1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:27,800
It's been a week since the budget surplus deal fell apart at the capital and we're still

2
00:00:27,800 --> 00:00:32,680
making sense of the fallout. Today we talk about how it's playing out in the governor's race, more

3
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,840
insight on the talks that failed, and more information about what it would mean for the

4
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:46,520
state's bottom line. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I'm Sean Johnson here with my colleagues

5
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:53,720
Anya Ben-Wagtendank and Zach Schultz. Hello. So Zach, we pretty much ran out of time last week talking

6
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:58,760
about this deal because there are so many facets to it and so many players, so many motivations to

7
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:05,000
discuss. We barely touched on part of it, which is how it's being received in the Democratic primary

8
00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:09,960
for governor, which is just as well because we had more reactions since that show and since the deal

9
00:01:09,960 --> 00:01:16,440
fell apart. I guess if you had to sum it up, this big Democratic primary, how are the candidates

10
00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:20,920
dealing with this big deal that they weren't really expecting to come along? Well, it was

11
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:25,320
interesting to watch the reactions as it was unfolding when I think most people probably thought

12
00:01:25,320 --> 00:01:31,240
this was going to pass. In the days leading up to it, we saw kind of, I saw three different

13
00:01:31,240 --> 00:01:37,160
responses. There were two very clear no's from Francesca and Hong and from Calder

14
00:01:37,160 --> 00:01:41,080
Roy's, both running in a more progressive stance. The two only that actually got to vote on this

15
00:01:41,080 --> 00:01:46,760
because they're still in the legislature. Then we saw Missy Hughes come out absolutely all for it.

16
00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:51,560
One of the only ones to say, this is a good deal and it makes sense to try and get this done.

17
00:01:51,560 --> 00:01:55,560
Perhaps a way to try and give herself a little attention in a crowded race word. Everyone's

18
00:01:55,560 --> 00:02:00,520
trying to struggle for oxygen. Then we saw kind of a muddled middle of a lot of candidates that

19
00:02:00,520 --> 00:02:04,440
really were like, I really don't like the process. This may not be the best deal, but it was clear

20
00:02:04,440 --> 00:02:10,440
they were not ready to come out against it. Then it failed. Then the knives started coming out

21
00:02:10,440 --> 00:02:14,920
afterwards. What we've seen since then has been different, but it felt like those lanes were kind

22
00:02:14,920 --> 00:02:20,440
of decided in the lead up to it. Then afterwards, they exposed a little more of how they were

23
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:24,360
feeling about it and who they were ready to blame more specifically for how it weighed apart.

24
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:31,800
How are you processing this, I guess, a variety of reactions all coming from these candidates at

25
00:02:31,800 --> 00:02:37,240
once? In some ways, I think the bill was an election year messaging tool anyways for the people who

26
00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:42,360
negotiated it. All of a sudden, it presented an opportunity for people in this crowded primary

27
00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:46,840
who are not really all that distinguished. I still run into people who do not know that there

28
00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:53,160
is a governor's race this year. This is a way. Most people are not watching our show over here.

29
00:02:55,880 --> 00:02:59,720
This is an opportunity for those Democrats to try to message around

30
00:03:00,520 --> 00:03:05,320
school funding, property taxes, these really big election year issues and to try to stand

31
00:03:05,320 --> 00:03:09,080
out a little bit. Talk about trying to stand out. There are sort of degrees of

32
00:03:09,640 --> 00:03:15,560
no and degrees of yes. On degrees of no, Kilda Royce, I think we were just checking out our emails

33
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:23,000
and she came out against this deal in less than two hours after it was made public. There's somebody

34
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:27,320
who's trying to let people know, I'm definitely against this. She's got a vote on it one way or

35
00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:32,520
another. Might as well take a position, Francesca Hong, the same day. Then you've got the candidates

36
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:36,920
as you alluded to, Joel Brennan, who worked for Tony Evers saying, I didn't like the process.

