The World Cup is back in the U.S. and the NPR network is covering the fans, the tensions, when two teams take the field, their nation's histories take the field alongside them, the local transformations, just world-class soccer right here, and of course the games. Follow along on and off the pitch with the NPR app. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Miles Parks, I cover voting. I'm Stephen Fowler, I cover politics. And NPR's Kirk Sigler is also here with us. Hi Kirk. Hello guys. Thanks for being here. So today on the show, Democrats need to win back rural and working class voters if they want to have a shot at retaking Congress this November. So today, we're going to talk about two states that have primaries tomorrow where they're trying to do that, Iowa and Montana. So let's start with Iowa, Stephen, where you were just on a reporting trip reporting from a congressional district there. Talk to me about the pitch that Democrats are making. Miles, it's kind of this two-pronged approach here. Obviously the national political environment is not great for Republicans. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with Trump administration policies that are especially salient in Iowa, talking about things like tariffs and the war in Iran that's led to high fertilizer prices for farmers. But really the strategy they're also doing is tying it to Republican control at the state and local level. I went to the Iowa first congressional district convention in May and talked to Iowa Democratic Party chair, Rita Hart, and she said that their strategy was telling voters, look, Republicans have been in charge of things. It's not great nationally. It's not great locally. You may not love Democrats per se, but why don't you give us a chance? Well, Kirk, you cover the West for NPR. You were in Montana reporting on the politics there. How is all of this shaping up there? I think it's pretty similar. Montana is a state that was famous for split ticket voting, even if purple at some races. Up until recently, when Trump has really got a hold on things and his popularity is really high. So you're seeing Democrats talk about the tariffs on wheat farmers in the Pacific Northwest that's hitting wheat farmers really high, who are seeing longstanding trade relationships jeopardized. In some cases, canceled. You're also seeing Democrats talk a lot about public lands and the Trump administration's push to do more logging. And some people within the Trump administration pushing to sell off some public lands. And they're focused on affordability too, I think. I know that's the national buzzword, but Montana is very expensive, has seen a boom in population of largely wealthy transplants coming into the state. Democrats say that's driving up costs. But Montana is an interesting place because the Democratic Party has really been sidelined. And I think it's kind of a sort of an example of nationally. There's a lot of criticism that Democrats have just focused on coastal areas, more urban areas, building diverse coalitions, and sort of forgetting the so-called middle. And so Democrats really, even in an election, as Stephen said, where Republicans are unpopular, they still face a serious uphill battle in a state that has consistently gone 16, 20 points or more for Trump, although Trump is not on the ballot. So these are both states that have open Senate seats this fall. Stephen, I want to start with you, just to talk a little bit about how these kind of broader ideas that are floating around in both these states are actually playing out in these specific races. Yeah, and to zoom it out a little bit, the strategy for Democrats here is ultimately to lose by less in rural areas. For much of the country, when we talk about rural voters, they're predominantly Republican. I mean, there are pockets of the South where you have rural black Democrats that need to show up and vote. But it is a strategy to show up and not give up. And in Iowa, there's an interesting conversation that is similar to what's playing out in other states about how you can win as a Democrat in places where there are not an overwhelming number of Democrats. In the Senate race, you have two state lawmakers with very different backgrounds. Both say they have what it takes to win in Iowa. On the one hand, you have Josh Turrick. He is a state representative who flipped a Republican-held seat. He has the backing of more establishment figures. He has financial advantages in the fundraising department. He's got outside groups helping him. On the other side, you have Zach Walls, who's a state senator from a deep blue part of Iowa, who has only ever run and won in deep blue areas. He's got the backing of people like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. And so you have this proxy fight going on of, we need to run somebody who has more of establishment backing and can win in Republican areas versus the philosophy of, we need to juice Democratic turnout everywhere we can, and that's how we win. Totally. That makes sense. I feel like we're talking about on the podcast a lot lately, this sort of mainstream versus, I don't know, more ideologically pure almost in the primary. I think it's a dynamic we see over and over again. I'm curious in Montana, Kirk, what we're seeing shaping up in that open Senate seat. Well, there was a big shocker when Senator Steve Danes, a close Trump ally, a couple months back, waited right up until the filing deadline and then dropped out. And in some circles of conservative circles were quite angry. They said that he cleared the way a backroom deal to anoint or handpick his successor, Kurt Almey, in a seat that Senator Danes was probably going to win or speculated to win. So that has ruffled some feathers amongst conservatives in the base. It's a very grassroots, you know, anti-establishment, and it looked like an establishment pick, but a lot of the news of late has been on the independent who is running and, of course, will not be on the ballot in the primaries tomorrow. He's still officially trying to get on the ballot. He's an independent Seth Bodner. He's the former University of Montana president. He says he's an independent. His politics look pretty close to Democrats, but that's kind of the big focus in this race, what he might mean, and there's not much attention or name recognition for that matter on any of the Democrats running. On the Republican side, it was going to be an