Fourth in a series interpreting the results of Iowa’s 2024 state and federal elections.
As ticket-splitting has declined in recent election cycles, few Iowa candidates have managed to win where the other party has a big advantage at the top of the ticket. So it was in Iowa’s 2024 Congressional races: former President Donald Trump outpolled Vice President Kamala Harris in all four U.S. House districts, which helped GOP incumbents hold off their Democratic opponents.
But one challenger massively outperformed Harris, and Trump barely pulled one underachieving incumbent over the line.
Election analyst Drew Savicki was first to publish the 2024 presidential vote and swing in Iowa’s U.S. House districts. I later confirmed his calculations, using unofficial results from the Iowa Secretary of State.
OVERACHIEVER FALLS JUST SHORT IN IA-01
There may be no luckier person in Iowa politics than Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
She won a seat in Congress on her fourth attempt, being certified the winner in 2020 by six votes out of more than 394,000 ballots cast. It was one of the closest House races in U.S. history.
At this writing, the Associated Press has not called the 2024 election in Iowa’s first Congressional district, nor has Democratic challenger Christina Bohannan conceded. Unofficial results show Miller-Meeks received 206,680 votes (49.98 percent) across the 20 counties, and Bohannan received 205,884 votes (49.79 percent). It is unlikely enough ballots remain uncounted to overturn Miller-Meeks’ 796-vote lead. Counties will canvass their votes on November 12 and 13, and Bohannan will have until November 15 or 18 to request a recount.
Whatever the final tally, it’s clear Bohannan far surpassed the top of the Democratic ticket, outperforming many U.S. House challengers around the country.
Trump received 226,006 votes across IA-01 (53.3 percent of the ballots cast for a presidential candidate), while Harris received 190,265 (44.9 percent). That’s a swing of about 5.5 points, compared to his performance against Joe Biden in the same 20 counties in 2020 (Trump received 50.5 percent and Biden 47.6 percent).
Down-ballot candidates often struggle to match the vote at the top of the ticket, because some voters just check the box for president. But Bohannan exceeded Harris’ vote total by more than 15,000. She received more raw votes and a higher vote share than Harris in every county. In addition to Johnson County, where Bohannan racked up a 35,000 vote lead, she carried Scott and Jefferson counties, which Trump won by 4 points and nearly 7 points, respectively.
Incumbents are usually better-positioned to have crossover appeal than challengers, because they can use official resources to boost their standing, and they can point to a record of bringing money back to their districts. Yet Miller-Meeks received fewer raw votes than Trump and a lower vote share than the GOP presidential nominee in every county.
In 2020, she underperformed in a district Trump carried by about 4 points but scraped by, in part because of a slightly stronger showing than Trump in Johnson County. (Miller-Meeks is a former University of Iowa faculty member.) This year, she didn’t even surpass Trump’s performance in the “People’s Republic.”
If Trump had won IA-01 by roughly the same margin this year as in 2020, Miller-Meeks’ tenure in Congress would be ending.
If Republican activists had not managed to knock the Libertarian off the ballot, Miller-Meeks would be done.
But Trump improved his performance in every county, especially along the Mississippi River, becoming the first GOP presidential candidate to carry Scott County (Quad Cities area) since Ronald Reagan in 1984. It appears that his 8.4 point advantage over Harris in IA-01 was just enough to secure the win for Miller-Meeks.
Bohannan should seriously consider running for Congress a third time in 2026, when Trump won’t be on the ballot. The Democrat out-raised Miller-Meeks every quarter of this election cycle. Although she lost her first IA-01 campaign in 2022 by nearly 7 points, the political backdrop of the last midterm was particularly challenging for Iowa Democrats. Biden and the Democratic-controlled Congress were unpopular here, and Governor Kim Reynolds and Senator Chuck Grassley were massively outspending their challengers. In addition, Bohannan didn’t get any meaningful help from outside groups in her first race against Miller-Meeks. It was a different story this year.
Going into the next election, Miller-Meeks will likely be forced to defend some very unpopular votes. (House leaders won’t have a large enough majority to give their vulnerable incumbents a pass.) She may also face another GOP primary challenge, after eking out a 12-point win against an under-funded conservative opponent this year. Inflation may pick up if Trump follows through on his promise to impose big tariffs on foreign goods.
