Farmers Could Help Trump Win This Make-or-Break State

Cue the pandering to King Corn.

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/iowa-cornfield-gm178962283-6108811?st=_p_cornfield%20iowa">JPStrickler</a>/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As judgment day approaches, on of the the most farm-intensive US states, Iowa, has emerged as a key prize. And the Donald Trump campaign is using a classic Iowa ag issue—a federal mandate that props up the production of ethanol from corn—as a pitchfork to wield at his opponent.

And the farm vote could be decisive. In a state with a population of 3.1 million, more than 210,000 people are employed on farms, according to the 2012 census.

While winning Iowa is far from enough to push Trump to national victory, he absolutely needs to win the state to have any reasonable shot at the presidency. 

As recently as October 14, Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton had a 60 percent likelihood of defeating her Republican rival in the nation’s No. 1 corn-growing state, according to an analysis by the poll-tracking site FiveThirtyEight. But since then, polls there have drifted decisively in the reality TV veteran’s direction, and now his chances of defeating the former secretary of state in Iowa stand at 65.8 percent.

And while winning Iowa is far from enough to push Trump to national victory, he absolutely needs to win the state to have any reasonable shot at the presidency. 

His campaign has been stepping up its effort there, reports Politico. On Tuesday, the Trump campaign announced a “coalition of over 200 industry leaders who have joined Iowa Agriculture for Trump,” which it called a “grassroots group of farmers, business owners, and innovators” who “have praised Donald Trump’s pro-agriculture policies.”

In the press release, the group claimed that “Hillary Clinton wants to eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard,” a federal program implemented under George W. Bush. It ensures that more than a third of the US corn crop is diverted into ethanol production—an enormous benefit to the state’s corn farmers and the agrichemical companies that supply them. To back up the claim, Iowa Agriculture for Trump cited a 2015 email released by WikiLeaks from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. In reality, Podesta calls for reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard in an “ethanol friendly” fashion in that email, not eliminating it.

It would be ironic if Trump, who claims he’s running because the Washington political class is so incompetent, were to win the presidency by vowing to preserve one of Washington’s stupidest boondoggles: corn ethanol. (Here’s Kevin Drum on the idiocy of ethanol; and here’s me.)

Iowa Agriculture for Trump also vowed the Republican candidate would “rein in” the “overzealous” Environmental Protection Agency and “eliminate the death tax that decimates family farms.” That’s a reference to the inheritance tax, which is applied only to estates valued at $5.45 million or higher and actually affects a tiny percentage of farms.

As I noted earlier this week, a recent poll by trade journal Agri-Pulse shows Trump with a commanding 55 percent to 18 percent lead among farmers nationwide. It doesn’t give numbers for Iowa alone, but it showed Trump leading by a similar margin among farmers in the Midwest region, which encompasses Iowa.

In other ag-related election news, one of Trump’s most high-profile ag supporters, Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller, called Clinton a “cunt” on Twitter on Tuesday. The mercurial politician quickly deleted the tweet, first claiming he was hacked, then falsely stating he had mistakenly retweeted someone else’s offensive post, and finally blaming a staffer for the faux pas. It’s the kind of ugly slip that’s well designed to outrage Clinton supporters and make Trump fans yawn, if not snicker.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate