On June 2, Zach Rahn emerged victorious in the Iowa Republican gubernatorial primary. This newcomer to politics, who operates as a farmer and businessman, made a name for himself with a campaign centered around “Iowa First.” His focus on issues like water quality, reducing corporate influence, and core conservative values led to a surprising defeat of Trump-endorsed Rep. Randy Feenstra, with Rahn receiving roughly 38% of the votes in a competitive five-candidate race.
In a recent episode of “The Steve Diace Show,” Diace lays out eight lessons that the political right could glean from Rahn’s unexpected win.
Lesson #1: Christian conservatives are shifting towards issue-driven voting.
Diace notes that traditionally, Iowans have chosen candidates based more on their profiles. He stated, “We’re an elevated nation,” and highlighted how politicians, like longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley, have often featured their rural backgrounds in campaign ads. However, Rahn’s win indicates a shift away from this model toward a focus on issues.
“Now it’s about the issues, not just the candidate’s background,” Diace asserts, contrasting Rahn’s issue-oriented approach with that of opponent Adam Steen, whose appeal was more about profile than substance.
Lesson #2: MAHA and Christian Conservatives represent a powerful coalition.
Rahn’s success can be attributed to his appeal among “Make America Healthy Again” supporters. Backed by RFK Jr.’s MAHA Action PAC, Rahn’s campaign tackled pressing issues like cancer rates, water toxicity, and agricultural chemicals.
Diace anticipates that the collaboration between MAHA supporters and conservative Christians could become a formidable alliance in future elections.
“This is particularly noticeable among our mums and nanas,” he adds, referencing how the government’s COVID-19 response has instilled lasting doubts that may influence future voting.
Lesson #3: Concrete problems take precedence over everything.
Shortly before the primary, Diace, who had previously backed Adam Steen, released a supportive video for Rahn, claiming it was pivotal for Rahn’s narrow victory.
Nevertheless, he emphasizes that Rahn’s win resulted from his commitment to addressing substantive issues. “If I hadn’t released that video, but Rahn hadn’t done extensive issue-based ads, would he have won? Probably not,” he argues.
Lesson #4: Trump’s influence wasn’t diminished, but exhibited remarkable strength.
A number of analysts have viewed Rahn’s win as a setback for Trump, who backed Feenstra. Diace disagrees, stating, “In fact, this showcases one of Trump’s strongest displays of influence.”
He suggests that Trump managed to mobilize support for a candidate who was not well-liked—demonstrating an extraordinary feat, especially as rural Iowans are dealing with economic hardships linked to rising diesel prices.
Lesson #5: Generational divides are evident.
Diace points out that Feenstra captured the older voter demographic while Rahn appealed to younger groups. “If you’re over 65, you likely voted for Feenstra; under 65, it was Rahn,” he explains, indicating a clear generational split within the Republican voter base.
Lesson #6: Claims about the decline of Turning Point USA seem overstated.
While some media outlets have suggested that Turning Point USA (TPUSA) has waned since its founder Charlie Kirk’s murder in September 2025, Diace argues that Rahn’s victory counters that narrative.
Despite Trump’s endorsement of Feenstra, TPUSA promptly endorsed Rahn, and Diace speculates that this timing was coincidental rather than a strategic move against Trump.
Lesson #7: Newcomers face uphill battles without financial backing or name recognition.
Diace observes that first-time candidates like Steen face significant challenges winning statewide elections unless they have substantial wealth or high public recognition, as campaigns are extremely costly.
This is compounded by Trump’s dominant influence over major donors, who might be hesitant to support candidates lacking his endorsement.
Lesson #8: Candidates should energize and unite their base.
Diace believes Rahn is a more viable general election candidate compared to Feenstra because the Iowa Republican Party boasts a substantial voter registration advantage over Democrats.
Feenstra’s track record suggests he may not motivate conservative turnout, while Rahn has reignited enthusiasm within the Republican base, enhancing the chances of strong voter participation in the November elections.
“With Zach, we have the opportunity to mobilize and inspire our base with a message they want to support, rather than one they oppose,” Diace concludes.
For more insights, check out the episode above.
