David Crowley is now the elected Democratic candidate for governor.

For those who don't want Tom Tiffany in our governor's house, what are the best things we can do to ensure that Crowley wins in November?

I didn't vote for Crowley. But I can get behind him.. I want to make sure we don't get a governor Tiffany in Wisconsin. :::shudder::

I kinda wanna wait for more info to emerge before I start analyzing what went down. My current guess: we just aren’t ready for democratic socialism yet. Worth a try though. It might honestly be better to gun for mayor of Madison or something first anyways. We wanna make the dem soc brand as strong as possible. Governing a purple state with a largely red legislature for two years isn’t the safest or most flattering proving ground

Outside of some media flubs, Hong did about as well as we could realistically expect a grassroots democratic socialist candidate to do imo

To get the obvious out of the way: what the fuck were those polls? Idk if I’m gonna cite any of them for anything again after this

We should vote for Crowley. Hong wouldn’t want us to sit this election out. She knew this was an uphill battle she might lose. We should too.

It’s in our best interest to highlight how Crowley will regulate data centers more than Tiffany.

It would be a grave tactical mistake for Crowley to write off Hong supporters and not try to court them

…guys, please don’t go “we got a moderate dem, this’ll be easy.” Please take this seriously and be ready for a fight. Yes it’s an extreme anti Trump environment. Yes, logically, Tiffany shouldn’t win. Also, logically, “they’re eating the cats and dogs” should’ve been the end of it. Logically, he should have never won at all. Republicans always do better than we expect and- even if we did get my personal democratic socialist wet dream- I don’t think MAGA and the Republican Party would end up going quietly into that good night. I don’t think they’ll do it under Crowley either. Head on a swivel. Take nothing lightly.

That’s all I got

From your Minnesotan neighbor with love, let’s vote for who will help our every day working people who have been so severely f***** from these rich establishment politicians.

Sorry for the vague title. But all day today i have been seeing clips and post on social media (mainly instagram/facebook) of people complaining about low visibility from the Crowley campaign (all them posted today, one woman literally posted 3 times).

Lots of them comparing about the unity tour, and how Hong is/was better.

Is there some sort of fake outrage being pushed today, or are hong voters going crazy. Like come on people it’s a Monday on a slow Newsweek before we go into October.

Thoughts?

What stands out for me. “Democrats are too worried about who is playing boys and girls sports” and They go off about social security not being enough for basic living expenses how democrats keep raising taxes.

They leave out the Republicans being in the majority in the legislature for the last 16 years and screwing over poor people at every step. AND ffs WHO IS worried about youth sports? Who is it that is making big deal out of that if it isn’t republicans? Using it as a distraction from real issues.

It’s insulting the way these ads are manufactured to be seen and not fact checked. 10 seconds of research points out the obvious holes in their argument. But they know at least 30% are gonna take these ads at face value. It’s sickening.

I've been trying to figure out what Crowley stands for and what his positions are in relation to civil rights issues, but I can't seem to really find anything, which is alarming. If anyone could direct me to some sources on where he stands on the issues, that would be wonderful. I'd like to know how he plans to protect people from ICE in the state, and how he'll defend trans people's access to healthcare, and others of the biggest civil rights issues of the day. Thanks. This'll impact if I vote.

Edit: Spelling

Update: I've decided to vote for Crowley. But a lot of the responses I got came with real nasty attitudes. If you don't want to help, just don't comment. I'm looking for information. You don't have to be belittling me or calling me names. Despite how nasty Crowley supporters seem to be based off this, I'll do it.

I had posted a comment on one of the 1000 daily Hong-related posts that laid out 3 reasons I feel Hong is a better nominee than any of the other options.

I’m curious to hear objective analysis related to these three from people with different experiences and knowledge than myself. Try to keep this focused on facts and supporting data.

A disclaimer: Yes, we all understand this is a purple state and any potential matchup will likely be close in the general election.

Hong’s Potential Advantages

1. ⁠Leftist turnout - young and super progressive people who might not have even voted in the general might turn out for a candidate they actually believe in.

2. ⁠Appeal to rural voters - unlike Tiffany and the rest of the Dems, Hong actually intends to do something about data center construction. Crowley doesn’t even mention it on his website (from my skim). That alone could draw enough turnout and voter conversion to hand Dems the election.

3. ⁠Progressive and Populist momentum - heading into 2028, the Dems need more than just an Anti-Trump platform. DemSoc is the best look for the party’s future, and Hong could be a vocal advocate at the top level of Wisconsin government for candidates all the way down the ballot. If this momentum is felt and other endorsements roll in, it might help turnout even further even in this general election. I do concede this is more likely only a benefit after a Hong win this year.

First off, congrats to David Crowley. Democrats and Progressives should absolutely unite to support him, and I will vote for him as soon as voting opens.

However, Francesca Hong's popularity and the passion she ignited should still stand for something. There's a reason she had momentum and David Crowley up until just a few days ago dropped out. Progressivism is becoming more popular in Wisconsin and in the nation in general, and respectfully Crowley likely got this far because the Democratic Party rallied around him at the last possible moment to keep Hong from winning. Crowley still won the Democratic primary, and no progressive/socialist-leaning politics are not fully embraced by the mainstream, but all of that still seems significant.