HINSON OUTPERFORMS PARTISAN LEAN IN IA-02
Across the 22 counties in Iowa’s second district, Trump had nearly a 10-point advantage over Harris (227,764 votes to 185,846, or 54.1 percent to 44.2 percent). That’s more than double his winning margin against Biden in the same area (51.3 percent to 46.9 percent).
Representative Ashley Hinson won a third term by an even more comfortable margin: 233,195 votes to 169,577 for Sarah Corkery (57.1 percent to 41.5 percent). Hinson received more votes than Trump and surpassed his vote share in most of the counties. She won Dubuque County by double digits, carried Black Hawk County (Waterloo/Cedar Falls area), and lost Linn County (Cedar Rapids metro) by less than 5 points.
Hinson’s overperformance is less impressive than Bohannan’s, though. Whereas Republican-aligned groups spent millions against Bohannan, Democratic groups gave Hinson a pass. They took IA-02 off the target list after Hinson defeated top Democratic recruit Liz Mathis by about 8 points last cycle. First-time candidate Corkery was on her own.
Hinson raised and spent more than $7 million in her 2022 re-election bid, but seemed unconcerned about this year’s race. She ran two bland positive television commercials, the first one going up just three weeks before election day. She traveled around the country in the final month stumping for Republican candidates in Georgia, Arizona, and Nebraska. During the first weekend of November, Hinson phone banked for fellow Iowa Republican Zach Nunn instead of barnstorming her own district.
On November 11, Hinson took herself out of the running for House Conference chair, the fourth-ranking position in the GOP caucus. I suspect she is gearing up for a statewide bid for U.S. Senate soon—either in 2026 (if Senator Joni Ernst takes a Trump administration job) or in 2028 (when Senator Chuck Grassley’s term ends). She would be the most likely appointee to either Senate seat if a vacancy arises.
NOTHING SPECIAL FROM IA-03, IA-04 INCUMBENTS
Trump and Biden nearly tied in the 21 counties that now make up IA-03 (49.3 percent for Trump, 48.9 percent for Biden). But the former president won 51.3 percent of the presidential vote in IA-03 this time around, while Harris received 46.9 percent (217,501 votes to 198,865). The swing toward Trump was slightly smaller here than statewide, probably because Polk and Dallas counties account for about three-quarters of the votes in this Congressional district.
Nunn defeated Democratic challenger Lanon Baccam by about the same margin: 213,625 votes to 197,777, or 51.8 percent to 47.9 percent of ballots cast in the Congressional race. Nunn slightly improved on Trump’s vote share in Polk and Dallas, and even received more raw votes than the former president in Dallas (home to a sizeable group of “Never Trump” Republicans). Elsewhere, he tracked closely to Trump.
Baccam matched or exceeded the Harris vote share in most counties, falling short only in Dallas and (barely) in Cass. Like Bohannan, he out-raised the incumbent every quarter he was in the race. While Baccam had substantial help from outside groups, Nunn benefited from even larger independent expenditures.
The path to victory for a Democrat in IA-03 is simple: run up the score in Polk County and keep GOP margins down elsewhere. Trump attracts a lot of infrequent voters, who are less likely to show up for a midterm election. Moreover, the next two years could find Nunn on the hook for painful domestic spending cuts or even a national abortion ban, if the Trump administration uses the Comstock Act or the Food and Drug Administration to that end. Baccam or a similarly well-funded challenger may have a better chance in a midterm, especially if the Libertarian Party nominates someone for this race. Third-party candidates received about 3.5 percent of the vote in IA-03 in the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Across the 36 counties that make up IA-04, Trump extended his advantage from 62.2 percent to 36.2 percent against Biden to 64.7 percent against 33.6 percent for Harris (250,524 votes to 129,866). Representative Randy Feenstra defeated Democrat Ryan Melton by a similar margin. With Shelby County not fulling reporting, Feenstra leads Melton by 246,120 votes to 120,565 (66.9 percent to 32.8 percent). The lack of a third-party candidate on the Congressional ballot is probably the main reason Feenstra received a higher vote share than the top of the GOP ticket.
Aside from Story County, IA-04 is out of reach for Democrats. But Feenstra’s performance was hardly dominating enough to discourage a challenger from the right in the next cycle. Kevin Virgil received nearly 40 percent in this year’s GOP primary, even though hardly anyone in the district had heard of him before he kicked off his campaign in January. Feenstra’s unlikely to receive Trump’s endorsement in the 2026 primary, given that he didn’t get behind Trump until after the Iowa caucuses.