37
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:43,080
Then some, I don't know exactly where they stand on the deal where they're just basically saying,

38
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:51,560
it failed. We got to move on. Why would they give such a muddled answer as you call it? Why not

39
00:03:51,560 --> 00:03:56,040
take a position on this thing? I think because there was a lot to lose, not knowing how it was

40
00:03:56,040 --> 00:04:01,720
going to come out. Most of these people were not involved in any discussions. They probably did

41
00:04:01,720 --> 00:04:07,160
not know that they were even happening at this time. I think it probably was true that Kilda may

42
00:04:07,160 --> 00:04:11,960
not have known they were happening. Given how quickly she responded, it may have known that,

43
00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:17,240
hey, Senate Dems were not in the loop, which is ultimately what killed this. She had the most

44
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:22,200
distinct opportunity to put her stamp on this entire process. As no matter what, she was the

45
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:27,800
only one that was in the chamber where it could have passed that said no, that was not the deciding

46
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:33,240
vote. But deciding vote adjacent in terms of being able to say, this is going down. I will not

47
00:04:33,240 --> 00:04:37,240
vote for it. And I stand with the rest of my colleagues. So there were definitely a lot of

48
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:41,800
things to be gained for some of those people and being very clear. And there's a lot to lose. And

49
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:45,320
so some of that is just the approach that some of these candidates have taken in this primary is

50
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:51,000
cautious front runner or assumed front runner. And how close are they to Governor Evers to begin

51
00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:56,040
with? We've got multiple people have worked in his staff, two lieutenant governors, and then

52
00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:59,400
other people that are not close to the Evers administration at all. So they can be a little

53
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:04,360
more freewheeling there. They're not hoping for, you know, if they win a primary, come close,

54
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:09,480
if Evers bestowing, you know, any blessings upon them at the last minute, they can be farther apart.

55
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:14,280
Yeah, he has said repeatedly, he's not going to endorse in this campaign. And he seems

56
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:21,800
like unhappy with the candidates increasingly, especially as they kind of trash his deal,

57
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:26,600
as they did this time around. Anya, I think what strikes me is that these candidates set

58
00:05:26,600 --> 00:05:31,640
out this campaign and they had a plan. They want to talk about certain messages. They want to talk

59
00:05:31,640 --> 00:05:38,120
about Donald Trump. They wanted to find themselves on their terms. And when the governor negotiates

60
00:05:38,120 --> 00:05:42,920
an agreement with Republican leaders, it kind of throws a wrench in those plans, doesn't it?

61
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:47,560
Well, right. I mean, there's sort of policy and issues. And then there's politics. And this was a

62
00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:53,400
political week, right? This was all about these negotiations and kind of the powerful,

63
00:05:53,400 --> 00:05:58,440
the negotiations of power that were taking place. And so that's really different than the issue of

64
00:05:58,440 --> 00:06:03,160
property taxes, which nobody is going to go on record supporting high property taxes.

65
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:07,400
Nobody, especially in the Democratic Party, is going to go on record not wanting to fully fund

66
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:12,760
public schools. And so how do you kind of take a stance that allows you to be on sort of the

67
00:06:12,760 --> 00:06:18,120
right side of that politically? Well, then also taking part in the political maneuverings

68
00:06:18,120 --> 00:06:22,680
in the Capitol, which again, like normal people don't follow, don't really understand. They're

69
00:06:22,680 --> 00:06:27,560
just going to see what's on their mailers in a couple of months saying voted for or against

70
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:31,800
money in your pocket or money for your schools. And so that's a really kind of complicated

71
00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:37,880
dance to be doing right now. And do you think that coming out in favor of the deal is

72
00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:43,480
Missy Hughes did, for example, is going to help you stand out in this crowded primary in a time

73
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:48,280
when people are not necessarily paying attention to this race? Well, I will say this is probably

74
00:06:48,280 --> 00:06:51,800
the only time that we've talked about Missy Hughes and said her name more than once in a podcast.

75
00:06:51,800 --> 00:06:57,480
And for someone who has been polling in the low single digits, that matters. Not that we're going

76
00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:03,320
to sway the voting public, but getting your name out and taking a stance, I think, was a move for

77
00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:08,280
her to say no, I will stand up for something as opposed to like David Crowley, whose name we

78
00:07:08,280 --> 00:07:12,120
haven't mentioned yet. He's running right in the middle of that primary. We saw the releases he

79
00:07:12,120 --> 00:07:16,680
put out about this bill before and after. And I still don't know 100%, whether he liked it or

80
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:21,240
didn't like it or was just kind of sitting in the middle on it. But Sean, I want to ask you about

81
00:07:21,240 --> 00:07:24,680
the money thing is we've seen the legislative fiscal bureau numbers. That was something that

82
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:29,960
the Democrats put out there right away saying this was unsustainable. It wasn't real money.