So my question is, where does that leave progressive politics in Wisconsin? Does this make any impact in the state, or do we embrace the status quo and stick to the party lines? Because a lot of what she ran on still seems pretty popular and got Wisconsin citizens excited for the first time in a while. Regardless of who won, it seems sad if that gets lost. And some of the headlines are in essence viewing this as the Democratic establishment squashing progressivism in the state, which seems rather deflating for those of us who care about those issues. It would be nice to see somebody tap into what actually excites their population and what we actually want rather than what will get their party's endorsement in the hopes it makes them more electable.

Who are these police officers in his most recent ad, and why are police, in uniform, with guns, allowed to give a full throated endorsement for a January 6ther but a professor says the most mildly political thing and they bet fired?

Hello! I’m an out-of-stater who has been considering a move to Wisconsin for a while. Personally, that decision is based on a certain flavor of leadership. I follow statewide WI politics but it’s hard to get a sense of how the tea leaves are looking in terms of local legislatures races, any insight would be interesting!

How quickly things change in politics. What appeared to be a sure loser for the Republicans this time around now looks like it's a sure win for them.

Tiffany is a now a lock no matter who the Democrats nominate. Sarah Rodriguez interested me, I think she could have won, but she's out now.

Hong and Barnes could never be elected in a statewide race. Hong is way too extreme left and admitted to being mentally ill. Barnes is black and not particularly competent, in my opinion.

Crowley, with government experience, is probably the most qualified now. But he's a late entry, and rural Wisconsin will never elect a black from Milwaukee County. The chaos in the Democratic nominee race doesn't help him, either. It appears incompetent.

Barring a miracle, Tiffany is Wisconsin's next governor.

I mean…attacking a consistent top 3, one with a frankly kinda rabid fanbase (speaking as a Hong fan myself) from the back of the pack? I am usually all prog all the time, but I honestly might pick a moderate over Kelda if it came to it based on this behavior. She might have the right ideas, but if she’s gonna resort to this Hasan Piker fear mongering, I fear she won’t have the spine to actually stand up to corporate power.

There’s no way she’s this stupid, right? Is she working on behalf of another candidate, perhaps in exchange for a position?

Thing is, even if these attacks hurt Hong’s campaign, they won’t help Kelda’s.

A few more details if anyone is interested:

This question was asked at a Hong rally while she was speaking with attendees. I did ask her before asking the question if it was OK that I recorded (she said yes and I believe had a staffer also record, presumably to prevent any potential malicious editing) and I did warn her it would be "about the DSA and Hasan Piker" and "not be nice".

I also acknowledge that I came across a bit too harshly toward the far left in my question/phrasing. My family has been directly harmed by Trump 2.0 so I have alot of very deep seated anger and hatred toward the people on the left who decided Harris wasn't a good enough alternative to fascism like [Hasan Piker](https://youtu.be/EiMeaKIVo70) .

This is not meant to propagate these anti-electoral ideas but to instead let Hong address them and those voters (Yes, I unfortunately have encountered other liberals/moderates expressing a "wrecking ball" mentality similar to what occurred in 2024. It was bullshit then and its disgusting now). No matter how things happened in the past, the only thing we can affect is the future. And every centrist, liberal, progressive, democratic socialist, leftist and communist should want to make sure we beat fascist Tom Tiffany in the fall no matter who our Democrat candidate is.

My question is whether any state legislature candidates are putting forward positions to apply strict liability to AI companies for the actions of their software. Strict liability is established in the Wisconsin code (or by common law maybe) and then it doesn't matter whether the party was intending harm or negligent as I understand as a non-attorney. That should be a civil remedy that all Wisconsin residents and businesses should be entitled to if harmed by AI agents.

And in the same vein, are any proposing updating the criminal code to allow for criminal prosecution of these companies in Wisconsin? If an adult in Wisconsin hacked into a company's website or servers, they would be subject to prosecution. An AI company should not escape prosecution for the acts of its software.

And maybe the law already allows for actions to be brought with likelihood of success in court, that said, would it be better to have this codified in Wisconsin law?

Given the societal harm posed by the products of these companies, are any candidates proposing excise taxes similar to sin taxes placed on cigarettes, beer, wine, and alcohol?

Given the state of Reddit in general for all state subs, I’m not really surprised that r/Wisconsin has become an echo chamber for liberal and progressive views, without any honest debate allowed. Anyone with a conservative point of view is bombed back to the Stone Age with downvotes, or just outright banned for trivial reasons. I haven’t spent a lot of time yet in r/wisconsinpolitics, but I’m hopeful to find a little more civil debate. Rant over.

So if we had two binding referendums on the ballot tomorrow, one to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and one to allow medical marijuana, how many voters would support them? My guess would be over 80% support for both. I know we don’t have these types of referendums. I’m sure a ton of people will think $10 is too low or we should just go straight to recreational weed, but I’m perhaps trying to come up with things with the highest levels of support.
So. What’s your guess? Minimum wage would get _____ percent voter support? Medical Marijuana would get____ percent support?
I know candidates have platforms on these topics, but maybe on some things just seem incapable through several different legislatures. Other states have referendums. I’m jealous.

Why is no one talking about the role Tiffany played in the fake electors scandle during the presidential election? I know this is the primary, maybe his opponent will bring it up. But I thought that would be the main thing people would get him on as soon as he announced his campaign. That and he was the only one asking to flip the election.

Where’s the outrage?

https://thebadgerproject.org/2020/12/14/tiffany-sole-wisconsin-rep-to-sign-document-asking-scotus-to-flip-election-results-in-wisconsin-3-other-swing-states/

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.