Table of Contents

• Strategy vs. Tactics in Kansas Politics: Why the D …

  • The Strategic Vacuum and Election Outcomes

  • When National Strategy Becomes a Straitjacket

  • Blueprints from Red-to-Blue States: What Kansas Ca …

    • Colorado: From Red to Blue (with a plan)

    • Virginia: Flipping with Focus (and funds)

    • Michigan: Mind the Maps

  • Bridging the Kansas Rural-Suburban Divide

  • What a Winning Kansas Democratic Strategy Should L …

Strategy vs. Tactics in Kansas Politics: Why the Difference Matters

Kansas Democrats have perfected the art of moral victories. They often celebrate coming within striking distance in tough races or blocking the worst bills via the governor’s veto. But when it comes to real power – controlling legislatures, setting the agenda – they’re usually left empty-handed. The culprit? A lack of cohesive strategy. In a state dominated by Republican supermajorities, simply reacting to each election won’t cut it.

It’s time to dig into how strategic decision-making is shaping Kansas elections, and why a top-down party structure disconnected from grassroots energy¹ might be holding Kansas Democrats back.

The Strategic Vacuum and Election Outcomes

Kansas politics offers a textbook case of strategy vs. tactics. Strategy is the long game—building coalitions, shifting power dynamics² , planning for the future. Tactics are the day-to-day maneuvers – a media campaign, a floor debate. We’ve been stuck in tactical mode for years; the State Senate has had a conservative supermajority since 1992 and the House since 2008.

That didn’t happen by accident. It’s the product of long-term planning by the GOP (think decades of grooming candidates, drawing favorable district maps, and attracting voters). By contrast, Kansas Democrats have nearly 50 counties that don’t even have a county party.

Whatever the plan has been for the past 20 years, it looks less like a strategy and more like triage. Without a broader vision to chip away at the GOP base, Democrats end up rejoicing over almost winning a seat, or preventing a total legislative blowout, rather than actually controlling outcomes.

Coalition-building is a prime example of strategic planning that can alter election results–and Kansas Democrats have both fumbled and occasionally excelled here. On one hand, the party’s top-down structure often means decisions are made by a tight inner circle, sometimes alienating potential allies. On the other hand, when Democrats have built coalitions – say, by teaming up with moderate Republicans – they’ve seen success. Remember 2018, when moderate GOP figures like former Republican Governor Bill Graves bucked their party and endorsed Democrat Laura Kelly for governor, warning that GOP nominee Kris Kobach was too extreme​? That bipartisan alliance was strategic, signaling to Republican-leaning voters that it was OK to cross the line for the right candidate. Kelly won, powered not just by Democrats but a coalition of independents and centrist Republicans.

Strategic decision-making directly influences election outcomes. Without it, you’re left with ad-hoc tactics that might win a news cycle but lose the war. A mailer about your opponent’s foibles or a last-minute get-out-the-vote push is important, but it won’t overcome a well-oiled opposing machine built over years. Strategy shapes the battlefield. Kansas Democrats have been losing the war for the Statehouse because they’re too often fighting on the terrain Republicans choose.

When National Strategy Becomes a Straitjacket

In theory, being part of a national party brings resources and brand recognition. In practice, it can feel like trying to squeeze into a suit that just doesn’t fit. The national Democratic strategy – the themes that play well in California or New York – often flops in the Kansas heartland. Even when local Democrats talk in local terms, candidates get bundled into the national brand and all the baggage it carries in a deep-red state.

Take Governor Laura Kelly’s experience as a case in point. She essentially ran against the national Democratic grain to win in Kansas. Her approach was almost the antithesis of the national party’s zeitgeist, avoiding divisive culture-war topics and zeroing in on local concerns.

In D.C., Democratic strategists often emphasize issues like climate change, gun control, or abortion rights in sweeping moral terms. Important issues, yes – but in many Kansas communities, a promise to keep the local hospital open goes a lot further than a pledge for renewable energy. Kelly understood that, and it helped her peel off just enough rural and small-town support to win. Twice.

National Democratic messaging can also become a perfect foil for Kansas Republicans. GOP candidates here love to tie local Democrats to the “radical liberal agenda” of Washington. (If they could run against AOC in every Kansas state House race, they would!) In Kelly’s reelection, Republicans relentlessly tried to nationalize the race, yoking her to President Biden and hot-button national issues in hopes of dragging down her appeal​. It didn’t work against Kelly’s disciplined local focus, but for less established candidates the association with national Democrats can be toxic. (A Kansas Democrat running for, say, state Senate, knows that if they have a “D” by their name, many voters instantly hear “Biden” or “liberals.” That’s a heavy anchor to drag.)

