Local officials focused in on several social issues that can challenge Democratic messaging in rural areas including: Abortion, Guns and Religion and other hot button social issues.

For many interviewed the challenge is not the party’s position, as much a matter of emphasis. They feel too often, social issues take priority to the exclusion of economic issues.

Consistently we heard that for the party to win more in rural areas and regain majority status in Washington and in Heartland states, Democrats need to become more inclusive of rural culture and focus on areas of broader agreement such as economic issues — but that’s not what these officials or their constituents hear from the party on a day-to-day basis.

“We cannot lose the cultural popularity contest and think we can still win elections,’ said Iowa State Sen. Jeff Danielson. “We cannot constantly challenge basic cultural norms with academic arguments and lose our audience because voters see us as hostile to their way of life.” He calls his approach to political culture “pragmatic populism.”

Former Michigan State Rep. Bill LaVoy connected with voters by talking about riding a motorcycle, hunting and fishing, and Iowa State Sen. Chaz Allen touts his experience as a race car driver on his Facebook and Twitter pages.

Many of the people we spoke with own guns and are active in sporting activities. Former Indiana State Rep. Russ Stilwell described his southern Indiana district as comprised of “gun totin’, Bible thumping, blue collar, flag waving patriots who would tell you like it is, expect you to listen to their concerns and want to know you care about people like them.”

None of this should be interpreted to mean Democrats must be conservative on social issues to win in rural areas. In some areas, that may be truer than others. Many of those we interviewed said you can be progressive and win in rural areas. And while most are for marriage equality and pro-choice, they lead with issues like roads, schools, and jobs.

While the Democrats interviewed agreed the party should remain fierce advocates on many of these issues, they simply did not see those issues as being in the forefront of the minds of most voters they encounter. For those interviewed, it comes down to a matter of emphasis and pragmatism. “I can’t fight for transgender issues if I’m not in office,” said former Michigan State Rep. Collene Lamonte.

Abortion

While pro-choice is the dominant position in the national Democratic Party, many rural legislators hold pro-life positions that reflect their own views and those of their constituents.

There are pro-life Democrats from all Heartland states we reached out to. They do not want to feel they are being purged from the party.

Former Missouri Rep. Steve Hodges added, “The pro-life position is important in rural Missouri.”

Many expressed concerns with choice litmus tests and the impact that has on rural Democrats.

“If (the party position is that Democrats can’t be pro-life)… then, no, there isn’t room for people like me,” said Julie Berry who ran a close race for the Indiana Senate.

Former Ohio State Rep. Nick Barborak, who considers himself pro-choice, said that “we might as well write off eastern Ohio” if the party rejects candidates who are pro-life.

Rural pro-choice Democrats we interviewed talked about abortion as an important issue, but one they emphasized less than other priorities, like kitchen table economic issues faced by all of their constituents.

One Iowa legislator spoke of “out-front issues and back issues,” and an Ohio legislator said they “are important but not the focus of what our message should be.” Another former legislator said “it’s not retreating to emphasize economic concerns in rural areas that are more unifying than cultural issues.”

Former Michigan State Rep. Terry Brown suggested reframing the issue. “When people hear pro-choice, they think anti-life.” He suggests the party change its messaging to reflect Democratic support for the ‘culture of life’ which includes support for schools, health care and retirement security.

Guns

Perhaps no issue symbolizes the urban-rural divide more than guns. Rural Democrats interviewed described a feeling that their urban counterparts just don’t understand the cultural dimension of this issue.

Former Missouri State Rep. Phil Tate traces Democrats’ declining performance in rural areas to Bill Clinton and his gun control proposals in the 1990’s. Republicans took the issue and “elevated it way beyond what it should have been.”

Anti-gun perceptions of the national party are tied to local Democrats in rural areas and are difficult to overcome.

Ohio State Rep. John Patterson described the issue in terms of the economic dislocations in rural areas. “Jobs leave, businesses leave. There’s an additional sense of loss when their kids leave. Guns are seen as the last straw. Hunting and guns are part of the culture — it’s who we are.”

Former Illinois State Sen. Gary Forby said the gun issue is a major reason why Democrats have lost the votes of union members in his district, deep in southern Illinois. “When I walked into union halls, they talked concealed carry first and union issues second.”

