Colorado is often considered the quintessential ‘purple’ state when it comes to politics: Regularly a swing state, a bit of a bell weather, often pivotal on the national stage. But the biennial attention is usually focused on the swing suburbs or on other action along the populated Front Range.

As someone who has been organizing “in the trenches” for years in the mostly rural western half of Colorado, I can speak to the state outside its major Metro Areas, to its slow hamlets and mountain towns, the small cities and out-of-the-way communities snuggled in isolated mountain valleys halfway between nowhere.

The blunt instruments of political punditry often make a mess of nuance, and the purple politics of Colorado reflect a complexity beyond just the suburbs that swing and a Republican rural/ Democratic metro divide. 

And now a new study puts some data to what I have observed in two decades of advocacy campaigns on the Western Slope. 

Red rural, blue rural? Presidential voting patterns in a changing rural America
Political commentators caricature rural America as a single entity. In fact, rural America is a deceptively simple term describing a remarkably diverse collection of places. It encompasses nearly 75 percent of the land area of the United States and 50 million people.
Both demographic and voting trends in this vast area are far from monolithic. Some rural counties, including those with economies based on recreation, have experienced decades of sustained population growth fueled by migration, while farm counties in the heartland continue to lose people and institutions.

Generally speaking Colorado’s electorate is divided roughly into thirds, with one-third or more identifying themselves as unaffiliated with a political party. 

This unaffiliated portion of the electorate is also divided, with a large chunk “in the middle” and sizable portions leaning both right and left at the outside edges beyond where major parties might normally tread.  

So, in reality the Colorado electorate more often looks something like:

Unaff.  Left  –  Dem. –  MotR  –  Rep.  –  Unaff. Right

While the majority of the campaigning, predictably, takes place among the groups in the middle, the pull from the unaffiliated left and right can influence the overall trajectory of an election. 

It also tends to manifest as a split within the base of each party from time to time, on either side as the margin with its near party frays and fluxes. 

Still most of the unaffiliated vote falls in line behind one party's candidate or the other. Conservative parts of the nonurban state usually favor the Republican by 2:1 while some mountain towns and resort communities favor Democratic candidates by a similar margin.

The study highlights this distinction, which it categorizes as between 'recreation' and 'agricultural'  communities. 

Migration has fueled almost all of this population gain [in 'recreation' communities]  ( Johnson, 2012). Older migrants in their 50s and 60s find these counties particularly appealing, but family-age migrants are also attracted by economic and employment opportunities ( Johnson et al., 2013). Over the last several decades, these recreational counties have become a political enclave within rural America. The residents of recreational counties, on the whole, have a higher median income and more have graduated from college than their counterparts in other rural counties.

While many Colorado counties tend to lean heavily one way or the other in election results, several reflect this split themself, with (often) up-valley communities being more affluent and Democratic and down-valley areas being lower income and more conservative.  

These counties tend to be the Western Slope's swing counties, with many of the persuadable organizing opportunity lying in the down-valley areas. 

The population density along Colorado’s Front Range – stretching roughly from Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs – cannot be discounted, and it makes for an equally dense political reality: that is where the votes are at that usually win and lose statewide races.

Still for strategies that need to build support across the wider geography, winning in the rural West requires more sophistication than simply moving urban and suburban tactics to the country. 

Craig and Steamboat Springs, Durango and Cortez are each very different places. And they all have some fertile ground for organizing. In most cases it comes down to taking time to understand the local situation and what points of leverage are. 

While it would be difficult to describe common tactics that best fit all types of different communities, rural organizing generally relies on some key techniques that are broadly applicable:

Get settled and listen—Relationships matter

Rural communities usually include extensive social, family and professional networks that are ignored at the campaign’s peril.

Start where people are at—Respect how things are done

Rural communities include flows, in both time and place, that should be tapped into and used to pace and structure local tactics.

Keep your commitments—Reputation precedes you

Just because you are meeting someone for the first time, it does not mean that they have not already heard all about you.  You start in a better place if what they have been hearing is good.

Find the kernel of commonality—Recognize the space between

Politics and conflict in rural communities often appear divisive and personal, however below that there are usually nuance and complexities. These undercurrents are often where a campaign can begin to find space in the middle where organizing can begin.  

Build from shared purpose—Reciprocity is currency in small communities

Business is done in rural communities by sharing knowledge, skills and resources. Self-reliance and mutual support go together. Demonstrate competence and a willingness to help by joining in community endeavors, and using those opportunities to identify and recruit allies and partners.

Issues can be won and the political landscape will respond to solid progressive organizing in the rural Mountain West. The local flavor of various communities around the region can vary substantially, and any successful effort must understand how to navigate among that variety more generally, as well as to have an understanding of the particulars of each place.  

The 'Red Rural/Blue Rural' authors note that these dynamics are even more nuanced than their study captured, according to an article in Agri-Pulse. 

It's important to note that farm counties are not the only ones where farming is done, but are places where farming is the predominate industry. Similarly, rural counties can have recreation industries without it being the most influential.
...rural counties that don't fit into either of these categories include those dominated by manufacturing, universities, or government...
As for how rural county structure will influence the 2016 election, Johnson said it's impossible to tell.
“Every election is different,” he noted, adding that Obama lost support from recreational rural counties from 2008 to 2012. However, it's undeniable that recreational counties are on the upswing, and may have a bigger influence on how rural America votes in a few years. Most importantly, the report shows that rural America is more diverse and dynamic than political commentators and candidates might recognize.

The political dynamics will continue to shift in much of  the America that lies outside a Metro Area. Rural organizing should not be approached tepidly. Nor should it be with an expectation of quick results even if going “all in.”

It is an investment for the longer term, or at least in retaining the right local expertise that has a jump on the territory. 

Success depends on taking time up front to learn the particulars of a community by getting settled in, starting where people are at, finding commonality, and building from shared purpose. 

After all, overtime it is more likely to be the tortoise, who with steadfastness we all recall, won the race.