By Matt Underwood As a politically-inclined observer who holds a passion for dissecting political campaigns and their impacts on the electorate, I’ve had my fair share of commendable and disappointing experiences debriefing campaign strategies. However, the DeSantis team holds the crown for running what I believe to be the worst campaign in history, and here’s why.
Governor DeSantis began his political escapade with a declaration of war against one of the largest media corporations and employers in his home state. This ill-advised move could only be a testament to a candidate who is in it for power rather than developing compelling policy ideas.
The premise of DeSantis’s campaign showcased a profound misunderstanding of what made Trump attractive to the conservative populace. Mirroring Trump’s policy positions and advancing further to the right was not enough to win over the Base. The Base, as DeSantis should have known, is not tethered to policies but to a persistent feeling of anger and agitation.
The foundation cracked even further when high-profile GOP members like Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, and Perry remained eerily silent, leaving the D-listers to step up. DeSantis essentially did more to elevate his profile for a possible future run or a television career than to establish credibility as a serious candidate. It was a classic case of missing the mark on prioritizing voter confidence over personal gain.
A compelling component of DeSantis’s debacle was his utter lack of emotional regulation in the face of pushback. As an engaged viewer of several press briefings, I witnessed time and again the inability of DeSantis to handle the slightest scrutiny. Instead of embracing the scrutiny and using it as a launching pad for explaining his policy positions, he resorted to temper tantrums, further isolating himself from voters who value maturity and poise in their leaders.
Furthermore, in a country where liberals compose a sizable proportion of the electorate, DeSantis committed the irreparable mistake of openly alienating them. If winning an election were based solely on one’s popularity among hardliners, perhaps DeSantis would have fared better. But the electoral dogma recognizes that winning requires appeal across the spectrum, and DeSantis fell flat in this aspect.
Despite the long list of worries about his campaign, I find the overarching theme of his approach to the election to be the key culprit. His campaign focused solely on the propagation of an “us vs. them” mindset, anchored on fear, division, and exclusion. It was less about enlightening voters about what he could do for them and more about mobilizing resentment and fear. This strategy didn’t only resonate negatively with liberal voters; many conservatives felt sidelined.
The possibility cannot be dismissed that the inherent problem wasn’t the campaign tactics, but the candidate himself. DeSantis embodied an unlikable figure for many, further dampening the campaign. The talent and charisma he lacked, albeit substantial, could not be supplemented by the best campaign strategies. Instead of appearing as a serious contender, he was perceived as a “big league player” out of his depth, tarnishing his political image.
Finally, for a state like Florida, renown for its boisterous and unique political climate, DeSantis proved to be a poor representative in the nation’s eyes. His popularity dwindled when exposed to the national stage, revealing his hollow core. The disconnect between his controversial policies, scathing persona, and the diverse, open electorate could not have been starker. His questionable approach to governance and obsession with divisive issues fell flat with voters who hold an increasingly progressive attitude towards contemporary issues such as LGBTQ rights.
In conclusion, the failure of the DeSantis campaign serves as a compelling lesson in political strategy. Messaging matters. Policies matter. The candidate’s ability to connect with the electorate matters. And most importantly, polarizing rhetoric doesn’t win elections — it corrodes the possibility of political discourse, creating broader fissures within the electorate. DeSantis’s campaign may indeed have been the worst in history, but its failure offers a vital learning curve for future contenders seeking public office. The test remains whether the GOP will learn from this or continue to replicate unsuccessful strategies. Upon reflection, the inherent problem — or rather, paradox — the DeSantis campaign faced was striving to reproduce the success of Trump’s popularity without understanding the core ingredients of his appeal. The DeSantis team mistakenly equated Trump’s charisma and distinctive identity with hardline policy stances. This oversimplification caused the campaign to veer further right, essentially gambling away voter engagement in return for a supposed “true conservative” image.
Cracking this code, unfortunately for DeSantis, wasn’t as simple as it seemed. Trump’s magnetic pull for the Base was rooted more in the ability to whip up emotions rather than in specific policy outlines. This allure relied on an improvised concoction of anger and passionate rhetoric instead of logical, reality-based policies. The DeSantis campaign, however, grossly miscalculated this sentiment by pushing policies in an attempt to mirror Trump’s appeal, creating an unbridgeable chasm between the candidate and the Base. His campaign ended up catering to a non-existent demographic that prioritized conservative policies above the sense of identity and culture affirmation that Trump offered.
As his campaign navigated these missteps, DeSantis also exhibited concerning personal characteristics — not least of which was a short fuse when challenged. Watching several of his press briefings, it was striking how limited his tolerance was for pushback. More than revealing a flaw in his character, this intolerance under scrutiny highlighted a lack of preparedness and confidence in defending his political stance, which are crucial attributes in leadership.
Simultaneously, the DeSantis campaign displayed a severe lack of political acumen by antagonizing liberals, who constitute a majority in the United States. Partaking in a campaign strategy centered mainly on division resulted in an echo chamber that amplified hate and fear. This structure theoretically fits the narrative some conservatives have built and aligns with certain far-right talking points. Still, it utterly fails to translate into a practical political campaign reaching a breadth of the electorate.
Misleadingly blaming the campaign’s failures on a faulty team also overshadows the crux of the matter. DeSantis, as a candidate, had inherent flaws that contributed significantly to the disastrous outcome. He is deemed by many as unlikable and could not quite hit the right notes to connect with voters within and beyond his base.
In conclusion, the DeSantis campaign served as a stark reminder that the game of politics is not one of impersonation, but rather of authenticity. Rather than being a replica of Trump, DeSantis needed to present his authentic self, exhibiting an understanding of voters’ real-life concerns and offering substantial policy solutions. His failure, or refusal, to do so resulted in a campaign that will be remembered as one of the worst in political history. It remains to be seen if future candidates will learn from these missteps and prioritize genuine public service over divisive rhetoric and cheap populism.