easy, you know, probably path to victory for a Republican. Now, the entry of this independent has really shook things up, I'd say, and it kind of depends on whether he splits the Democratic vote or not, or whether, you know, there's still energy around him. One thing that I've heard from talking to conservative voters on a reporting trip up there recently is that, you know, there's a concern that there's, you know, probably Republicans will rally around the, you know, eventual nominee, whoever it is, you know, we see this a lot coming into primaries, bitter feelings, and then, you know, months pass. But the concern for Republicans in particular is that there's a lot of frustrations with the Republican Party right now and power and all the issues we've been talking about. Will they see an independent on the ballot? They certainly don't really like Democrats in Montana right now. It's a bit of a populous state. But if they see an independent and don't do a lot of research, they might think, hmm, well, I'll just vote for this guy because he's not from either party. And so Republicans up there are very concerned. Yeah, it's interesting. This is another trend. I feel like we're seeing popping up more and more in some of these centers. We had an episode a couple of weeks ago about Nebraska, where we were talking about an independent candidate there who's being taken seriously. Stephen, why do you think this trend is becoming more of a thing? Is it just a reflection of the Democratic Party being so unpopular that people who are thinking that they want to have a shot in these Republican states are just thinking, well, maybe I could just do a little something to distance myself from the National Party. What do you think? I mean, I think it's certainly a case like that. You have this political environment we're in where President Trump and the Republican Party brand is not popular. You also have a situation where people don't like the National Democratic Party brand, but they love their local Democrat. And in cases of states like Montana and Nebraska, Kansas, some of the other places where there aren't a whole lot of local Democrats to choose from that could make the sort of splash like this, you are seeing that independence streak of metaphorically and literally of people who are willing to say, I am running to represent you, the people of my state, and not the powers that be in Washington. You can hit the Republicans, you can hit the Democrats, and even though these independents are more closely aligned with Democrats and if they were elected, they would align and caucus with Democrats, presumably. There's just this easy anti-people in power, anti-encompassy, anti-Washington, a mantle that people can pick up, and voters really love that, and donors too. I mean, looking at the Montana Senate race as an example, the latest finance numbers show that Seth Bodnar, the independent, is the top fundraiser in that race. I think what will be interesting is if, in fact, depending on who the Democratic Party Senate nominee becomes, if in fact there'll be pressure for that person to drop out of the race and clear the way for Bodnar, assuming he qualifies for the ballot. Montana has a very long history of populist politics. There was a lot of focus that back in 2016, Bernie Sanders was very popular there, and in that kind of grassroots anti-establishment election, which brought Trump to power, a lot of people in Montana were thinking that Bernie might have had a good chance there too. So we've seen populists and anti-establishment candidates really gain traction there, and Bodnar is, in fact, able to distinguish himself from the Democratic Party, whilst also still getting a lot of support from Democrats in that state and independence, of which Montana has quite a bit. It will be interesting to see. Now, he did get an important endorsement, I think, in the state. You know, it's a rural red state largely, but it's got some pretty robust blue pockets, particularly like in the college town of Missoula, for instance. So, Bodnar has picked up the endorsement of the Montana Conservation Voters, certainly something that a Democrat would typically do, but I think there's just not a lot of name recognition or interest or enthusiasm around the Democratic candidates who have entered the race on the Senate side. All right, well, let's take a quick break and more on both these days in just a moment. And we're back. So, Stephen, you've been covering a number of races in Iowa that are considered particularly competitive this November. There's a governor's race there, we talked about the Senate race there. There's also a couple of house races as well. I'm wondering, you know, Iowa is a state that I think of as very red. I think that there are so many competitive or interesting races for the midterms there. You know, Iowa has a Republican governor, two Republican U.S. Senators, all four House seats are held by Republicans. It's a Republican legislature. And yes, it's a state that has voted for Trump three times. However, comma, and this national environment that we have, where Trump's policies are unpopular, and a lot of his signature issues that are causing issues for him, like tariffs, like the war in Iran, are impacting the people of Iowa. You know, I mentioned earlier, farmers and the cost of fertilizer. You have tariffs and different things that hurt the agriculture industry there. You also have a number of people that voted for Trump that might not show up to vote in a midterm. So, we're actually talking about these being competitive races in part because of the number of Republicans that might not vote rather than this mass defection to the Democratic Party. And, you know, when you do think of red states and states that voted for Trump all three times, Iowa is actually a state that has voted for Democrats in Congress a lot more recently than you might expect and remember. The last time there was a Democratic senator was all the way through 2016's election. When you had Senator Tom Harkin, who retired, you also had several Democrats in Iowa's House delegation in the 2018 election in the aftermath of Trump's election. So, there is a little bit of muscle memory there for voters in Iowa who are interested in supporting Democrats that they think are Iowa Democrats rather than national Democrats. Yeah, I mean, the thing I think about is that President Obama won Iowa two different times in 08 and 12. So, I mean, it's