Religion

Many rural Democrats spoke about the role of religion in rural areas and how the party needs to do a better job of talking about the role of faith in their lives.

Former Michigan State Rep. Terry Brown said Democrats should “stress freedom of religion, why we’re for religious liberty and support all religions.”

Wisconsin State Sen. Jennifer Shilling talked about how some socializing in rural areas occurs at churches and church events, and State Sen. Robert Wirch from Wisconsin said it’s important to be seen at church events and provided an example of attending as many fish fries as he can during Lent.

Religion and faith remain the cornerstones of many aspects of life in the Heartland, and Democrats need to do better at sharing their own faith.

Former Ohio State Rep. Chris Redfern said Democrats “need to talk faith and how it impacts our ability to make decisions.”

Indiana State Senate candidate Julie Berry said the Democratic brand has been tarnished as “unpatriotic” and too many people think “we don’t love God and country.” She added that “faith has to be a part of the conversation — all faiths and tolerance. The Republicans do NOT have a monopoly on faith.”

Former Missouri State Rep. Wes Shoemeyer added that if Democrats prioritize social issues in his region, “a Catholic and Southern Baptist world, you lose.”

A former legislator makes the argument that Democrats can win over voters by talking about faith. “Democrats are more compassionate and kind. They want to do what the Christians say to do — help people.”

Indiana Senate candidate Chuck Freiberger said Democrats need to “reframe family and moral issues along the lines of hard work, religion, family, and that includes women’s and LGBT issues, where people are coming around. Hatred, as preached by Trump, is not a family value.”

4. ADAPT: Re-think Strategies for Rural Campaigns

Beyond messaging, policy and culture, we also examined how campaigns are run in rural areas.

One of the most important takeaways from our Heartland outreach is the dissatisfaction of most elected officials with how rural campaigns are approached by party officials, activists and consultants.

One thing is clear: What we’ve been doing hasn’t been working in the rural Midwest.

The Democratic Party needs an honest, comprehensive examination of its leadership, campaign strategies and tactics, key players and, perhaps above all, its attitude, to turn things around and to begin winning elections in rural areas. As conveyed by these officials who have been successful, candidates in rural areas must do three key things:

1 — SHOW UP — It is not enough to try to reach rural voters from afar. This is particularly true for national races. You must show you care enough about their votes to show up.

Indiana State Senate candidate Chuck Freiberger said, “People like to see you. Be active in the community. Be seen.”

Illinois State Sen. Andy Manar’s first rule of thumb (and advice to rural candidates) is to put himself in uncomfortable places. For every comfortable place, such as churches or the chicken dinner circuit, he puts himself in an uncomfortable place — “places or events that tend to draw Republican voters.” He said, “Just my presence there and showing my face goes a long ways with those voters.”

2 — LISTEN — We are born with one mouth and two ears. Both as candidates and as a party, local officials cited the need to do a better job of listening to voters’ concerns in rural areas and to those who have had success in campaigns in rural areas.

Former Ohio State Representative and state party chair Chris Redfern said national Democrats never sought out his advice on campaigning despite the fact that the state was carried by President Obama twice and won the Ohio House of Representatives under his leadership.

Indiana State Rep. Steve Stemler echoed that feeling, saying, “Nobody ever reached out to me.” He has served since 2006.

“Democratic leaders don’t understand the needs of rural voters,” said former Illinois State Senator John Sullivan.

3 — WORK HARD — This is a given in all races, but particularly true in rural areas. Some interviewed feel the party as a whole became sluggish and perhaps too complacent in recent years, underestimating the need to organize, party build and undertake traditional constituent outreach. These activities are layered on the already required time commitment necessary to raise funds to even compete.

“Nobody wants to organize anymore, and the party has become lazy,” Indiana State Rep. Terry Goodin said.

“We lost the majority because we got lazy and outworked,” said former Missouri State Rep. Phil Tate.

After Indiana allowed voter registration at driver’s license facilities, “Democrats got lazy,” said Indiana State Senate candidate Chuck Frieberger and “didn’t keep personal contact and lost ground.”