Resources (i.e. money) are another pain point. National party strategy triages funding to the most competitive areas. Needless to say, Kansas is not exactly awash in DNC or DSCC money. The national party often writes off states like Kansas early, focusing dollars and field organizers on nearer-term pickup opportunities. The result is that Kansas Democrats operate on a shoestring budget, disproportionately relying on volunteers and small-dollar donations, while their GOP counterparts benefit from a well-funded state party and networks of big donors. And when national Democrats do swoop in with resources, it’s usually during a presidential year or a high-profile race that clashes with local needs. For instance, a national script for voter contact might emphasize expanding Medicaid (which is popular in Kansas, actually) but gloss over something hyper-local like property tax relief for farmers.

The constraint of national strategy also shows up in voter engagement methods. Democrats nationally have embraced sophisticated data-driven canvassing and digital outreach. Kansas Democrats could benefit from those tools – but only if adapted to the state. A fancy app that tracks voter contact is great, but you still need folks willing to drive down dusty roads to actually talk to those voters. National strategy doesn’t always account for the fact that what works in urban precincts (where you can hit 50 doors in a high-rise in an hour) is different from the sprawl of Kansas (where those 50 doors might be 50 miles apart). The grassroots groups in Kansas understand these on-the-ground realities better than out-of-state consultants, but rarely have funding to act on their full aspirations.

Blueprints from Red-to-Blue States: What Kansas Can Learn

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. Other states have escaped seemingly permanent Republican domination by making shrewd strategic shifts. If Kansas Democrats are looking for inspiration (and a little hope), there are case studies. Let’s peek at a few states that went from ruby-red (even supermajority GOP) to competitive, and see how they did it.

Colorado: From Red to Blue (with a plan)

Not too long ago (early 2000s), Colorado was reliably Republican; the GOP even had a state legislative supermajority of sorts and held the governor’s mansion. Colorado’s flip to a Democratic stronghold didn’t happen by accident or just demographic destiny; it was engineered by a strategic coalition often referred to as the “Colorado Blueprint³ .”

A group of progressive donors and organizers in Colorado got tired of losing and decided to play the long game. They pooled resources to fund candidate recruitment, messaging research, and year-round grassroots organizing. Crucially, a handful of wealthy liberal donors invested in independent expenditure groups (527 committees) that zeroed in on state legislative races. In 2004, these Democratic-aligned groups outspent Republicans 3-to-1 and executed a targeted campaign to pick off vulnerable GOP lawmakers​.

Democrats flipped control of both chambers of the Colorado Legislature in one cycle, shocking the GOP establishment​. It wasn’t just the money – they had “better message and better candidates,” as the state Democratic chair put it, and ran a bunch of smart micro-campaigns tailored to different districts​. They talked about water rights in rural areas, tech jobs on the Front Range, and governmental ethics after a GOP lobbying scandal.

Kansas could take a page from this playbook: invest in local infrastructure, find issues that break through partisan identity, and don’t shy away from a fight in any district if you have a credible candidate. Also, having a few millionaires on your side doesn’t hurt (Kansas has some Democratic-leaning donors, but activating them in a coordinated way is a strategic task the party hasn’t fully solved).

Virginia: Flipping with Focus (and funds)

Virginia might seem a world away from Kansas, but hear this out. For decades, Virginia’s legislature was GOP-controlled (sometimes by huge margins), even as the state began voting for Democrats in national races. Democrats broke through in Richmond by methodically chipping away at GOP control and taking advantage of shifting demographics and court-ordered redistricting. By 2019, Virginia Democrats were just a hair away from flipping both legislative chambers; they went all-in. National Democratic groups poured in unprecedented funds because they understood the stakes (control redistricting, enact policy, prove a template for other states)​.

Everytown for Gun Safety, environmental groups, EMILY’s List, and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee collectively dumped $10+ million into Virginia legislative races​. They coordinated messaging around issues like Medicaid expansion and education, which had broad appeal. This overwhelming push – combined with grassroots energy in the suburbs and fairer maps – led to Democrats seizing both the State House and Senate in 2019 for the first time in a generation.

The key for Kansas? Identify the moment of opportunity and be ready with resources and unity.

