Iowa's two top Democratic candidates for 2026 have publicly rejected the idea of former Vice President Kamala Harris stumping for them, a blunt admission that the party's national brand remains a liability in a state it keeps losing.
Rob Sand, the Democratic nominee for governor and the state's current auditor, told Politico he wants nothing to do with Harris on the trail. Josh Turek, the party's U.S. Senate nominee, was even more concise: asked by reporters on August 26 whether he would want Harris to campaign for him, Turek answered with a single word.
"No." He did not elaborate.
Sand, who won the state auditor's office in 2018, offered a few more syllables but the same verdict. In an interview with Politico published the same day, Sand dismissed the prospect of Harris joining him on the stump and went further, saying he does not want her to run for president again in 2028.
"No thanks. Let's move on. We need some new leadership."
The two statements, arriving within hours of each other, amount to a coordinated distancing act from a national Democratic Party that has watched Iowa slip steadily out of its grasp. Registered Republicans now outnumber registered Democrats in the state by more than 180,000 voters. Both Sand and Turek need independents and Republican crossover support to have any chance in November, and both have calculated that the 2024 presidential nominee is more anchor than asset.
Sand's rejection of Harris carries a particular sting. In 2020, he publicly supported Joe Biden's presidential campaign and praised Biden's selection of Harris as his running mate, according to posts on his X account. Six years later, he treats both figures as political poison.
Sand acknowledged to Politico that national Democratic figures, including Harris and Biden, would "probably" not help his campaign in Iowa. Instead, he has pointed to Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a fellow Democrat who won in a deep-red state, as the kind of surrogate who actually helps. Beshear campaigned with Sand earlier this year in Des Moines.
The contrast tells you everything about where Sand thinks his party's national leaders stand with Iowa voters. He will take a governor from Kentucky. He will not take the woman who carried the Democratic banner two years ago.
Sand has also advocated eliminating partisan primaries and criticized the two-party system, positioning himself as something other than a standard-issue Democrat. He has conducted a statewide town hall tour, building a brand rooted in local accessibility rather than national party loyalty.
Turek has pursued a similar playbook. His television ads highlight bipartisan credentials, claiming he voted 700 times with Republicans. One ad goes so far as to assert he would work with President Trump if elected to Congress. For a Democratic Senate nominee, that framing tells you how toxic the party label has become in Iowa.
Republicans have tried to collapse that distance. The Iowa Republican Party has cast Turek as "too liberal" for Iowa and sought to tie him to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The party's message is simple: no matter how many bipartisan votes Turek advertises, a Democratic senator from Iowa would still caucus with Schumer and advance a liberal agenda.
Iowa Republican Party spokesperson Jade Cichy applied the same logic to Sand in a statement aimed at the gubernatorial race:
"Sand can change his rhetoric, but he can't erase his record. A liberal with better branding is still a liberal."
That line captures the core Republican argument against both candidates. Sand and Turek can refuse to stand next to Kamala Harris all they want, but they still carry the same party registration, the same policy instincts, and the same institutional backing.
The national Democratic Party has done Sand and Turek no favors. Democrats have once again omitted Iowa from the party's early voting calendar, a decision that reduces the state's national relevance and signals to Iowa voters that the party's leadership in Washington does not prioritize them. The party's electoral losing streak in the state has only deepened that alienation.
It remains unclear whether any national Democratic figures plan to campaign in Iowa ahead of the 2028 presidential election, but Sand and Turek have already answered the question for their own races. They do not want the help.
Sand went even further in the Politico interview, shutting down speculation that he might seek the presidency or a vice-presidential nomination in 2028. The New York Times had included him on a list of politicians who "could make a quick leap" to a national campaign. Sand dismissed the idea. When the Politico interviewer pressed him on whether he was serious, Sand cut it off:
"I told you my answer. You don't have to believe me."
Republicans, predictably, are not buying the reinvention. They have labeled Sand a "wolf in sheep's clothing" pretending to be a moderate and called him a career politician. Whether Iowa voters accept the makeover or see through it will determine whether Democrats can compete in a state that has moved decisively to the right.
Sand and Turek face a genuine strategic dilemma. Iowa's voter registration gap makes a straight-ticket Democratic campaign a losing proposition. Crossover appeal is not optional, it is the only path to victory. Distancing themselves from Harris and the national party is a rational survival move.
But rational does not mean cost-free. When your own candidates treat your most recent presidential nominee like a campaign liability, you are not projecting strength. You are confirming what voters in places like Iowa already suspect: that the national Democratic Party's agenda is out of step with the people it claims to represent.
Sand praised Harris in 2020. Turek wants voters to know he sides with Republicans seven hundred times over. Neither one will share a stage with the woman their party nominated for president just two years ago. They can rebrand all they like, but the fact that they have to says more about the Democratic Party's standing than any ad campaign ever could.
