | 46.57% | D+1.5 | D |
| 72 | 50.86% | 47.88% | D+3 | 34.92% | 59.56% | R+24.6 | R |
| 73 | 54.19% | 44.65% | D+9.5 | 43.25% | 51.15% | R+7.9 | R |
| 74 | 67.17% | 31.21% | D+36 | 69.14% | 24.89% | D+44.3 | D |
| 75 | 49.36% | 49.39% | R+0 | 34.09% | 60.12% | R+26 | R |
| 76 | 50.61% | 47.97% | D+2.6 | 40.64% | 53.90% | R+13.3 | R |
| 77 | 58.46% | 40.34% | D+18.1 | 53.49% | 39.62% | D+13.9 | D |
| 78 | 46.21% | 51.69% | R+5.5 | 34.06% | 60.08% | R+26 | R |
| 79 | 35.86% | 62.79% | R+26.9 | 25.96% | 67.84% | R+41.9 | R |
| 80 | 45.03% | 53.56% | R+8.5 | 27.04% | 68.71% | R+41.7 | R |
| 81 | 56.57% | 41.86% | D+14.7 | 39.52% | 55.89% | R+16.4 | D |
| 82 | 49.74% | 47.90% | D+1.8 | 36.54% | 57.76% | R+21.2 | D |
| 83 | 58.67% | 39.72% | D+19 | 40.42% | 53.35% | R+12.9 | D |
| 84 | 46.37% | 52.04% | R+5.7 | 30.59% | 63.23% | R+32.6 | R |
| 85 | 71.79% | 26.07% | D+45.7 | 74.26% | 19.90% | D+54.4 | D |
| 86 | 72.99% | 24.97% | D+48 | 72.34% | 21.06% | D+51.3 | D |
| 87 | 62.60% | 36.08% | D+26.5 | 48.53% | 45.49% | D+3 | D |
| 88 | 50.88% | 47.86% | D+3 | 35.94% | 58.76% | R+22.8 | R |
| 89 | 63.19% | 35.77% | D+27.4 | 52.47% | 40.86% | D+11.6 | D |
| 90 | 73.49% | 24.97% | D+48.5 | 57.98% | 34.93% | D+23.1 | D |
| 91 | 57.61% | 40.97% | D+16.6 | 43.65% | 49.75% | R+6.1 | R |
| 92 | 53.94% | 45.00% | D+8.9 | 42.25% | 51.61% | R+9.4 | R |
| 93 | 56.63% | 42.22% | D+14.4 | 50.96% | 42.21% | D+8.7 | D |
| 94 | 45.18% | 53.87% | R+8.7 | 43.91% | 50.10% | R+6.2 | R |
| 95 | 52.01% | 46.69% | D+5.3 | 41.86% | 51.59% | R+9.7 | R |
| 96 | 51.83% | 47.01% | D+4.8 | 35.42% | 58.91% | R+23.5 | R |
| 97 | 50.63% | 47.95% | D+2.7 | 37.14% | 56.46% | R+19.3 | R |
| 98 | 65.29% | 33.50% | D+31.8 | 48.47% | 45.38% | D+3.1 | D |
| 99 | 59.37% | 39.28% | D+20.1 | 52.61% | 41.12% | D+11.5 | D |
| 100 | 62.95% | 35.58% | D+27.4 | 51.37% | 42.25% | D+9.1 | D |
| Total | 52.23% | 46.40% | D+5.8 | 42.23% | 51.72% | R+9.5 | - |
| Source: Daily Kos | |||||||
Ballot access requirements
The table below details filing requirements for U.S. Senate candidates in Iowa in the 2020 election cycle. For additional information on candidate ballot access requirements in Iowa, click here.
| Filing requirements for U.S. Senate candidates, 2020 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Office | Party | Signatures required | Signature formula | Filing fee | Filing fee formula | Filing deadline | Source |
| Iowa | U.S. Senate | Democratic | 3,155 | 0.5% of votes cast for the party's candidate for governor in 2018 | N/A | N/A | 3/13/2020 | Source |
| Iowa | U.S. Senate | Republican | 3,337 | 0.5% of votes cast for the party's candidate for governor in 2018 | N/A | N/A | 3/13/2020 | Source |
| Iowa | U.S. Senate | Unaffiliated | 1,500 | Fixed number | N/A | N/A | 3/13/2020 | Source |
Election history
2016
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican |  Chuck Grassley Incumbent |
60.1% | 926,007 | |
| Democratic | Patty Judge | 35.7% | 549,460 | |
| Libertarian | Charles Aldrich | 2.7% | 41,794 | |
| New Independent Party Iowa | Jim Hennager | 1.1% | 17,649 | |
| Independent | Michael Luick-Thrams | 0.3% | 4,441 | |
| N/A | Write-in | 0.1% | 1,685 | |
| Total Votes | 1,541,036 | |||
| Source: Iowa Secretary of State | ||||
2014
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | Joni Ernst |
52.1% | 588,575 | |
| Democratic | Bruce Braley | 43.8% | 494,370 | |
| Independent | Rick Stewart | 2.4% | 26,815 | |
| Libertarian | Douglas Butzier | 0.7% | 8,232 | |
| Independent | Ruth Smith | 0.5% | 5,873 | |
| Independent | Bob Quast | 0.4% | 4,724 | |
| Write-in | Other | 0.1% | 1,111 | |
| Total Votes | 1,129,700 | |||
| Source: Iowa Secretary of State Official Results | ||||
2010
| U.S. Senate, Iowa General Election, 2010 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
| Republican | Chuck Grassley Incumbent |
64.4% | 718,215 | |
| Democratic | Roxanne Conlin | 33.3% | 371,686 | |
| Libertarian | John Heiderscheit | 2.3% | 25,290 | |
| Total Votes | 1,115,191 | |||
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Radio Iowa, "Cal Woods ends U.S. Senate campaign, endorses Franken," May 4, 2020
- ↑ Candidate Connection surveys completed before September 26, 2019, were not used to generate candidate profiles. In battleground primaries, Ballotpedia based its selection of noteworthy candidates on polling, fundraising, and noteworthy endorsements. In battleground general elections, all major party candidates and any other candidates with the potential to impact the outcome of the race were included.
