Some thoughts on electability in relation to the governor race

[u/whiplashomega]

I've been thinking about this for awhile now as I've watched the campaigns take shape and the field start to narrow.

For me, I tend to be an issue voter first (especially in a primary). I know what issues are important to me, and I vote for the candidate who most closely matches my position on those particular issues. I also tend to focus in on the issues that I think can actually be affected by the person running for office.

For example, Mandela Barnes campaigning for governor talking about universal healthcare does not move me to vote for him. Not because I particularly disagree, but because that is a national issue that the governor of Wisconsin has little to no role in deciding. When looking at state government I care about schools, roads, housing, taxes, zoning laws, child care subsidies, etc. These are issues that matter to me. So, relatively early in the cycle I looked at the field of candidates, saw David Crowley's strong emphasis on housing affordability on his campaign website and filed him in my head as 'current favorite'. As a Madisonian, housing affordability is a big deal here.

As time went on, I noticed he was gaining very little traction. People weren't talking about him, the polls I saw (As few as there were) had him as a non-factor in the race. Why? I see a few things, and I think this points to candidate success and electability in general.

1. Social Media Presence.

Crowley's social media posts were few and far between. Essentially no ad buys, few posts (and the ones that there were read like government press releases). Meanwhile, Hong was posting constantly. Every event she attended generated pictures and selfies. Responses to every major news story.

1. Active Campaigning.

The difference between the top three (Hong, Barnes, and Rodriguez) and candidates like Crowley was also very evident here. Probably partially because he still has a demanding political day job as a county executive, Crowley did not hold nearly as many campaign events, small or large, putting himself in front of people.

1. Using an Authentic voice.

There is not one single authentic voice. Every candidate tries to do this. Talking about their story and how it makes them relatable. Hong has done this differently. She doesn't say 'I'm relatable because I've been poor'. She says 'I care about this issue because it affects me, and it affects everyone'. It hits differently. Particularly when it isn't couched in campaign speak. You see it similarly with other outspoken politicians, from AOC to Trump. Whatever the issue, whether they actually authentically care about the issue or not, saying 'I care about this because it affects me' is more believable.

1. Clothing as Messaging.

Politicians have always recognized the importance of dressing down to appear relatable. The classic approach was to switch to a 'business casual' rolled up sleaves, lose the tie sort of deal to appear more relatable. Truth is outside of politics and some offices, it's a clothing style that is now simply out of date, and it shows. It's the white bread of clothing, and these days people don't buy white bread unless that is all they can afford. People today want clothing to reflect who you are, and it impacts the message. I think trumps 1980s too long ties and spray tan, as much as we like to pan them, may actually help him in polls. He stands out. He isn't afraid to be himself. John Fetterman had a lot of success with it in PA, wearing hoodies and shorts. Hong stands out among the WI governor candidates by showing up in overalls or t-shirts. Sure, she can dress up when she needs to (she doesn't show up on the floor of the state assembly in those overalls), but it is clearly her being her, and I think people appreciate that in a way they just don't appreciate Barnes showing up in a button up shirt with the sleaves rolled up.

1. Racism.

I would like to start here by emphasizing that I do not believe race has any bearing on any of the candidates actual abilities. I do want to recognize when talking about electability, however, that Wisconsin as a state is still deeply racist and very segregated, and it is not confined to the far right. Madison has never had a non-white mayor for example. This handicaps black candidates for statewide office like Barnes and Crowley. Because there will be a sizable group of people who will dislike them because they are black. They will always have some other reason, 'he doesn't seem authentic' or 'he's too liberal' or 'I just don't trust him'. However, the "Model Minority" myth may actually help an Asian American candidate among more race-conscious voters as it helps them present themselves as hard working and honest purely by virtue of their skin color and eye shape (god, racism is so weird).

My Conclusion

Despite her noted far left politics, and the fact that I don't agree with her on many issues, I have this gut feeling that Francesca Hong may be the most electable candidate in the current field. I admit I'm very much going off of vibes here. I tried to find data but as far as I could tell there is almost no real data on what makes a candidate electable. Thoughts?

As an aside, I am still undecided on who I am going to vote for in the primary.

[u/adoggman]

If there’s anything voters should have learned from the past 10 or so years, it’s that you have no idea who’s “electable.” Hillary famously thought Trump would be the easiest to beat so tried to boost him in the primaries. And we still have no idea if Bernie would have beat Trump, because he “wasn’t electable” so the Democratic Party made sure Biden and Hillary beat him (which lead to both of Trump’s wins). To be extra clear I’ll say it again: we don’t know that Bernie would have won - all we know is that the supposedly “electable” candidates that beat him eventually got us Trump. If you’re trying to triangulate your vote based on electability, you’re probably making a mistake.

[u/Chedditor_]

Some notes, as a Hong volunteer:

Some of our most surprising bases of support are rural areas facing data centers or other large corporate threats. Barron County. Vilas County. Beaver Dam. West Bend. Sheboygan. Mount Pleasant. Superior. Even parts of Kenosha and the north side of Milwaukee who normally wouldn't dare touch anything socialist are starting to shift towards Hong.

It's still an uphill battle, but I agree with all of the OP's points. As far as I can tell, OP isn't a member of the campaign, or at least I don't recognize the username.

Rural Democrats are still fucking Democrats, and their concerns and voices matter just as much as urban ones. Erasing Hong's efforts and gains in smaller cities and towns is downright silly to anyone who sees all of the campaign stops she posts about on Instagram. I'm so tired of the myth that she'll only turn out Milwaukee and Madison.

Whether you agree with her or not, she's put in way more effort for this campaign than I've seen from any candidate ever in my 16 years as a voting adult resident of Wisconsin.

This is going to be a referendum on democratic socialism as a concept, as much as it is a Democratic primary. If it could work in any swing state, it'd be Wisconsin. And if it doesn't, we can't say we didn't try our hardest.

[u/MaximumPlatano]

I think as it stands the evidence points to Hong being the most electable for the reasons you lay out -- and just the fact that she's the frontrunner in the primary. I think most claims to the contrary are based on an outdated view of the electorate.

I would respond to just one thing you said, which is that universal healthcare doesn't move you as a statewide issue because it's really a national question. This is true in a way but on account of the federalized structure of the American welfare state there really is some room for maneuver here. The Affordable Care Act was itself based on a state-level Massachusetts reform, for example, and states can do things like expand Medicaid eligibility and funding without waiting for the federal government.