83
00:07:29,960 --> 00:07:34,200
It would have set us up for a really bad budget. How much do you think played that

84
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:38,840
worked at the time for them versus how much was it a convenient excuse for them afterwards

85
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:44,280
when they really voted it down because of power maneuvers? Oh, it could be a mix of both. I mean,

86
00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:49,480
if you look at the fiscal bureau numbers, which Anya did a great story on yesterday,

87
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:56,840
that's a pretty real concern, whether or not that was their primary concern for voting this

88
00:07:56,840 --> 00:08:02,520
thing down or what political calculations they made. I think when you're looking at a 2.95

89
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:07,960
billion projected budget deficit at the end of the next two-year budget, not the one where you're

90
00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:13,560
now, but the one after. That feels real to me, Anya. I mean, just looking through those numbers.

91
00:08:13,560 --> 00:08:18,280
Right. And the sort of important caveat is that that number from the legislative fiscal bureau

92
00:08:18,280 --> 00:08:22,680
doesn't take into account the fact that we are in a period of sort of remarkable economic uncertainty

93
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:27,720
right now. And so it says that we would have that deficit, that sort of almost $3 billion deficit

94
00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:32,280
were this to have passed. And that's not accounting for potential changes to tax revenue,

95
00:08:32,280 --> 00:08:36,360
to the fact that there's like a war going on right now that is affecting oil and gas prices,

96
00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:40,440
all these different things. And so from all of the Democrats who voted against it, and then also

97
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:44,520
from the Republicans who voted against it, there was this concern about the cost of this thing,

98
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:50,360
which was kind of nebulous. And so even with those kind of firmer numbers, it justifies,

99
00:08:50,360 --> 00:08:54,920
I think, what some of those lawmakers were saying on the floor. But it also kind of points to this,

100
00:08:55,880 --> 00:09:00,040
again, political, like, gamesmanship that we often see when it comes to appropriations,

101
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:04,920
which is what is our money for? What is our state surplus for? Is it for things like this?

102
00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:10,040
Is it to have kind of in our back pockets? And so that was really the contours of the fight.

103
00:09:10,600 --> 00:09:16,200
You know, I think candidates come into office and they want to do things. And they can just

104
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:23,080
imagine how nice it would be to do things if everything goes their way in 2027. And their party

105
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:28,600
was in control of the Senate and who knows what else? And so probably they would like that money

106
00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:32,840
to spend on their priorities and don't want to come into that situation running a deficit. So,

107
00:09:34,040 --> 00:09:37,640
you know, people become more budget hawks kind of depending on the circumstances,

108
00:09:37,640 --> 00:09:43,640
I think, from time to time. I will say one thing that stood out to me this week is Tony Evers did

109
00:09:43,640 --> 00:09:50,200
an interview with WISN TV where, and we alluded to this a bit last week in terms of the way that

110
00:09:50,200 --> 00:09:55,720
the governor kind of pursued these negotiations, but he was straight up asked if he sought out

111
00:09:55,720 --> 00:10:02,520
Democratic votes on this bill. And he said, no, Zach, how do you do that in the Senate given the,

112
00:10:03,000 --> 00:10:08,040
you know, political breakdown there? I mean, I would call it political malpractice in the sense

113
00:10:08,040 --> 00:10:12,760
that anyone who looks at that, apparently he was told that he had the Republican votes alone to

114
00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:17,640
pass it in that chamber. One, it's surprising that he would count just on those, but especially

115
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:22,360
given the two senators that we've talked about repeatedly in that chamber that have voted against

116
00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:27,640
every one of these proposals, including the last three budgets and senators, Nas and Kapigah,

117
00:10:27,640 --> 00:10:31,640
Nas is leaving. We talked about him last week. There's no way he's going to be a yes vote on

118
00:10:31,640 --> 00:10:36,760
this. No one would ever believe that. I don't care who you're talking to, but then that assumes

119
00:10:36,760 --> 00:10:40,760
that you're going to get Kapigah as well and not to not to count Senator Hutton, who's also

120
00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:44,760
leaving the chamber, who voted no in the end. I think they thought maybe more likely they could

121
00:10:44,760 --> 00:10:49,560
have gotten him, but Kapigah has been a no in the last couple of budgets. So those are really big

122
00:10:49,560 --> 00:10:55,320
assumptions at a time when you have Democrats over there. Why not reach out and say, hey, if we need

123
00:10:55,320 --> 00:11:00,280
you, will you be there? Because we mentioned a couple of names for Democrats, vulnerable Democrats

124
00:11:00,280 --> 00:11:03,960
that are up for election this session, and Jeff Smith, and why would you not reach out and say,

