Playing to our Strength - A Panhandle Perspective

In Tuesday's post, "Playing to our Strength", Derek Newton generated some controversy in challenging the notion that "to win statewide in Florida a Democrat has to win the smaller, mostly rural counties in the central and northern part of the state. Okay, maybe not win but at least not lose too badly. You know, minimize the damage." There were quite a number of subsantive responses to this, one which we reposted on the main page yesterday. Today, the commentary of Redneck Democrat on Derek's post:

My $.02 as a Panhandle Redneck Democrat boils down to a few things:

1) It's not just the base.

For the past three cycles that I've seen up here, State Party efforts have been directed at urban (African-American) precincts. These precincts and communities continue to perform well and turn out an average of 5 points better than the rest of the electorate, but we still get killed overall. High-growth areas (mentioned in a previous post) and swing precincts are totally neglected, because of an assumption that these are "Republican" counties. For statewide elections, however, targeting a few thousand moderate Yankee Republican retirees from up north (or whatever demographic the polling dictates) who don't necessarily agree with the Florida Repub far-right could make a difference. Until then we'll continue to limp along at 48%.

Worse, expecting the base to carry us leads to policies that pander to the base, which reinforces the "liberal" label that kills us in swing/moderate areas.

2. It's all about the candidate.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told that "I vote for the person" rather than "I'm a Republican" - and this is from my experience with campaigns, phone banks, door knocking, etc in several "Conservative" areas. Election results don't bear this sentiment out, but I wonder if it's not because our candidates either are or allow themselves to be portrayed as typical liberal Democrats (big spenders, anti-gun, blah blah blah)... and those values simply do not resonate with voters up here - Republican or Democrat. Don't forget that in several Panhandle counties, party registration is predominantly Democrat, or at least a closer split than the Democratic performance. So it's the type of Democrat, not just the label, that matters.

3. Farm team.

I know, I know - same old same old. But there has been NO effort to recruit, train or support local Democratic candidates in the Panhandle. Not sure about the rest of the state, but we get no help here at all. NW Florida voters will support folks like Bill Nelson because they know his values, they know his name, and they respect him. Dragging candidates out of nowhere to run for Governor or putting up the lastest "Liberal Establishment" figure doesn't help win elections or build the Party up here. The Repubs will have at least three or four candidates that have been on statewide ballots before or had statewide exposure. Besides Nelson, we will have one (?), and he'll be easily tied to the Dean machine - again, not exactly the "everyman" persona.

4. Karl Rove has it right.

I know, it's heresy. But the simple fact is that tactically, Republicans have been more successful at going on offense, driving home wedge issues, and staying on message than Democrats have. In our desire to be "inclusive" and "tolerant," many Democratic candidates refuse to take strong stands on important issues, for fear of alienating this or that interest group. Voters see through that, and (W being a prime example) prefer someone they know won't BS them, even if they disagree sometimes. Dem candidates must resist the "good government" temptation to run on an all-inclusive litany of policies, and instead aggressively portray elections as a choice between better or worse - and stay on that message. Up here, we saw no response from McBride on the "Class Size Too Expensive" Attack, none from Castor on the "Supporting Terrorists" attack, and Kerry waited a full week to respond to the Swiftboat Veterans attack... and we know how that turned out.

Remember Max Cleland? What they did to him was terrible. What the Cleland campaign did by not responding ... was worse.

Until we go on offense, and start pummelling these right-wing wackos (Schiavo, anyone?) we will continue to struggle. Rove has it right - swing first, swing hard and keep swinging.

To which he adds (slightly edited here):

Despite my earlier tirade, I agree that Dems must spend where the votes are - and most of those are not in the Panhandle. ...

The last major Dem to win Florida, excepting Nelsion, was Gore (we think). Gore did very well in South Florida - better than others, but he also split the I-4 corridor, and did better than Kerry in the Panhandle. Which still justifies the "top 20" argument, but not necessarily the "base" argument. Additionally, while McBride did run a broad-based campaign, at the end the Jeb Machine was able to portray him as a big-spending liberal a'la the Class Size amendment (which ironically passed overwhelmingly). So, I'm not sure McBride wasn't a "base" candidate - running on education, big-ticket items like the Class Size Amendment, etc.

What it does tell me is that message and tactics matter. When we're looking at topping off across the board at 48%, we're talking about late-deciding swing voters - which to me is a nuance involving field and/or message. Since GOTV/base county turnout seems to be pretty consistent for the non-Gore races, the variables are two: I-4 and Panhandle.

And for these places, you can't allow yourself to be portrayed as a typical, "liberal" Democrat. The "top 20" strategy is not the same as the "base" argument. There is some overlap, but there is also a very distinct nuance that is more about message and tactics... and I think that's where we're losing that crucial 3-4%.

Derek's response.