Sarah Preu - Kansas 3rd Congressional District - Full Conversation
Sarah Preu is competing in the Democratic primary for Kansas 3rd Congressional District against the incumbent Sharice Davids. The conversation began with the question I ask every candidate: do you know what it is like to not have one more penny?
Preu initially joked about the “penny crisis” and the signs that said exact change only, but once the question was clarified to mean being destitutely broke, short at the register, needing someone to Venmo a dollar, or not having enough to cover a fee or rent, she answered yes. She mentioned that she has experienced that situation multiple times in life.
Preu shared her upbringing in a working-poor household outside Leavenworth. She grew up with five siblings, making a total of seven people in a small house of about 1,000 square feet. Both her parents worked two jobs, with her dad juggling two full-time jobs for several years during her childhood. This meant she only saw him briefly in the morning and for a short time at night when he was not sleeping.
During the last three years of college, Preu worked full-time, including a job with the Student Emergency Loan Fund at the University of Minnesota, a nonprofit that offered millions of dollars in low-interest emergency loans for students. She described it as a crash course in understanding poverty for young adults trying to survive and pursue their aspirations.
Students would come in needing money for books while waiting for financial aid to be processed. Some students were homeless and required assistance to pay rent. Preu highlighted the program’s low default rate, emphasizing that poor individuals utilize necessary programs responsibly and are trustworthy. This early advocacy work had a lasting impact on her.
The conversation shifted to Preu’s family and the lessons she learned from her mother. Preu, the only daughter and second to last of five children, shared that due to her mother’s extensive work hours, she often took on the role of “default mom” in the household. Her mother returned to college while working full time and attending night classes when Preu was in seventh grade.
During Preu’s junior and senior years of high school, she and her mother took community college classes together, including Composition I and II. Her mother went on to become the first woman in her family to graduate with a higher education degree. Two weeks later, Preu also graduated from the University of Minnesota. Her mother pursued a career in social work, obtained her MSW from KU, and became an LMSW.
Preu said that everything she learned about advocacy, she learned from her mom. She described being the child of a social worker as being “deputized” to go help. Her mother worked with some of the most vulnerable people in the community, and Preu saw poverty in Leavenworth, Kansas City, Kansas, and surrounding areas that she believes many people in the district would be shocked by.
One memory that stayed with her was going with her mother to take diapers, formula, and bottled water to a family living in an abandoned apartment complex in Kansas City, Kansas. The landlord had let the complex go to foreclosure. There was no electricity and no running water. Children were running around, and the people living there knew her mother by name. Preu said her mother did not lock her car in those neighborhoods because she was family there. She was trusted because she advocated for the most vulnerable people in society.
That led into a broader discussion about poverty, fear, and how people are kept working under threat. We discussed how people are often taught that things could always be worse, and how the existence of extreme poverty and homelessness can become a warning to everyone else: keep working, keep obeying, keep moving, or that could be you. The conversation was not just about personal hardship. It was about the way poverty is maintained as a social and political tool.
The discussion turned to basic necessities and the fact that the country has the money to meet them. Healthcare became the clearest example. Preu said that when people ask who will pay for healthcare, the answer is that we are already paying for it. Under federal emergency care requirements, hospitals cannot simply turn people away, but the care still costs money. When people are uninsured, the system absorbs the cost through bad debt, higher prices, and cost-shifting. In other words, people are already paying for the lack of a universal system, but they are paying for it in the least predictable and least effective way.
Preu argued that Medicare for All would make those costs more predictable and more rational. She pointed to Medicare as proof that the model works, especially because Medicare can negotiate in ways the broader healthcare system often does not. The conversation also turned to Kansas refusing to expand Medicaid, even though most of the money would have come from the federal government. Preu called that refusal “bonkers.” The point was simple: Kansas rejected help because of politics, not because people did not need healthcare.