CAMPAIGN TACTICS

Beyond these three overarching principles, many of the current and former legislators spoke of the need to rethink our strategic approach to races in the Heartland — including specific strategies.

Many were highly critical of the Democratic Party’s approach to campaigns in rural areas. They believe campaigning is different in rural areas compared with urban settings and that Democratic Party campaign operatives, leaders and consultants too often apply “cookie cutter” approaches that aren’t effective.

Those interviewed believe the national and state parties need to overhaul their approaches to rural campaigning, cultivate new campaign operatives and consultants with expertise in rural areas and, above all, listen to their ideas and feedback on what they are hearing directly from people at the grassroots level as well as which campaign and party building techniques work and those that don’t.

To be clear, these tactics should be considered in the unique context of each race (focus, scope, level of seat). It will always be necessary to devote time to fundraising to build the resources necessary to run effective campaigns.

While races will still need to evaluate the use of TV and social media, the tactics discussed in further detail below may need to be approached differently in rural campaigns, depending on location and whether the race is local, state or federal.

Recruitment

A key is candidate recruitment. Former Indiana State Rep. Russ Stilwell referenced former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg’s strategy of going into small towns and talking to people in coffee shops, at the Chamber of Commerce and at fraternal organizations. He would ask who the most popular person in town was, find a consensus and go visit the top two or three people and recruit them to run. Candidates should fit the district’s demographics and culture and be involved in the community.

“Campaigns in rural are often about the candidate,” said former Minnesota State Rep. Ted Winter.

“We’ve got to get back to what Rahm Emanuel did — recruit people who can win in the districts — PERIOD,” said former Indiana State Rep. Dennie Oxley. “If we want to be in the majority, recruit those who can win.”

Michigan State Rep. Tom Cochran said, “We don’t develop a farm team — a base of local candidates for office who can be ready to move up. We didn’t do it and still don’t do it.”

Consultants

According to those interviewed, dissatisfaction extends to party consultants who rural Democrats see as pushing “cookie-cutter” approaches to campaigns and who advocate tactics more suited to urban areas than rural.

Most of all, candidates and officeholders in the Heartland just want party leaders, activists and consultants to listen to them and respect their views on what it takes to win in rural areas.

“We select the same people and make the same mistakes over and over again. Democrats do things the same old way and are shocked when they get the same results. There’s no accountability, and it’s the same old message,” said a former legislator. “They (party leaders and consultants) only want to listen to the pollster. They don’t care what we’re hearing on the ground.”

The Basics: Canvassing, Absentee Ballots, Get-Out-The-Vote

Iowa State Sen. Jeff Danielson said campaigns need to put their energies into canvassing, absentee ballots and Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV), the building blocks of campaigns.

Candidates should commit to pursuing these objectives before the party commits to helping them.

For example, Indiana State Rep. Terry Goodin focused heavily on voter identification. Through door-to-door and quick, three-minute phone calls, his campaign identifies straight Democratic voters.

Door-to-Door

Rural candidates approach door-to-door campaigning differently in small towns.

Many rural Democrats we spoke with feel it’s a mistake to only knock specific, targeted doors in rural small towns. Instead, many said they knock all doors of registered voters. “If they’re a registered voter, I want to talk to them,” said Missouri State Rep. Ben Harris, the only remaining rural Democrat in the state legislature. “Some hard Rs slammed their doors in my face, but others let me put up yard signs.”

Minnesota State Rep. Paul Marquart goes door-to-door even in off-years, and hits every door. “There’s a difference in campaigning in rural areas. If you pass doors, people will notice. If you have to travel an hour to get to a small town and an hour back, it makes sense to hit ’em all and meet as many people as possible.”

Wisconsin State Sen. Janet Bewley conducts what she calls “Main Streeting,” where she visits every business in small towns. Her goal is often just wanting people to say “she’s OK,” that she’s “safe” to know and vote for. “All I want for people to know is that I’m on their side.”

Radio

Most officials we spoke with feel radio advertising is a “necessity” for rural districts, as former Iowa State Rep. Patty Ruff put it.

Michigan State Rep. Scott Dianda believes radio is important because it zeroes in on older voters who are a more important demographic in rural areas.

Additionally, with lots of blue collar workers spending their days driving or working on a site, radio is a good way to reach them all day.

