Source: Politics<\/p>\n
As Democrats sort through the wreckage of their loss in Virginia, a familiar feeling is creeping over the dwindling number of rural officials left in the party: They have seen this show before.<\/p>\n
Republican Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin\u2019s performance in the suburbs, where he clawed back ground former President Donald Trump and the GOP had lost in recent elections, got the most attention before and after election night. But another key ingredient of his victory was blowout strength in the rural areas of the state, drawing high turnout, setting new marks for Republican support and squeezing Democrats to record-low shares of the vote in small county after small county.<\/p>\n
Now, some Democratic operatives and politicians focused on rural voters say their party needs to wake up. Without investing more in organizing and outreach to address new lows with rural voters, critical elections in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other states President Joe Biden narrowly won could slip away from the party next year. Recent struggles in states like Ohio and Iowa could solidify into ceding those places long-term.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat happened in Virginia and New Jersey is a warning sign for what will happen in every statewide election, either U.S. Senate or any statewide office, because the only way you win statewide in a red or purple state is by getting at latest 30 to 40 percent of the rural vote. And we used to be able to get that,\u201d said Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party chair. \u201cWhy don\u2019t we anymore? We\u2019ve completely lost touch with them.\u201d<\/p>\n
Or, more bluntly: \u201cWine moms won’t save us. Need the beer moms,\u201d said Irene Lin, who is managing Outagamie, Wisconsin, County Executive Tom Nelson\u2019s Senate campaign.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an especially serious, long-term problem for the party right now because it will be difficult, if not impossible, to hold on to majorities in the Senate, which is dominated by rural states, and many state legislatures without at least some rural support. \u201cUntil we find a way to stem the bleeding [with rural voters], we will continue to be in trouble,\u201d said Ian Russell, a Democratic consultant who works with several rural House Democrats. \u201cThe dreams of reorienting to a suburban, white-collar party \u2014 [Virginia] is a reminder that it ain\u2019t happening, or at least it\u2019s not happening yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rural Democrats say the party\u2019s problems on their turf are twofold: The party infrastructure is largely not investing money in those regions, and the party is not committed to any sort of organizing outside the confines of a brief window during campaigns.<\/p>\n
Republicans, meanwhile, have wiped out Democratic officeholders in rural communities, leaving their party with fewer ambassadors to reach out to rural voters \u2014 or to advocate on their behalf within the Democratic Party.<\/p>\n
There is \u201cless will within the party\u201d than there should be to address Democrats\u2019 rural problem, said Zac McCrary, a Democratic pollster. \u201cLess will among funders, less will within the prioritization of messaging.\u201d<\/p>\n
And so far, there\u2019s little evidence that any major party group plans to spend significant resources on engaging these voters through long-term outreach ahead of the 2022 midterms.<\/p>\n
\u201cMost donors \u2014 big and small \u2014 are not enamored with or interested in rural voters,\u201d McCrary continued. \u201cThey\u2019re easy to demonize and write off.\u201d<\/p>\n
There is evidence from 2020, though, that Democrats are not simply doomed to slide with rural voters in every election. American Bridge, a major Democratic outside group, spent $62 million on persuading and mobilizing predominantly rural voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Biden squeaked out a victory, in part, by improving his margins with rural voters.<\/p>\n
In a presentation shared with POLITICO, American Bridge found in a post-election analysis that Biden received 750,000 more votes in rural areas in those states than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. The group targeted these voters for months, through TV, radio and digital ads featuring voters who had voted for Trump in 2016 but were no longer supporting him.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a game of math,\u201d said Bradley Beychok, who led American Bridge\u2019s effort in 2020. \u201cIf you lose by 75-25 instead of 85-15, it makes a big difference.\u201d<\/p>\n