- ↑ Fundraising by primary candidates can be found on the race's respective primary election page. Fundraising by general election candidates can be found on the race's general election page.
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "2022 Quarterly Reports," accessed March 2, 2022
- ↑ Inside Elections also uses Tilt ratings to indicate an even smaller advantage and greater competitiveness.
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Nathan Gonzalez," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Kyle Kondik," April 19, 2018
- ↑ Amee LaTour, "Email correspondence with Charlie Cook," April 22, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump on June 11, 2020," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Newsweek, "Obama Endorses Democrats Seeking to Unseat Republicans Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst," August 3, 2020
- ↑ Quinnipiac University, "Florida And Iowa Races Are Too Close To Call, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Biden Maintains His Lead In Pennsylvania, Has Narrow Lead In Ohio," October 29, 2020
- ↑ American Action Forum, "Iowa: Policy Priorities and the Election – October Update," October 22, 2020
- ↑ The New York Times, "Biden Has Narrow Lead in Iowa, and Senate Race Is Tight, Poll Shows," October 21, 2020
- ↑ Monmouth University, "Biden Takes Likely Voter Lead; Greenfield Maintains Narrow Senate Edge," October 21, 2020
- ↑ Center for American Greatness, "Insider Advantage/Center for American Greatness poll," accessed November 1, 2020
- ↑ KTIV, "WATCH: U.S. Senate Debate between Joni Ernst and Theresa Greenfield," October 15, 2020
- ↑ Files for Progress, "2020 Senate Project Iowa," accessed October 25, 2020
- ↑ Google Drive, "CBS News Battleground Tracker — October 6-9, 2020, Registered Voters in Iowa," accessed October 25, 2020
- ↑ Quinnipiac University, "Biden Widens Lead Over Trump In Florida & Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Slight Leads For Democrats In Iowa Presidential & Senate Races," October 7, 2020
- ↑ The Gazette, "Ernst, Greenfield clash in first debate," September 28, 2020
- ↑ Files for Progress, "Data for Progress September 2020 Iowa Poll," accessed October 25, 2020
- ↑ Monmouth University, "Trump Maintains Small Lead; Slight Gain for Dem in Senate," September 24, 2020
- ↑ DocumentCloud, "The Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ Amazon AWS, "Public Policy Polling - Iowa Survey Results," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Monmouth University, "Close Contests for Prez & Senate," August 5, 2020
- ↑ Newsweek, "Obama Endorses Democrats Seeking to Unseat Republicans Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst," August 3, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Term Limits, "US Term Limits Survey of 500 Registered Voters in Iowa," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ American Principles Project, "SPRY Strategies APP.Iowa.GeneralElection RND1. 7.8.20," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - July 2020 Quarterly Report," July 15, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - July 2020 Quarterly Report," July 15, 2020
- ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump on June 11, 2020," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "Iowa Poll: Theresa Greenfield leads Joni Ernst in tight race for U.S. Senate," June 15, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - Pre-Primary 2020 report," May 21, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - Pre-Primary 2020 report," May 21, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - April 2020 Quarterly Report, Amendment 1," April 30, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - April 2020 Quarterly Report," April 15, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - Year-End 2019 Quarterly Report, Amendment 1," April 30, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - Year-End 2019 Quarterly Report," January 31, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - October 2019 Quarterly Report, Amendment 2," April 30, 2020
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - October 2019 Quarterly Report," October 15, 2019
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Joni for Iowa - July 2019 Quarterly Report," July 15, 2019
- ↑ Federal Election Commission, "Theresa Greenfield for Iowa - July 2019 Quarterly Report," July 15, 2019
- ↑ The Daily Iowan, "Joni Ernst commences 2020 Senate campaign at Roast and Ride," June 15, 2019
- ↑ The Gazette, "Theresa Greenfield joins Iowa's U.S. Senate race," June 3, 2019
- ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Joni Ernst 2020 campaign website, "Issues," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Theresa Greenfield 2020 campaign website, "Theresa on the Issues," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Rick Stewart 2020 campaign website, "Home," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ Suzanne Herzog 2020 campaign website, "Issues," accessed August 19, 2020
- ↑ 270towin.com, "Iowa," accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' statewide election results by congressional and legislative districts," July 9, 2013
- ↑ Daily Kos, "Daily Kos Elections' 2016 presidential results for congressional and legislative districts," February 6, 2017
| |||||||||||