125
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:07,960
hey, can we count on you if we need to? You don't even have to necessarily offer them anything,

126
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:11,720
but clue them in and make them feel like they're part of the team. So the fact that he said he

127
00:11:11,720 --> 00:11:18,840
didn't, it seems really strange. Very cheeky ground to go in negotiations counting on

128
00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:25,240
one of those two lawmakers you just mentioned to vote for your deal. We did get a question from

129
00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:30,760
someone in our audience that feels timely right now. This came from a student at the University

130
00:11:30,760 --> 00:11:35,560
of Wisconsin Lacrosse, where they watch our show in their legislative process class. Here's her

131
00:11:35,560 --> 00:11:41,640
question about special sessions. My name is Katie Walker, and I'm studying political science

132
00:11:41,640 --> 00:11:46,920
at UW-O-Coffs. My question is, why have there been so many special sessions called by Governor

133
00:11:46,920 --> 00:11:51,800
Evers? And does this trend signal break down a normal legislative compromise, or is it simply

134
00:11:51,800 --> 00:11:58,200
a strategic political tool? All right, well, we have all covered our share of special sessions now,

135
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:03,160
and so let's all just chime in on this. But Anya, you first, how would you answer this question

136
00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:07,240
about special sessions? I mean, again, I think that they are often a messaging tool, and especially

137
00:12:07,240 --> 00:12:11,320
in divided government, right, where Democrats are never going to get their bills on the floor

138
00:12:11,320 --> 00:12:16,760
while Republicans control it, or at least their sort of values first, their top priorities on the

139
00:12:16,760 --> 00:12:21,560
floor. This is a way for the Democratic governor to signal what is most important to him by calling

140
00:12:21,560 --> 00:12:25,960
these special sessions. And then also, if he does it on things that, again, are kind of widely

141
00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:31,880
popular no matter how you vote, he can force votes on certain issues. So he can, for example, he calls

142
00:12:31,960 --> 00:12:36,600
a special session a few years ago on child care, trying to force, you know, Republicans to vote

143
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:41,080
in a way that could then get messaged as Republicans don't care whether you get child care. And so

144
00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:46,040
that's one use of it. But I will say I have only ever covered special sessions under divided government,

145
00:12:46,040 --> 00:12:50,280
I have only ever covered Evers special sessions. So I'm curious for you guys who have covered

146
00:12:50,840 --> 00:12:55,880
when Republicans controlled the legislature and the governor's office when they worked in tandem,

147
00:12:55,880 --> 00:12:58,520
the Walker years, what did special sessions look like then?

148
00:12:59,320 --> 00:13:05,000
Jack, I seem to remember a pretty big special session when Governor Scott Walker was sworn in.

149
00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:11,080
Actually, the day of his inauguration, he declared a special session on jobs, I think he called it.

150
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:15,880
Yeah, that seemed to be pretty, pretty big. Some acts came out of that that still resonate with

151
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:19,880
a lot of the public and may bring up some traumatic memories for a lot of people who marched around

152
00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:26,120
the Capitol during those act 10 protests. Yeah, in that era, I mean, we have to look back in 25

153
00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:31,160
years of my time covering this legislature. There has been one session in which there was truly

154
00:13:31,160 --> 00:13:34,680
divided government in the legislature in which Republicans held a chamber and the Democrats held

155
00:13:34,680 --> 00:13:40,120
a chamber. So most of the time of past two and a half decades, we've looked at this, there hasn't

156
00:13:40,120 --> 00:13:45,640
been compromise necessary in the legislature. It's come between the executive and the legislative

157
00:13:45,640 --> 00:13:51,480
branches. So special sessions are one way for a governor to draw attention to what they need to.

158
00:13:51,480 --> 00:13:55,480
And I asked Governor Evers about this a couple of years ago when he was calling him left and right.

159
00:13:55,480 --> 00:14:00,520
And he only has a couple opportunities to actually bring attention to what he wants. He can write a

160
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:05,480
budget, which he knows will get immediately trashed. But at least he can write and introduce his values,

161
00:14:05,480 --> 00:14:09,720
his principles, and say this is what I would like to see happen. And then he can call special

162
00:14:09,720 --> 00:14:14,440
sessions. Other than that, that that is his only legal power to do something in the Capitol.

163
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:17,160
The rest of the time, it's the bully pulpit and going around and talking to the media.