clearly not impossible to think about, but I'm curious how the Republicans are running Kirk in some of these races. You know, these are states that Trump won in 2024 by double digits, but it's also a historically unpopular president. Do you have any sense on how candidates in Montana are engaging with the president there? Well, somewhat quietly, I would say, but also reminding voters that they have his endorsement in some cases or his support if they don't have his endorsement. And, you know, there's a kind of crowded field of candidates running in the western congressional district primary in Montana, which is, you know, the one I'm definitely watching the closest. It's a relatively new-ish district. The seat is currently held by Ryan Zinke, the former Interior Secretary during Trump won. He abruptly retired himself clearing the field. Republicans thought for their preferred choice, at least the established preferred choice, Aaron Flint. I think the Democrats have been eyeing this seat for multiple cycles now. There's always speculation that they're going to win or come close and they don't really. This is a district that does include the two or three liberal pockets of Montana, including the two college towns, but it also has a large swath of, you know, the Flathead Valley and the Bitterroot Valley, which are very conservative, traditionally farm areas turned or logging places turned more kind of wealthier transplants moving in. And, you know, you're seeing a pretty interesting primary on the Republican side. They're trying to focus on, you know, grassroots anti-establishment, still talking about Trump, but not talking about Trump, I think as much as you might, whereas on the Democratic side, you know, AOC has come into campaign for Sam Forsteg, who's might be seen as the frontrunner in the Democratic side. He's a wildland firefighter. Democrats are certainly trying to capitalize on populist resentment and anti-establishment resentment. In some cases, some of the language is quite similar, like we see on both more far left and far right sides of the party, but people will always continue to speculate, you know, is this really it for Trump? Like gas prices are this high? The tariffs are wiping out farm country in a state like Montana. But, you know, he still has a big grip on the party and he's still very popular there, and his endorsement goes big in some of these races. So you're not really seeing them distance themselves too much from Trump in a state that's carried him big. In states like Montana, I think you'll continue to see that this primary season. And speaking of Trump's endorsement in the governor's race in Iowa, that is open. Last week, he endorsed Congressman Randy Feinstra in that crowded field that sort of reiterates that other side of the equation that I mentioned of concerns about Republican voters staying home. Feinstra is a congressman, but he was kind of struggling fundraising-wise and polling-wise. I was at an event that the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition put on with all five gubernatorial candidates that had their interviews with the state party chair to kind of share their perspectives with voters. And, you know, there were other people in the room that got more attention and more cheers and more excitement than Feinstra, who was the frontrunner. The Trump endorsement, we will see how powerful that continues to be in the primary, but it also underscores kind of the elephant in the room, well, elephants in the room for Iowa. There's the concern for the governor's race because Rob Sand is the Democratic nominee. He's the only statewide elected official who's a Democrat, the state auditor. He's raised a ton of money. He's cut this profile as a, you know, moderate problem solver, get things done. Kind of adopted some of the language of doge in some cases, fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in Iowa state government. And there is a very real concern that he could be a top-of-the-ticket lifter for Democrats and make some of these other down-ballot races way more competitive and way more favorable to Democrats for what is a Republican-held state. Now, on the Senate side, Miles, you have Congresswoman Ashley Henson. She's been endorsed by Trump as well. And she occupies a unique position to me because covering a lot of the different competitive Senate races around the country. She's a figure who is really the best carrier of what the Republican midterm message is in that she can speak to the Trump base and get them excited and get them to show up, but also has taken steps to kind of position herself, maybe not necessarily in opposition to Trump because that would not go well, but to speak to a little bit more of the non-Republican base concerns about affordability and other things like that. So you just have this dynamic here on the Republican side where there is a lot of baited breath until the primary is done, and then they hope they can focus and row in the same direction with all of these races in the November. I mean, am I correct in understanding that Iowa feels pretty important broadly if Democrats want to have a hope of retaking control of both houses of Congress in the fall? Well, if you look, there's basically a functional majority of a few seats for Republicans in the House. Democrats are hoping to flip three of the four seats, which alone would be Democratic control of the House. The Senate race is more of a stretch compared to states like North Carolina or Maine or even red states like Ohio and Texas. I mean, Cook Political Report has Iowa in a little bit more of out of reach than some of those states that I mentioned, but it's the fundamentals under the hood that actually makes it important for both parties' futures. All right, well, we can leave it there for today. Thank you so much for being here, Kirk. It's always great to have you. You're welcome. Glad to be here. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. And I'm Stephen Fowler. I cover politics. And thank you for listening to the MPR Politics Podcast. This is our class. On this American life, one thing we like is a good mystery. Sometimes about really big things, but most times, the little mysteries are the best. Our lost and found is currently filled with pants. I don't know. I've never seen this happen. Wait, is this true? This is true. Mysteries of every size, each week, this American life. Wherever you get your podcasts.
