When losing a race doesn’t mean you’ll lose again

Nathan L. Gonzales, Tribune News Service

After nearly 25 years of writing about campaigns, I should know better than to take press releases too seriously. In a profession that rewards speed over quality analysis, I know press secretaries and communications directors have jobs to do and often rely on pithy one-liners to try to win the day. We’re supposed to look away and attribute it to business as usual. In other words, hate the game and not the player. But a recent news release from the Iowa Republican Party was so audacious, hypocritical and devoid of any historical context that I just couldn’t forgive and forget.

“Two-time loser Christina Bohannan is back, trying for strike three in a crowded primary where even her own party knows she can’t win,” the chairman of the Iowa GOP said in a June 17 release. “Iowans have already rejected her twice, and they’ll do it again.” Bohannan had just announced her third challenge to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the 1st District, which stretches from outside Des Moines to take in the state’s southeastern quarter. A former Democratic state legislator, Bohannan lost to Miller-Meeks by 7 points in 2022 and by less than a quarter of a percentage point (or 799 votes) in 2024. While it’s certainly fair to go after Bohannan for her policy positions and party affiliation, Iowa Republicans, more than anyone, should know that attacking someone for losing a race is silly. And highlighting previous losses as a clear sign that a candidate isn’t going to win in the future is ridiculous.

Miller-Meeks herself lost three races for Congress — in 2008, 2010 and 2014 — before finally getting elected — by six votes — in 2020. Just across the border to the north, in Minnesota’s 1st District, Republican Jim Hagedorn lost congressional races in 2010, 2014 and 2016 before getting elected in 2018. Heck, even President Donald Trump was rejected by voters in 2020 before getting elected again four years later. For years, I’ve failed to dispel the notion that “losers” can’t win. I’ve written stories with headlines such as “‘Retread’ strategy: Why Congress next year could be full of losers” and “Partisan attacks on losers of past campaigns make little sense” and “How retread candidates derided as ‘crusty lasagna’ really stack up.” And, unfortunately, it appears I may well die on this hill I choose to defend.

Attacking losers is a bipartisan temptation. Back in June 2020, after Miller-Meeks won the Republican nomination for what was then the 2nd District, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee highlighted her “three failed campaigns” and said, “Washington Republicans are stuck betting on a candidate who has let them down three times before.” Five months later, she won. Some past losers win because candidates are only part of the election equation. Fundraising, name identification, top-of-the-ticket dynamics, open seat vs. incumbency, and, perhaps most importantly, the political environment affect the outcomes of races as well. In the case of Iowa’s 1st District, it’s not hard to imagine a midterm election environment in which voters are frustrated or disillusioned enough with the party in power (i.e., the Republicans) to help Bohannan overcome her previous 799-vote deficit.

But the Iowa GOP went a step further in trying to disqualify Bohannan based on the potential circumstances of the race. “Whoever survives this messy Democrat primary will not stand a chance against Iowa champion Marianette Miller-Meeks, who is laser-focused on delivering real results Iowans can count on,” the chairman said in the news release. “For Bohannan, the third time will not be the charm, it will be the final rejection.” I’m willing to forgive Iowa Republicans for misspelling the congresswoman’s name in their own release since I have misspelled it probably 30 times over the years. But primaries are poor predictors of general election success. Don’t believe me? Let’s go all the way back to the race for the 1st District in 2024.

Bohannan was unopposed for the Democratic nomination, while Miller-Meeks posted an underwhelming 56% to 44% victory in the GOP primary against Army veteran David Pautsch, whom she outspent $1 million to $38,000. Even though she had a tough and close primary, Miller-Meeks went on to win the general election. This cycle, despite the GOP’s rhetoric, Miller-Meeks may end up having a close primary once again. Pautsch is back for a second run, and the congresswoman clearly has had problems with her right flank. Bohannan currently faces two primary opponents: Bob Krause, who served in the Iowa House in the 1970s and in the Carter administration, and health care worker Travis Terrell. But there’s no indication either of them can raise the money to compete.

Too often, primaries are stigmatized because of certain high-profile outcomes that had a significant impact on the general election. Think Todd Akin in Missouri or Richard Mourdock in Indiana, both flawed candidates who lost winnable races for Republicans in 2012. But, in the vast majority of races, primaries are a natural part of the electoral process and are not debilitating. Inside Elections currently rates the race for Iowa’s 1st District as a Toss-up, so it’s certainly possible that Bohannan loses again. But that would most likely have more to do with the political environment than Iowans remembering how they voted two and four years ago.