Kansas might not have a Northern Virginia-style suburbia boom to bail them out, but they can watch for cracks in the GOP supermajority (maybe a scandal or overreach by the far-right) and pounce with a fully funded, professional campaign when the iron is hot. Also, Virginia Dems benefited from national party attention; Kansas Democrats will likely not be the beneficiaries of such largesse unless they make a compelling case that investing in Kansas can yield results. That means doing the homework now – organizing volunteers, refining messages – so that if a wave year or favorable circumstance comes, the party can say, “We have a plan, just fund it.” (As opposed to scrambling at the last second.)

Michigan: Mind the Maps

Michigan’s recent flip of its legislature offers a more structural lesson. For years, Michigan Democrats suffered under gerrymandered maps that gave Republicans big majorities even when Democrats won more votes statewide. (Sound familiar?) In 2018, Michiganders approved an independent redistricting commission to draw fair maps. Come 2022, those new maps eliminated the built-in GOP advantage, and lo and behold, Democrats won control of both the Michigan House and Senate for the first time in nearly 40 years​. But fair maps alone didn’t do it–Democrats also seized on issues that energized voters.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade put abortion rights on the ballot (literally, with a state constitutional amendment in 2022), driving turnout in Michigan; similarly, in Kansas, when abortion rights were on the ballot directly, 59% of Kansans voted to protect those rights. That’s a majority-makers issue if handled wisely. Michigan Dems also focused on bread-and-butter promises like fixing roads (sound familiar?) and funding schools – issues that cut across the urban-rural divide.

A strategic party will try to recreate those circumstances in a candidate election, not by making everything about abortion, but by highlighting personal freedom and governmental overreach in terms Kansas voters can appreciate.

Each of these examples underscores that moving from a permanent minority to a fighting chance requires intentional changes. Whether it’s importing a “Blueprint” style strategy of coordinated campaigning (Colorado), capitalizing on timing and external investment (Virginia), or fixing the rules of the game and harnessing popular causes (Michigan), the common theme is planning, patience, and bold moves. Kansas Democrats will need all three to alter their fortunes.

Bridging the Kansas Rural-Suburban Divide

Perhaps the thorniest challenge for Kansas Democrats is the great rural-suburban divide. Kansas is often caricatured as endless farms and wheat fields (there are plenty of those, to be fair), but it also has vibrant suburbs and cities. The political reality: Democrats dominate in the Kansas City metro’s Johnson County and the college-town enclave of Lawrence, hold their own in places like Wichita and Topeka, but get clobbered in the vast rural expanses. Any winning strategy has to address this stark geographic split.

For years, Democratic campaigns in Kansas have focused on running up the score in urban/suburban areas and praying that rural losses aren’t too catastrophic. It’s a defensive posture – and it hasn’t been enough to win legislative power. The party’s messaging and policy priorities often seem tailored to the educated suburban voter (think emphasis on school funding, moderate social liberalism, etc.). That plays well in Overland Park or mid-town Wichita, but lands with a thud in tiny farming communities that feel culturally distant from the Democratic brand. To improve performance, Democrats must become bilingual in a political sense: fluent in the language of both urban progressives and rural conservatives. A locally responsive strategy would adjust the accent depending on the audience without sacrificing core values.

So, what might that look like? First, show up. A common complaint in rural Kansas is that Democrats (candidates or party folks) rarely bother to visit or listen. Republicans have built-in advantages out there, but they also work for it – GOP legislators attend every Rotary club lunch and county fair, portraying themselves (often sincerely) as part of the community’s fabric. Democrats need a presence in these communities beyond a token candidate every four years. When a Democratic candidate does roll into a small town only during campaign season, people sense the opportunism. Building trust has to start well before the leaflets and yard signs appear.

Second, adjust the message to local concerns. As Governor Kelly noted, rural Kansans are often more worried about practical issues than partisan ideology​. For instance, many rural counties are struggling with hospital closures and lack of healthcare access – partly because Kansas’s GOP legislature has stubbornly refused to expand Medicaid, leaving federal money on the table that would prop up rural hospitals. That’s a winning issue for Democrats if framed correctly: it’s about saving your local hospital from shutting down, not about “Obamacare.”

It’s also important to recognize the cultural distance and not be dismissive of it. The fact that rural Kansas skews heavily Republican doesn’t mean those voters are unreachable; it often means Democrats haven’t given them a reason to consider an alternative. Some of this is about respect and relationship-building.