Officials who use radio generally focus their ads to run during morning farm programs and call-in shows.

Former Michigan State Rep. Terry Brown believes the party needs to “advance what we’re doing in rural America by using radio with brief updates on rural issues. The Republicans do this effectively. People in rural areas don’t hear about us local Democrats at all. Our voices need to be heard.”

Phones

Some officials feel the party uses phones too much, and it turns off voters with continuous phone calling, especially in the late stages of campaigns.

While phones are often a part of necessary voter identification and outreach efforts, rural Democrats feel they should be used more strategically and paired better with other activities.

According to Indiana State Rep. Terry Goodin, “Working people buy phone minute cards at Walmart and don’t want to spend a lot of time on the phone for polls or ID calls.”

Mail

Rural Democrats understand that direct mail is a necessity, but some feel the campaigns send too many mailers and many, like former Minnesota State Rep. Terry Morrow, criticized the cookie cutter nature of most mail that lacks in creativity.

Some advocate the party study the effectiveness of mail, especially when campaigns send up to 20 pieces.

Newspaper Ads

Most modern campaigns don’t put a priority on newspaper ads for small weekly papers common in rural areas.

While there wasn’t unanimity among people we spoke with, many strongly believe advertising in small town weeklies is important for rural candidates.

These officials also send news releases to weeklies and some write opinion essays because smaller papers will frequently print them.

There is an acknowledgement that social media is vital these days to reach voters, especially younger people, but also that weekly newspapers are still critical to reaching voters in small towns and surrounding rural areas, especially seniors.

Former Indiana State Rep. Dennie Oxley said, “People read them cover-to-cover,” an opinion echoed by other rural officials.

“They are the only papers in my district,” added former Iowa State Rep. Patti Ruff.

Validators

Several officials talked about the importance of seeking the right people to feature in campaign advertisements as endorsers.

Wisconsin State Rep. Katrina Shankland talked about the importance of reaching “thought leaders” in rural areas and small towns who can influence others.

Michigan State Rep. Jon Hoadley said, “Personal validation is critical in this fake news era.” He suggested people in “tiers 2–3,” not the most popular people in communities, be sought out for endorsements and testimonials. Get people who are “popular at churches or on the block” and communicate the endorsements through mail and digital.

Year-round outreach

Officials in at least two states spoke of how Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers’ super PAC, has year-round offices throughout their states with full-time staff dedicated to identifying voters. The party needs to match that effort to be able to compete in the future.

A former legislator said, “We need to ID people. A lot of new people voted and had to re-register. These voters were mad as heck. The GOP is always sending voter registration forms to people.”

Data and Analytics

Modern campaigns from the presidential to local levels have increasingly relied on data analytics for decision making, involving everything from messaging to fundraising.

Rural Democrats we spoke with conceded the importance of data, but many strongly suggested that the party focused too much on the science of campaigns to the detriment of the art of campaigning.

For example, Wisconsin State Sen. Janet Bewley feels the party relies too much on data and analytics.

Ohio State Rep. candidate Ginny Favede said volunteers used flawed lists and walked two blocks to knock one door. “Volunteers were grumbling because they were passing people they knew in houses that should have been knocked.”

A former legislator said, “Our data was just really bad.”

CONCLUSION: WE CAN WIN

After the electoral routs suffered by Democrats in the Heartland in recent years, the incumbents we spoke with are survivors.

Others fell short in recent election cycles, and a good share of the cause can be traced to the damaged Democratic brand and top of the ticket candidates.

These Heartland Democrats are battle-tested, have faced the voters in Republican waves and are still standing.

The moods of those we interviewed varied from frustration with the party, to anger at Democratic party leaders, to hope that the party can do better in the future and rediscover its roots and message.

Several of the people we spoke with described their rural districts as “forgotten” by the Democratic Party. Ohio State Rep. John Patterson said, “You don’t need a passport to come to northeast Ohio.”

The message delivered to us: ‘Don’t give up on rural.’

These rural Democrats haven’t given up hope. Some are concerned that, after an initial flurry of interest in the Heartland after the 2016 election, attention will fade.

The feeling was unanimous that Democrats can earn votes back, but only with a better, more disciplined approached to winning these tough Heartland races.