That brought up one of Preu’s stories about speaking truth to power. She said she once had the opportunity to tell Sam Brownback to his face what a disappointment he was. It happened at a nonpolitical event in Arkansas during the first Trump administration. Brownback was with his family and wearing a bucket hat. Preu waited until the event was ending and people were filtering out, then spoke to him directly.
She told him she was disappointed in him and, because he is Catholic, asked whether he thought the Pope agreed with denying people healthcare by limiting Medicaid. She said he became awkward and tried to deflect, but she knew what Catholic teaching said. Preu said she lives for making powerful people have those awkward moments when they are confronted with the consequences of what they support.
The conversation then shifted to another moment where Preu spoke directly in front of power. She described being at a NAACP candidate forum where Kris Kobach was in the back of the room. She delivered her stump speech in front of him and discussed abolishing ICE, ending ICE, and how ICE abuses civil rights. She mentioned feeling good saying that while Kobach had to stand there and listen because she sees him as someone who facilitated much of that politics in Kansas.
This led into a broader discussion about respect for power. Preu mentioned that this country is not technically supposed to have an aristocracy, even though it can appear like one when political offices and Senate seats appear to pass through family connections and insider networks. She connected that directly to why she is running. Her point was that democracy still allows a regular person to run. She can file, campaign, and voters can choose someone else.
The conversation then revolved around the central question of the race: why primary Sharice Davids? Preu mentioned that the campaign is not about creating a professional wrestling match or making the entire race about Davids personally. For her, the campaign is about a flawed framework for representing people and working people in government. She argued that Citizens United, donor influence, and the career-politician model have made it harder for legislators to have real independence. Preu mentioned she already has a career as a technology director and is not seeking politics as a way to make a living. She is running because she does not see the urgency that this political moment requires from career politicians.
Preu discussed how she once thought she aligned with her representative’s values, but the more she delved into the record, the more concerned she became. She pointed out Davids never signing on to Medicare for All as one example of something she viewed as fundamental. Then she saw votes and money she found troubling. She mentioned she began to realize she may be more progressive than she had understood, or that the representative she thought reflected her values did not actually reflect them.
The conversation focused on the Democratic Party’s emphasis on bipartisanship and moderation. Preu noted that bipartisanship is often seen as a gold standard for Democrats, while the other side prioritizes appeasing or distracting its base without concern for bipartisanship. She argued that this excessive focus on bipartisanship has driven parts of the Democratic base further from the center, as voters seek contrast rather than a diluted set of values.
Preu clarified that she does not automatically reject bipartisanship, emphasizing that the key factor is what the bipartisanship aims to achieve. She highlighted the importance of the values communicated when representatives reach across the aisle, particularly on moral issues. She mentioned votes and stances related to ICE, arms sales to Israel, humanitarian aid to Gaza, ceasefire calls, and the lack of a robust public response to constituents organizing around these matters.
She stressed that simply citing a reason for a vote is insufficient, as there is always a rationale behind decisions. The crucial aspect is whether the reasoning aligns with the well-being of those impacted by the vote. She pointed to the fears of children with parents facing immigration enforcement and the devastating consequences of U.S.-supplied arms worldwide to underscore the human toll of political choices.
Preu highlighted how voters and activists have urged Davids to take stances on ICE, support their causes, and endorse ceasefire efforts. Drawing from her involvement in activist circles, she emphasized that if an elected official fails to engage with constituents via calls, emails, meaningful responses, or town hall meetings, the options for constituents become limited. She expressed gratitude that democracy still allows people to pursue alternative choices by registering, paying filing fees, and presenting voters with additional options.
Additionally, the conversation touched on the challenges faced by progressives within the Democratic Party who quietly back Preu. She noted that many long-suffering progressives express support for her behind closed doors but hesitate to display signs or bumper stickers due to fear of backlash. This reluctance reflects the pressures within the party and the establishment’s efforts to shield incumbents.