The rural-suburban divide is not going to close overnight. Kansas is a big state with divergent economies and lifestyles. But Democrats must narrow that gap if they ever want to break the GOP hold. Interestingly, the party leadership seems to recognize this: Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna Repass has argued that Democrats need to zero in on rural voters and rebuild trust in those communities​. It’s one thing to say it, another to do it – but it’s a positive sign. A strategy that invests in rural outreach could, at the very least, turn 20-point losses into 10-point losses in some areas, which over multiple races can add up. And it doesn’t mean abandoning the suburbs either; it’s about expanding the map. Kansas Democrats can’t afford to write off any Kansans if they want to govern someday.

What a Winning Kansas Democratic Strategy Should Look Like

What exactly would a winning strategy for Kansas Democrats entail? Here’s a vision for how the party can transform itself from a perpetual underdog into a competitive force. This isn’t about any single election, but building a foundation for the next decade.

1. Bottom-Up, Not Just Top-Down: A winning strategy taps the grassroots – the activists, the local unions, the advocacy groups on the ground. These folks aren’t just foot soldiers to deploy in October; they should have a seat when strategy is being set. The party should convene regular listening sessions and strategy huddles with representatives from county parties and progressive groups statewide. This is not the time for a cavalcade of precinct committeemen and committeewomen! We must find ways to involve a broader swath of our community, regardless of their party affiliation.

2. Craft a Kansas-Centric Message: National Democrats aren’t going to craft a special message for Kansas, so Kansas Democrats must do it themselves. The party’s messaging should revolve around core issues that cut across partisan lines in Kansas: quality public education, good roads and infrastructure, healthcare access, and keeping young Kansans in the state with job opportunities. These are popular themes in every corner of Kansas. Spice it up with a dose of accountability – promise to be the party that fixes the stuff the GOP has let crumble (literally and figuratively). There’s a reason even Republicans in Kansas campaigns often talk like Democrats (supporting schools, etc.) while simultaneously bashing “tax-and-spend liberals” – it’s because those positions are popular!

3. Year-Round Organizing and Candidate Grooming: This one is un-glamorous but crucial. A winning strategy means investing in the off-year, not just scrambling during election season. Register voters continuously. Identify promising young leaders or community figures and encourage them to run for local offices – city councils, school boards, county commissions. Today’s city council member is tomorrow’s state rep. The GOP has done this pipeline building for decades (the Republican who dominates your rural House district probably started on the county commission or school board, building name recognition). Democrats need to rebuild their bench. Even if they lose the first time, keep investing in them – it often takes two or three tries in tough areas. This long-term nurturing of candidates is classic strategy; it’s planting seeds so you’re not forever scrambling to find someone, anyone to put on the ballot.

4. Pick Strategic Fights (and Fight to Win): You can’t win everywhere overnight, so be smart about where to deploy resources – but don’t leave any winnable seat uncontested. This is the art of coalition politics – it might mean an odd bedfellows alliance on one issue. And when Democrats do engage, they need to go all-in with modern campaign tactics: data-driven voter targeting, digital sophistication, and savvy social media use. Out-hustle the opposition.

5. Embrace a Few Bold Initiatives to Rally Around: To inspire both the base and cross-over voters, Kansas Democrats should champion a couple of big ideas that define their vision for the state’s future. Think of how Republicans in Kansas long rallied around the (ill-fated) experiment of massive tax cuts under Gov. Brownback – that was a (misguided) bold idea. Democrats need their own banner. Galvanize Democrats (who finally see their leaders standing for something concrete) and attract non-Democrats who realize the benefit. The key is to package it in pride and practicality, not in ideological terms. If the party becomes known as the people who want to bring your town something you value (while the other side argues about bathroom bills) that’s a winning contrast.

6. Wit and Grit: Finally, adopt an attitude that mixes seriousness about issues with a bit of Kansas humor and toughness. Voters appreciate candor and even a little self-deprecation. Be unafraid to call out the failures of the GOP’s long reign – do it with facts and a grin. Humanize Democrats, focus on common denominator issues that are relevant to everyone.

A winning strategy for Kansas Democrats means thinking bigger and longer-term than the next election cycle. It means empowering the many over the few, tailoring the message to Kansas values, and never ceding an inch of political ground without a fight.

There’s an old saying: “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” What Kansas Democrats have “always got” is a superminority.

It’s time to try something new. Something strategic.

1  I have no doubt that friends within the party will take issue with the suggestion that the party isn’t grassroots-driven. My argument, and the argument for a realignment of what strategy means, is that those grassroots efforts aren’t creating systemic results.

2  A good book about power is Managing With Power. If you’d like a slightly less Machiavellian attitude, Certain to Win has a more “modern” take based on the military Observe-Orient-Decide-Act model.

3  There’s a whole book about the Colorado transition called The Blueprint: How Democrats Won Colorado.