As one can see, the rural areas of the nation went to Donald Trump and they did so by extreme margins. In some counties, Trump received 80% of the vote. While Hillary Clinton did win urban areas handily, she did not win by enough in those areas to offset the shellacking she took in more rural areas.
That is exactly what happened again last night in Kansas' 4th Congressional District. James Thompson put up a good fight, more so than expected in that he only lost by 7% as opposed to 31% that the Democratic candidate had lost by in the last election. Thompson did win Sedgwick County by 1800 votes, a staggering turnaround from the 44,000 vote win that Mike Pompeo earned in the county merely five months ago.
However, coming up with a win in Kansas' most populous city was not nearly enough to make up for the dismal results that Thompson received in the other 16 counties that make up this district. In these more rural counties, Estes received 10,000 more votes than Thompson did, far more than enough to make up for losing Wichita. Estes' share of the vote averaged over 70% in these other counties and two of them went more than 80% his way. Granted, these are only a few hundred to a couple of thousand voters in each of these counties, but winning by those margins adds up.
Still though, there is the matter of this race ending up 24 points closer than it did five months ago. There is much that could be read into this, but I'm going to focus on three main reasons why it was so close:
Poor Turnout
The first reason is the most obvious one. Last November, over 275,000 votes were cast in the 4th Congressional District race. Yesterday, the unofficial totals show that only 120,000 votes were cast in the special election, a drop of 56%. For the individual parties, there was a drop of 62% in Republican votes, a drop of 32% among Democrat votes, and a staggering 73% drop in Libertarian votes.
While the drop in the Republican share is significant compared to the drop in Democrat votes, it was not enough to offset the two to one margin that Republicans enjoy over Democrats in the district. It shows that Republicans can survive poor turnout and low motivation in this district just based on the margins they enjoy in voter registration. That will not bode well in elections that have more regular turnout, such as state elections in 2018.
James Thompson Ran a More Active Campaign
Thompson ran a far more active campaign than Estes did. Estes noticeably missed out on numerous forums and debates while Thompson was bringing in people to run phone banks for him in a get out the vote campaign. Estes did raise more money than Thompson, but only by $59,000. In the latter stages of the race, more money was thrown in on both sides as it became obvious the race was tightening.
Estes only belatedly reacted to Thompson's surge in the last week of the campaign by bringing in national heavyweights to boost his campaign. Texas Senator Ted Cruz came to Wichita to campaign on Estes' behalf and President Trump both tweeted and recorded a robocall for Estes. It is unlikely that these had any effect on the trajectory of the race, other than give off a sense of panic on the part of the Republicans.
The campaign styles of Estes and Thompson in some ways reflect the Presidential election from last year. The Republicans chose a "safe" candidate that did little to get in their own way, but also did not give a compelling reason to get people out to vote for them. Thompson refused to go down without a fight and ran a more active campaign along similar lines to Donald Trump. However, Thompson had to overcome a 30 point disadvantage in order to win; Trump certainly did not have to work from that far behind.
It is probable that a more moderate candidate than Thompson that ran the same campaign he did might have been able to stage the upset. As I wrote before, Kansans seem to prefer more moderate leadership than either extreme. That trend, however, does lead into my final point:
There are Reasons for Both Parties to Worry in 2018
Most of the closeness of this race I think can be attributed to the first two points I laid out. However, there is a trend that Thompson tried to use to his advantage that may have contributed in part to the 24 point swing the district saw.
Ron Estes was the State Treasurer for the Brownback administration for the past six years. As noted before, Brownback is currently the most unpopular governor in the United States right now. Much like Barack Obama took advantage of George Bush's unpopularity in 2008, Democrats are hoping to do the take advantage of Brownback's unpopularity next year.
A 24 point swing would seemingly be a step in the right direction. However, Democrats had an opportunity to hand a loss to someone at the heart of the Brownback administration...and failed to do so. They could not win even though Estes received less than half of the votes that Pompeo did last year and despite the fact their candidate arguably ran a better campaign. The disadvantage that Democrats have in Kansas, especially in the rural counties, may turn out to be too great to overcome in most cases.
Then there is the matter of the Democratic party suffering from infighting, again. In the Progressive vs Elite dichotomy of the party right now, Thompson fell more into the Progressive vein. This may have had a hand in why the Kansas Democrats and the DNC refused to donate money to Thompson's campaign. It may have also been that they did not believe he had a chance of winning, but that does not mesh with the way the campaign ended. It may be the leadership of the Democratic Party still does not trust its more progressive wing.
Republicans naturally have to worry too. This was supposed to be a safe race and they belatedly had to pour money into it from the RNC to help Estes out and send heavyweights in to help as well. That does not bode well if another "safe" candidate ends up being nominated in state and Congressional elections for next year.
At the end of the day though, the factors that led into this election turning out the way it did may have little or nothing to do with the state elections that will occur 19 months from now. It is even less likely this race will give any indication as to which way the House and Senate elections will turn out either. But if the parties are planning to use this race as a bellwether for next year, there are many mistakes they need to learn from and advantages they need to capitalize on.