We discussed the theory that the Tea Party gained control of the Republican Party through precinct committee seats, county positions, and the party foundation, while progressives mainly attempted to influence from the outside and elect progressive candidates without fully seizing the Democratic Party structure. As a result, Democratic leadership often focused more on resisting a progressive takeover than on countering the growing far right. Preu concurred with this analysis.
The conversation then shifted to unaffiliated voters and individuals changing their registration to participate in primaries. Preu mentioned that unaffiliated voters have approached her, stating they switched to the Democratic Party specifically to vote for her. She also shared that members of her volunteer group typically identify as unaffiliated, but when there is a compelling candidate in a primary, they temporarily affiliate.
This led to a broader discussion on the current political landscape’s unpredictability and peculiarity. The world has changed significantly in the past two years, with shifts in people’s affiliations and movements. Since the pandemic, Kansas has experienced an influx of residents from other states seeking affordable housing, quality schools, and a more peaceful lifestyle. Preu noted similar trends in the 3rd District, emphasizing the importance of effective governance to maintain Kansas’ positive attributes.
Preu suggested that demographic changes and recent cultural and political upheavals may be driving more individuals towards a progressive viewpoint. This segued into a compelling segment of the conversation centered on the topic of abolishing ICE.
She argued that the “abolish ICE” stance is not as contentious as establishment Democrats often portray it to be. Highlighting ICE’s relatively recent establishment and redundant nature within the Department of Homeland Security, she viewed abolishing ICE as a reasonable proposal given the shift in public opinion. Preu emphasized that polling data indicates a significant portion of independents support this sentiment, even though interpretations may vary.
Her case against ICE was not solely moral but also focused on public safety concerns. She criticized ICE enforcement practices as posing risks to public health and safety. She cited instances of agents firing into crowded areas, targeting vehicles with children inside, trapping families in cars, harming individuals with legal documentation, initiating high-speed pursuits, conducting roadside detentions, and escalating bureaucratic issues into hazardous public incidents. She underscored that such enforcement actions impact everyone, regardless of their stance on ICE, as all individuals utilize the same public spaces.
Preu stated that current immigration enforcement is reckless and lawless. She described overstaying a visa or having paperwork problems as being treated with an absurd level of force. The conversation framed the issue as a manufactured problem that can be lucrative for some people. The solution discussed was not chaos or open disorder but shifting funds away from ICE and toward processing people — immigration courts, judges, paperwork, asylum processes, and the systems needed to determine who can come here and how.
This led into a broader discussion of post-9/11 politics. We discussed how much was passed when the country was afraid, and how leftists, anarchists, communists, socialists, and progressives had warned for years that the country was building mass surveillance and domestic enforcement structures. At the time, they were dismissed as paranoid. Now, many of those warnings appear less extreme.
Preu connected this to older activists and how much they have carried for decades. She described being in a room with a progressive group in the district, many of them in their 60s and 70s, alongside young people in their late teens and early 20s. She saw the same energy on both sides of the age spectrum, giving her hope because older activists possess knowledge, history, and organizing skills, while younger people bring new methods and energy.
Preu mentioned that the older activists she learned from in her own early twenties were often the most radical and committed. They were the ones getting arrested, teaching younger activists how to build coalitions, unite people, and exercise their First Amendment rights to create a better world. She has been an activist and community builder for 25 to 30 years, even if some party insiders in Johnson County may not be aware of her.
She discussed protesting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating against the death penalty, and participating in a coalition to abolish the death penalty. Her father, a Vietnam combat veteran, joined her in protesting the early Iraq War buildup and recognized the weapons-of-mass-destruction argument as false. The conversation reflected how leftists had warned from the beginning that those wars would be lengthy, and they were proven correct.
The discussion then shifted to Gen Z and even the oldest members of Gen Alpha. We talked about how younger people are often accused of being disengaged, when in reality many of them are engaged but do not see anyone worth voting for. Preu immediately agreed with that point. The argument was that young people are not necessarily apathetic; they are often waiting for candidates who actually speak to the world they are living in.
