Taylor Kohn is an Iowan advocate and publicist currently residing in Minnesota.

State Auditor Rob Sand, the top elected Democrat in Iowa, announced his run for governor on May 12. With Governor Kim Reynolds not seeking re-election, some see Sand’s candidacy as a chance to win the office away from the GOP. I’m among those who would like to see that happen.

Unfortunately, Rob Sand is not offering a real alternative to the party in power.

Sand’s favorite message is that he isn’t “partisan,” which means that, despite his Democratic affiliation, he is courting conservative votes. This is evident in his media appearances and campaign materials so far. In his campaign launch video, he doesn’t mention public education, abortion, trans rights, environmental protections, book banning, or other topics that have been important to the Democratic base over the course of Reynolds’s last term.

Instead, nearly the entire video is about lower taxes, touting his efforts to make the government more “efficient” by going after “waste, fraud, and abuse” as state auditor—phrases that have been heavily associated with Elon Musk’s DOGE this year. A recent social media post of Sand’s brags, “Yes, I go on conservative radio.”

Meanwhile, at least one Iowa media outlet on the left—the podcast Rock Hard Caucus—has reported that Sand has not responded to their agreement to an interview even though the initial request was from Sand’s PR representative themself. As comfortable as Sand is reaching across the aisle, he seems unwilling to face tough questions from, supposedly, his own side of it.

And there are tough questions that must be asked if Sand intends to be governor. For example—the largest portion of his funding comes from Nixon Lauridsen, his father-in-law, one of the wealthiest men in Iowa. What does it say about Rob Sand’s overtures toward the right side of the political spectrum that, aside from Sand, Lauridsen donates generously to Republican candidates (including Reynolds and U.S. Representative Randy Feenstra, who has announced his own gubernatorial run)?

In an interview with WHO-13, Sand dodged a question about Lauridsen’s contributions by drawing attention to the small-dollar donations that make up a much smaller percentage of his war chest. (In 2024 he raised $8.6 million, $4 million of which was from his in-laws and $3 million of which was from his wife, leaving about $1.4 million in contributions from outside his family, plus about $200,000 in interest.) Sand can be expected to downplay the millions he has received from Lauridsen, but however he spins it, he has a lot to lose by taking a position that Lauridsen won’t support.

The next question that must be asked: what does Sand’s disavowal of “partisanship” mean for the way he would govern if elected? The Iowa House and Senate have approved many controversial bills on party lines. Can voters count on Sand not to care that he may be attacked as “partisan” if he vetoes Republican bills that threaten the lives and dignity of trans people, queer people, women, immigrants, and many others? Can his constituents rely on him to protect them even if it threatens his conservative-friendly image?

So far, it isn’t looking good. On May 13, Sand threw his trans constituents under the bus in an interview on Simon Conway’s conservative talk radio show, asserting that “boys” (meaning trans girls) should not play girls’ sports. That raises a new question: With so many Iowans’ rights recently revoked or currently in jeopardy, why should they support a Democrat who has already caved to right-wing pressure to discriminate against these children? Why support a candidate who will not only tolerate but engage in bigotry for potential political points?

There’s usually one common answer from liberals who support both trans rights and moderate Democrats: pragmatism. But this argument has failed the tests it has been put to thus far. What Sand refuses to contend with is that appealing to the right demonstrably doesn’t work as a campaign strategy. As long as he has the D by his name, he will be lumped in with the undesirables, no matter how much he tries to distance himself.

“Democrats’ media darling Rob Sand is just another extreme liberal, supporting guys playing in girls’ sports and opposing President Trump’s agenda,” Republican Governors Association Communications Director Courtney Alexander said immediately after Sand announced. “Sand would turn Iowa into Tim Walz’s Minnesota: higher taxes and radical liberal values.” This line of attack has not changed despite Sand’s emphasis on his commitments to saving tax dollars and nonpartisanship, and it won’t if he continues to concede trans rights, either.

We have seen over and over again—in past Iowa elections and most recently in the 2024 presidential election—that when given the choice between a right-leaning Democrat and a real Republican, conservative voters vote Republican. There is no evidence to support the centrist claim that moving right brings in a significant number of those voters.

Sand is squandering time and resources chasing conservatives who are, generally, not going to be charmed out of voting for their own party in favor of the off-brand version. At the same time, he is alienating people who might show up to the voting booth if they see a strong alternative represented with backbone.

Moderation is not what this moment calls for. The Iowa Democratic Party has been fading into obsolescence using this strategy for years. If there is ever going to be an effective opposition party in the state again, at minimum the left-of-center in Iowa needs a candidate who is actually, openly, the opposition.