But the problems Democrats face in rural and working class areas aren’t going away. In fact, the stakes have never been higher.

The next two election cycles will be critical for the long-term strength of the party. Redistricting in 2020 could consign Democrats to minority status for another 10 years in these states and in Congress if we fall short.

The officials we interviewed suggested the following opportunities for future action:

Democrats need to emphasize issues that unite the party and go back to core principles on economic opportunity, increasing incomes, and economic security.

Specific opportunities for rural Democrats are in infrastructure, education, small business, security (both economic and safety), agriculture, and reducing government waste.

The party needs to develop new policy ideas for the state and local levels. Several called for a strong and robust Democratic policy shop as powerful as ALEC on the right.

The party needs to develop better communications tools, outreach, entities and messaging to counter Fox News, talk radio and conservative social media.

The party needs a comprehensive review of leadership and campaign apparatuses, consultants and strategies. Many rural leaders want new blood and fresh approaches.

The party needs to broaden the concept of the working class, which includes not just union members, but also other types of workers and small business owners.

The party needs to get back to a “Big Tent” philosophy that embraces those who agree on the vast majority of issues, but who may have dissenting views on certain issues.

The party needs to engage with existing rural and working class Democrats on a more regular basis to learn from their experiences and chart the path forward.

These rural voices should be heard as they provide a valuable message to Democrats as we prepare for this next election cycle.

With close to a thousand seats lost across the country in the last decade, now is the critical time to examine everything from top to bottom.

The stakes are enormous. The party cannot get back to majority status in either Washington or state capitals in the Heartland without bringing the wisdom of rural working class voters to national debates.

And in the words of Iowa’s newly elected State Rep. Phil Miller, “I know we can get them (Obama-Trump Voters) back. I got them back.”

The authors thank the following people for their help in connecting us with the folks who participated in this research and report: Illinois: Former State Sen. John Sullivan, Timothy McAnarney, and Kerry Asbridge. Indiana: Tim Henderson, State Rep. Terry Goodin, and Julie Berry. Iowa: State Sen. Jeff Danielson, Ron Parker, and former State Sen. Tom Courtney. Michigan: Jeff Winston, Josh Pugh, former State Rep. Collene Lamonte, and State Rep. Tom Cochran. Minnesota: State Rep. Julie Sandstede, Josh Syrjamaki, Terry Morrow, Jodie Torkelson, and State Party Chair Ken Martin. Missouri: Former Governor Bob Holden and former State Rep. Tom Shively. Ohio: Former State Sen. Lou Gentile and State Rep. Jack Cera. Wisconsin: State Sen. Janet Bewley, former State Sen. Tim Cullen and Joseph Hoey. Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee: Jessica Post and Kevin Boyd.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

By Cheri Bustos and Professor Robin Johnson

Indiana: State Rep. Terry Goodin

Voices From The Heartland

Traditional political thought holds that a Democratic-drawn map virtually guarantees Democratic control of a legislative body. Democratic mapmakers will draw districts that cram Republican voters into a limited number of districts and spread Democratic voters out as much as possible yet still win enough districts to achieve a majority. That is, until a Republican tsunami hit Indiana politics in 2010.

Democrats went from a 52 to 48 majority in the Indiana House to a 40 to 59 minority overnight with a map their leaders had drawn. Armed with a new map drawn by Republican leaders, Republicans furthered the Democratic devastation by reducing their number of seats to 30.

With one exception, Democrats are limited to bigger cities, university towns and suburbs. The outlier is Terry Goodin, the only rural Democrat remaining in the Indiana legislature.

It wasn’t always that way. Goodin, who was first elected in 2000, recalls when the Democrats had a majority in the General Assembly and one-third of the members were from southern Indiana with most from rural districts.

In fact, Democrats controlled the Indiana House 13 of the last 25 years. They most recently had control in 2010. And Goodin is vocal about where at least part of the blame lies.

The national Democratic Party is “out of touch with mainstream America” and “it’s a regional party from the two coasts,” Goodin said. “It’s the party of political correctness” and “too much identity politics” where “winners and losers are picked by their labels.”

He said there are still local Democratic officials in his area because voters “look past party labels and they know the individual candidates.”