Should we be relieved or concerned that professional rage baiter James Fishback won 10% of the vote in the Republican gubernatorial primary?
In typical circumstances, winning only 10.5% in an election would put someone into the “also-ran” category. However, Fishback’s influence on the race — and political discourse as a whole — is greater than most who finish a distant third.
Fishback finished behind Lt. Gov. Jay Collins (25.2%) and Trump-endorsed Byron Donalds (47.8%). Donalds is a current Florida Congressman and a former candidate for Speaker of the House. Unlike the two men who finished at the top, Fishback had no political experience and ran as the political outsider in this race.
While Fishback is primarily a provocateur, he built a sizable political coalition supported by a real platform. It would be a mistake to discount Fishback’s support as entirely based on instigation. Democrats should analyze how and why Fishback attracted so many young voters to see how they can appeal to his disappointed supporters.
Throughout his campaign, Fishback made a name for himself by pushing against the establishment and purposefully agitating his opponents and the media. He hit on many front-of-mind issues for young Floridians. This, combined with his natural charisma and provocative speaking style, made Fishback an online sensation.
However, this agitation often came in the form of racially charged comments targeted at his opponents. These included calling Donalds a “slave to his donors” and “DEI hire.” Fishback’s comments weren’t exclusive to his political opponents, extending to random citizens on the street. The most disgustingly racist remark Fishback made during the campaign was when he was confronted with accusations of an inappropriate relationship with a minor and told a Black man he should be “lynched.”
Fishback’s proclivity to spout racial remarks made him a star in far-right online spaces. He was praised by figures like Tucker Carlson, Clavicular and Nick Fuentes, and appeared with the hosts of the Fresh and Fit Podcast. Fishback openly courted this side of the internet with dog whistles and overt references to fascists like Mussolini.
Fishback’s popularity in the manosphere and white supremacist spaces explains his lead among young white men. A University of North Florida poll found Fishback had four times more support in the 18-34 age group than Donalds.
But Fishback didn’t gain this lead through racist and provocative remarks alone. He seemed genuinely concerned about issues in Florida that primarily harm younger generations. Housing, affordability, AI data centers, Flock security cameras, education and overdevelopment were all key topics during his campaign stops.
By focusing on these issues, Fishback was able to win over disaffected young voters who felt lost in the current political environment. To many, Fishback seemed to be the only candidate addressing the issues they cared about. So, many young voters supported him even if they disagreed with his more edgy and offensive remarks.
As political observers, we should recognize the duality of Fishback’s popularity before we dismiss his coalition as white supremacists. Real voter frustration can create real political movements.
The results of the primaries shed light on Fishback’s campaign tactics. His 10% showing reveals a strong online presence is important in winning support, but it’s not enough to clinch a victory on its own. What Fishback lacked was funding. Due to his racist remarks, Fishback was unable to get backing from larger donors and the republican establishment donor base. This means he couldn’t run a typical television ad campaign. In a state like Florida, the fifth oldest state in the U.S. with a median age of nearly 43, online campaigning alone won’t garner enough support to win.
Democrats and establishment Republicans might be relieved Fishback lost — and it wasn’t particularly close — but I think that relief would be premature. Fishback is only 31 years old, and he isn’t likely to disappear. Even if he never ran for office again, his tactics would be adopted by others.
The best way to counter Fishback’s rise is by co-opting the real issues he addressed while casting out the racist undertones and remarks. Many of the young voters who found Fishback appealing wouldn’t have supported him if another candidate spoke to the same issues. And if that were the case, Fishback would just be the racist guy yelling into the void.
Democrats should seek to reel in these frustrated voters by agreeing with them. By addressing largely nonpartisan issues like affordability, Flock security cameras and other topics young people care about, Democrats can focus those frustrations onto the actual culprits of their hardship and win support for policies that will actually bring improvements.
To counter the blame Fishback placed on immigrants and minorities for the trajectory of Florida, Democrats should make these voters realize their focus should be on those in power. Anti-establishment young people from both the left and right care about the same issues. As long as someone is speaking truth to power and addressing the problem and working to fix it, frustrated voters are going to listen to what they have to say.
Fishback the Rage Baiter should be forgotten, but it would be a mistake to let the real issues propping up his campaign slip the mind. By pinpointing the disaffection that hooked young voters in the first place and speaking directly to it, Democrats can win enough support to make Florida competitive.
Contact Evan Dressel at edressel@alligator.org. Follow him on X @EvanD_Alligator