Preu mentioned that she has tried to be transparent about her platform, her issues, and why she is running. Her campaign, as she described it, is drawing together older activists, younger activists, long-time progressives, people frustrated with the Democratic Party, unaffiliated voters, and people who want the option to vote their conscience.
Campaign finance was discussed, with Preu making it clear that she would not accept AIPAC money. She stated a preference for GiveButter due to its party independence, although she does maintain an ActBlue account for donors who only contribute through ActBlue. Despite this, she chooses to publish the GiveButter donation link, emphasizing independence from party structures and donor influence. Preu noted that GiveButter can be utilized by progressive campaigns, with candidates needing to customize it to comply with FEC requirements.
The conversation transitioned to a lighter yet insightful topic regarding Gen X. Preu remarked that Gen X individuals are self-sufficient, having grown up before the internet became mainstream. She described them as adept DIYers, capable of making do with limited resources. This upbringing instilled a “make do” mentality in Preu, shaping her approach to her campaign and her willingness to operate outside traditional party frameworks.
Additionally, the discussion touched upon Kansas voters more broadly. The focus was on the “average Kansas voter,” often depicted as a middle-aged white woman, and how this demographic influenced the failure of the 2022 abortion amendment. Preu highlighted a unique Kansas Republican trend where individuals, though functionally independent, align themselves with the Republican Party to influence its politics. She underscored the potential for Republicans to be more open to alternative political choices than commonly assumed by the Democratic leadership.
Preu refuted the notion that voters are swayed by legislation like the Laken Riley Act or increased arms sales to Israel. She argued against the belief that bipartisanship alone motivates voters to support Democrats, questioning why moderate Republicans wouldn’t suffice if voters seek moderation. Preu emphasized the necessity for Democrats to offer compelling reasons for voter engagement.
Furthermore, Preu challenged the effectiveness of establishment strategists in winning elections. She raised questions about why Kansas has maintained only one Democratic congressional seat for eight years and struggled to expand its presence in other districts. She questioned the leadership’s ability, pointing out the lack of Democratic U.S. House representation beyond District 3 and the continued Republican dominance in the Kansas Legislature.
The conversation focused on Sharice Davids and the issue of politicians saying one thing and doing another. The critique was not about a single disagreement but about voters being tired of politicians making promises, campaigning on one message, and then governing in another way. The need for elected officials to keep the promises they make or provide real explanations when they change position after learning more was discussed.
Preu agreed that if a representative changes course on a serious issue, they should meet with constituents, send out a statement, and give people the chance to voice disappointment directly. She emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, criticizing the lack of town halls and failure to offer virtual town halls.
The conversation highlighted what sets Preu’s campaign apart. She emphasized the discipline gained from years of real-world work and the belief that constituents are the true bosses. Contrasting this with politicians who seem accountable to their party or donors, the discussion linked campaign finance to accountability. Preu’s preference for GiveButter over AIPAC money reflects her goal of building a campaign independent from party control and major donor influence.
The conversation concluded with a clear argument for Preu’s campaign. She is running to offer the people of Kansas 3rd Congressional District a different kind of Democrat: more progressive, direct, and willing to challenge power, ICE, and support policies like Medicare for All. Preu sees herself as accountable to the district’s voters rather than the party or donors.
In the upcoming August Democratic primary for Kansas’s 3rd Congressional District, voters will choose between the incumbent and a progressive challenger, Preu. Her campaign urges voters to vote based on their values, reject fear-mongering tactics, and determine whether representation should prioritize the district’s residents or cater to party and donor interests that often dictate what voters should settle for.
Get full access to Kansas Helen at kansashelen.substack.com/subscribe [https://kansashelen.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]
Comments
0Be the first to comment
Sign up now and become a member of the Kansas Helen Podcast community!