Here’s the last post in my promised February political survey for Whitewater. I’m a libertarian and a Libertarian (that is, both in ideology and party membership), and so one can guess that I view the two major parties through that perspective. Still, I’ll offer my thoughts on what Republicans and Democrats can do to strengthen their respective positions in the city.

First, the state of things, over-simplified and bluntly expressed:

Republicans walk around town like they own the place (although they don’t). Democrats walk around town as though the sidewalks were made of eggshells (although they aren’t). Neither party approaches conditions as they truly are; both are squandering opportunities.

For Democrats.

1. Call yourselves Democrats. Someone once said that the only political party in Whitewater is Incumbency. That was then, this is now: Gov. Walker has transformed the local into the statewide. He’s Wisconsinized our politics. Although I disagree with much of his direction, I admire – sincerely – his ideological clarity.

Far as I’ve heard, Gov. Walker doesn’t call himself a ‘compassionate conservative,’ etc. He calls himself a conservative. Good for him.

Democrats, moderates, liberals, progressives? Say what you are.

2. What do you believe, locally? All America knows – broadly – where Democrats stand on national issues. Where do Whitewater’s Democrats stand on local issues? Here I mean issues of local, municipal policy. One knows where the state party stands – where does the local party stand?

Residents could guess, but while they’re guessing, you’re missing a clearer message for concern over not winning, or criticism, or whatever.

It’s politics, not knitting: follow the example of those across the state who are plain in their local advocacy. Acting locally and thinking globally is an ineffective inversion of the progressive call to action.

Note: The ‘Move to Amend’ campaign is an exception, I’d say. I well know some will contend it’s a bipartisan affair, but it’s an initiative of the left, and many others see it that way. (I think it’s truly an anti-speech initiative, but credit where credit is due: it’s a far plainer expression of opinion than much of what’s offered locally. My best guess is that it will win on the April ballot by a good margin.)

3. Who are your political leaders in the city? Many in Whitewater would have trouble naming even one official of the local Democrats. It doesn’t matter that I can – you’re not looking for the libertarian blogger vote: you’re looking for votes, generally.

4. Beware the risks of your waxing numbers. Political trends in the city favor your party, but it’s a slow process, and along the way you may find that otherwise persuadable voters will conclude you’re tepid, timid, and unwilling to speak out.

For the GOP.

1. Figure out where you live. It’s a college town that Pres. Obama carried with 61% of the vote. He carried every precinct in the city. Republicans can win here, but not by (a) assuming victory is owed to them, (b) relying on the last generation’s overdone responses, (c) whining about students, followed an extra helping of (d) whining about students.

You’re free to express whatever you want, but if you want to win here, you’ll need more Jack Kemp and less Rick Santorum.

It was a Democrat, then-Sen. George Mitchell, who offered some of the best advice I’ve ever heard, while he was was speaking on that chamber’s floor. Frustrated over the disarray among his Democratic majority, he asked his fellow liberals: “Do you want to make a statement, or do you want to make a law?”

If you want the statement, keep going as you are. If you’re interested in making local policy a decade from now, you’ll need to revise your approach.

2. Promote a new generation of messengers. If a party has an assured (long-standing) majority, it doesn’t need to worry so much about day-to-day spokespeople. Republicans in Brookfield don’t need a front-and-center spokesperson. Whitewater’s Republicans need something along those lines.

Sharp, witty, sophisticated – you’ve many people in the city like that – find some to speak frequently on behalf of your party. Go smart, youthful, articulate, attractive: there are most certainly Republicans like that in the city now.

3. Stop thinking that you can win in Whitewater with a ham-handed message. Once you promote the messengers, you’ll need a powerful and elegant message.

4. Take nothing for granted. Yes, yes, you’ve won in the past. Few people care: all politics is on the margin, focusing on today and tomorrow. You’ll need to stop assuming that everything you say is obvious.

Gov. Romney didn’t win that way, and you won’t either.

No one expects that five or ten years from now Whitewater will be a predominantly libertarian city. No matter, it will be a place markedly different from today. If the major parties of 2013 want to shape profoundly that new city, they’ve both work yet ahead.

Best wishes, truly, to all concerned.

I posted yesterday about the Wisconsin Supreme Court primary. Here’s a post about recent general election results that illustrate the evolution of politics in the city.

Overview. For a while, I’ve contended that the left and right (such as they are here) have had an approximate balance, where the right does well in primaries, and the left carries the city in statewide or national races. See, along this line, Why Whitewater Isn’t a Progressive City; Why Whitewater’s ‘Conservatives’ Hold the City Tenuously from November 2010.

More recently, I’ve begun to think that the city (but not the state) is slowly turning blue more completely and decisively. See, The (Red) State, the (Blue) City.

Simply put, Whitewater’s Republican voters underperform the state’s GOP turnout, not just in general elections, but now in primary elections, by meaningful amounts. It’s not just the case that the GOP does less well locally when large numbers of college-age voters turn out. Even in a low intensity primary, as was Tuesday’s, the left-right margin in the city is far closer than statewide.

The 2.19.13 Supreme Court Primary:

Here are the most recent results:

Within Whitewater, considering results from Walworth and Jefferson counties, Roggensack received (unofficially) 292 votes to 242 for Fallone (W 187, J 14) and Megna (W 40,J 1) combined.

In the City of Whitewater, the margin between left and right (and that’s what it truly is, left v. right) was 54.7% as against 45.3%.

That’s more than a 9-point swing each for left and right, or over 18 points closer in Whitewater than in all Wisconsin.

The 2012 November General Election:

Obama statewide — 1,613,950 or 53.4%
Obama in Whitewater — 4,310 or 61%.

Baldwin statewide — 1,544,274 or 52.9%
Baldwin in Whitewater — 3,950 or 57.9%.

Jorgensen for the 43rd Assembly race (Whitewater vote) — 3,828 or 56.7%.
Jorgensen in the 43rd (whole district margin) — 58-42%.

(Jorgensen’s an exception to the contention that Whitewater Republicans underperform state or district Republicans – but not by much. Wynn also ran while a resident of the city, something not present in any of the other races, needless to say.)

(Margins derived from the two-party vote.)

See, Walworth County and Jefferson County results.

The 6.5.12 Recall Vote:

….without campus being in session, Whitewater still chose Barrett over Walker, by about 1,988 to 1,460. There may be some adjustment to these totals, from Jefferson and Walworth Counties, but that’s a greater margin than I would have expected. (Walworth County – now with a much better, much needed election details pdf – and Jefferson County results are online. Walworth County chose Walker 26,201 to 14,330; Jefferson County went for Walker 22,461 to 14,678.)

Barrett carried each of the precincts in the city, in either county. Whitewater’s progressives have typically done better in bigger elections, not as well in smaller, spring elections.

Some results of note:

1. Obama carried every precinct in the city, and Baldwin and Jorgensen each carried every precinct but one. Obama and Baldwin both did far better in Whitewater by two-party vote than they did statewide.

2. Walker did very well statewide in 2012 (better than 2010), but still didn’t carry Whitewater. That’s not because he didn’t run an effective campaign – he most certainly did. It’s because his effective campaign didn’t depend on the GOP in Whitewater, and losing the city to Barrett had no adverse consequence whatever for his effort against the June 2012 recall vote.

3. Results like this aren’t the results of a conservative town, of which there are many in Wisconsin, any of which would deliver far more for the GOP than Whitewater does.

Next: Wholly Unsolicited Political Advice for the Republicans and Democrats of Whitewater.