One cannot ignore the crashing failure of Ben Wikler, arguably the most astute Wisconsin Democratic Party chair in the past four decades. Successes were expected to follow him but instead, his fixation on rural campaigns proved futile. He spearheaded an aggressive strategy of campaigning in every county of the state, including the deep red rural regions. His methodology revolved around the profound impact of candidates’ door-to-door campaigning, something he viewed as the ultimate persuasive tool.
An overly confident Wikler made a daring forecast of a Democratic triumph in the Third Congressional District of western Wisconsin, a traditionally conservative area with a dense rural populace. He pronounced it one of the most promising battlegrounds for the Democrats, even suggesting a potential massive Democratic lead in several rural precincts. As the fates would have it, his prophecies failed to become a reality and left him staring at a bitter defeat.
Despite the promise of a Democratic wave, the incumbent Republican Derrick Van Orden, who had a continual stream of scandals and shocking remarks during his term, surprisingly won reelection. Moreover, Donald Trump was successful in extending his margins in these rural Wisconsin regions. The fruitless results were a major blow to Wikler and the state Democratic Party’s ambitious manoeuvers, which yielded almost nothing.
In a twist of irony, Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin narrowly snagged victory, taking 49.4% of the vote, barely beating Trump’s 49.7%. True, she won, but compared to her 2018 victory, marked by a 10 percentage point lead, and her 6% advantage in 2012, this was a paper-thin victory. It appeared that the star of the Democratic party was dimming relative to the past.
Interestingly, she still fared better than the laughably poor performance of presidential candidate Kamala Harris, exceeding her in 65 of the state’s 72 counties. While Harris was touted for her ability to appeal to rural voters, her actual performance spoke volumes about the Democrats’ underestimation of rural Wisconsin. Baldwin had only managed to scrape together 4,548 more votes than Harris, a negligible margin considering the scale of voters in these areas.
Despite their repeated failures, experts continue to espouse that Democrats need to redouble their efforts in rural parts of the country. A recent essay in the New York Times by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild outlined the uphill battle in places such as eastern Kentucky. In one shocking example, Trump won 81% of votes in a county known for coal-mining, an industry that is all but extinct.
These are the same hard-working individuals who have been forced into dependency on government assistance, much like many other traditionally red counties in the nation, particularly those in the southern regions. Such individuals are not pleased about needing this assistance and feel bitterness about being neglected. While the Democrats claim to support safeguards like Medicaid, they fail to truly listen to their constituents. And yet, Hochschild suggests that the Democrats need to do just that: listen.
This apparent paradox reflects in Baldwin’s unsuccessful strategies. Manitoba. ‘I believe that showing up and listening is crucial’, she said. However, these supposed ‘efforts’ only added a measly 4,548 votes to her tally compared to Harris. This further underlines the hollowness of Democrats’ claims of understanding rural voters.
While Trump’s desires to revive long-lost industries might seem far-fetched, his approach at least resonates with these forgotten communities. Conversely, Biden and his party champions like Baldwin push the green energy narrative, which while promising potential job opportunities, fails to connect with the heartland voters. It is no surprise then that Trump and Republicans have been effective in undermining this pitch.
Places like Kentucky find solace in Trump’s recognition of their despair and stolen pride, sentiments no Democrat seems capable of addressing. The Democrat’s inability to take a strong stance and their inability to deal with the Republicans’ sharp rhetoric becomes a major stumbling block. On top of it, the Democrats’ narrative finds even harsher resistance in rural landscapes, engulfed in complex socio-economic webs.
Meanwhile, suburbs across America have swayed less and less towards Republican red over the past two decades. The politically significant Ozaukee County has shifted Democratic from 33% to 44%, whereas Waukesha County has gone from 33% to 39% Republican. These counties house large populations, making it easier for Democrats to spew their rhetoric.
Additionally, cities are still Democratic strongholds, but Republicans have clawed back some ground among minority voters. Here, Democrats can play their hand more comfortably without the complications associated with the deeply ingrained issues in rural regions as described by Hothschild.
On a cost-benefit analysis, it is hard to conceive of an area that presents less opportunity for Democrats than rural America. It brings into question the wisdom of the Democratic push into these areas, especially when they have continuously misread the pulse of the populace, resulting in unacceptable losses.