3 Comments
good article
Good analysis as Bohannan did outperform Harris. Despite her $1 billion war chest Harris campaign couldn’t overcome failed policies and pathetic communication skills. Those who installed her as the nominee without even a “mini primary” are responsible for this dumpster fire.
ModerateDem Tue 12 Nov 7:59 AM
Democratic Party--Time for New Ideas, Time for Renewal, and Time to Win Again!
Since, at least, the 1970s, the private-sector, manufacturing base—the private-sector, productive base—of the American Economy has been eroding, as evidenced by the continual, off-shoring of American industry and jobs.
A new, unprecedented, “structural change” has occurred in the American Economy (not recognized by both Parties), with profound, economic-social implications— the “economic disconnect” of the traditional, historical, “economic engine” of the American Economy— namely, the “economic disconnect” of big business-manufacturers from the American Economy, in favor of the Global Economy.
All the above explain the rise/success of the Republican Party’s Donald Trump, and the political appeal/success of the “American First” economic agenda.
The Democratic Party’s decline, over the years, is the result of its failure to offer the American people a long-term, economic agenda, which effectively counters and challenges the “America First” agenda—and effectively addresses the above, new, economic conditions.
In 2024, with the growing economic uncertainty and insecurity of the American people, due, primarily, to the above conditions and circumstances, Trump and the Republican party, like Obama’s presidential elections, offered the American people dramatic “Hope and Change”—and the Democratic Party did not!
However, time will show, that Trump’s “America First” economic agenda, is too weak to change the above “structural change””; and too weak, to effectively incentivize a real “economic-reconnect”, of America’s traditional, historical, private-sector, big business-manufactures with the American Economy. They are all “multinational corporations”, now,—Global Economy-centered, and no longer American Economy-centered—as clearly evidenced by the employment/investment data, and corporate, “mission-statement” documents.
In the final analysis, at bottom, Trump’s “America First” economic agenda amounts to the same, old, outdated economic policies of the past ( The same, old policies, which do not recognize the above “structural change” and “economic disconnect”.)—-in essence (using a literary analogy), nothing more than more “Oliver Twist Economics”: “Please Sir, I want some more”, economics!
History has brought us to this point.
The challenge of the Democratic Party, going forward—-is to create/offer a new, politically winning, economic agenda— one that moves beyond Trump’s “America First” economic agenda, and enables the American-domestic economy to prosper, in the Global Economy, and to win the “Commanding Heights”— technological race, with Communist China! Those are the real challenges before the Democratic Party, and before American Democracy!
Richard Sherzan
Richard Sherzan Tue 12 Nov 10:41 AM
Two Masters and a Putz
Ashley Hinson is a good politician. Not in the objective sense of “doing good”, but in the sense of mastering the dark arts of politics. She is a rabid partisan who has fooled most of her constituents into believing she is a moderate–that’s why she outperforms Trump in her district and never gets seriously primaried. I imagine she’s got her eyes on a bigger prize down the road. No matter how many miles he runs a day, or how long he mows his own yard. Chuck Grassley can’t cling to that senate seat forever, you know.
Zach Nunn is a true moderate who presents as a true moderate. It works for him, seems to suit his personality and style, and, like a buoy in a port, he’ll be there bobbing along until the next big (blue) wave comes to wash him out to sea. His only major misstep in his entire political career seems to be what is perhaps the clumsiest answer to an abortion question ever captured on television, but it remains to be seen if that issue will still carry the same weight in 2026.
Miller Meeks is a terrible politician. She isn’t far right enough for true MAGAs, who see her as a squish. She doesn’t do a good job of selling herself as a common-sense moderate like Nunn and Hinson. She commits “own goals” like living outside her district and she is a garbage-level campaigner and fundraiser. She rarely does ground-level constituent work/photo-ops, or at least if she does, she doesn’t get the word out. A quick Google News search of her name shows hardly any news items about her before the election, other than a series of boilerplate “editorials” sent to local papers, which, in this day and age is about as effective a campaign tactic as stapling a flyer to a telephone pole. I agree that Bohannan should run a third time, and, unless Miller-Meeks puts in a lot of work in the political off season, will probably take the seat from Miller-Meeks in a more favorable mid-term environment in 2026.
SharpHawkeye Tue 12 Nov 3:59 PM