164
00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:23,000
You know, I think I would have answered Katie's question differently a few weeks ago than I would

165
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:28,520
now. And that is to say that a few weeks ago, I said that special sessions from this governor

166
00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:34,680
are basically all about messaging, that they are all about forcing Republicans to take a position

167
00:14:34,680 --> 00:14:39,640
against his priorities or to get his priorities on the record. I would say this last special

168
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:46,120
session that he called where he brought Republicans in to pass a deal he thought that they negotiated.

169
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:51,320
That's kind of a special session is the founders intended or the framers of the state constitution

170
00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:57,880
would have intended where look, the regular sessions done or our calendar days are done.

171
00:14:57,880 --> 00:15:02,120
We have this big issue we want to deal with that we just ran out of time with. Let's let's agree

172
00:15:02,120 --> 00:15:07,160
to come back in for a special, special of the legislature. And it's more ceremonial, too. You

173
00:15:07,160 --> 00:15:12,360
had everybody actually in the building versus most special sessions like the one on gerrymandering,

174
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:18,520
for example, that was for show. And by the way, they gabbled that out last Thursday kind of when

175
00:15:18,520 --> 00:15:22,440
nobody was paying attention. That one's done. That was one where the governor wanted to

176
00:15:22,440 --> 00:15:27,080
highlight an issue said let's end partisan gerrymandering and Republicans said we'll consider it.

177
00:15:27,960 --> 00:15:33,240
And not anymore. It's gabbled out. And the way that Republicans can respond to the governor

178
00:15:33,240 --> 00:15:36,520
trying to call attention to something through a special session is what's called a skeletal

179
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:40,120
session in which two of them come in, they gavel it in, they gavel it out. They don't even

180
00:15:40,120 --> 00:15:44,280
have to bring everyone to do the thing. So that's the response to we want attention on this.

181
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:48,280
You want attention? We'll give you an empty dark chamber. We literally won't turn the lights

182
00:15:48,280 --> 00:15:52,920
on. That's how little attention will pay to it. But it is all about politics at all. It is entirely

183
00:15:52,920 --> 00:15:57,240
about optics. This last one was a little different. And the thing that's probably deceiving to most

184
00:15:57,240 --> 00:16:01,640
people is when they're legally called special sessions when the governor calls them or extraordinary

185
00:16:01,640 --> 00:16:05,400
sessions when the legislature calls them. Those are just names. All it means it happens outside

186
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:09,560
the regular calendar. Republicans two years ago declared the calendar was going to be done in

187
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:14,360
March. So nine months to campaign. That's the only reason it's not regular session. It's

188
00:16:14,360 --> 00:16:20,200
special. But it was a special time in the Capitol that people will remember. Yes, they will. If you

189
00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:25,480
want to ask us a question about state government or politics, send us an email at inside wisconsin

190
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:34,200
politics at wpr.org. Before we wrap up here, I did want to talk about the campaign for governor on

191
00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:40,120
the Republican side. We had a state GOP convention over this past weekend. Tom Tiffany is now the

192
00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:45,000
endorsed candidate. He doesn't have to worry about a primary the way that the candidates had to in

193
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:52,760
2022. So he can focus on the general election now. And yet, Zach, we're talking about the 2020

194
00:16:52,760 --> 00:16:58,840
election here. What is Tom Tiffany talking about? He cannot get away from Trump's main grievance,

195
00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:04,360
which is the fact that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020. And because he still has such a powerful

196
00:17:04,360 --> 00:17:09,400
grip over the Republican Party nationally, which we just saw in Republican primaries in Kentucky and

197
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:15,240
in Louisiana Senate races, that his people have to fall in line on his beliefs or his incorrect

198
00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:20,840
beliefs that the 2020 election was stolen. So Tom Tiffany is still answering questions about

199
00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:25,720
election fraud investigations and whether Joe Biden won the election with, you know, kind of

200
00:17:25,720 --> 00:17:30,200
diffusing or deferring and trying to get away from it, because he can't come out and honestly

201
00:17:30,200 --> 00:17:34,120
say, no, of course, Trump lost. That's been warranted over and over every Republican group

202
00:17:34,120 --> 00:17:38,840
out there from lost to the Wisconsin Institute for Long Liberty has already said so. And that

203
00:17:38,840 --> 00:17:42,840
is something that Democrats love to hear because they will continue to hang that around his neck

204
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:47,080
all the way to November as much as they possibly can. The closer they tie him to Donald Trump in

205
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:51,480
these grievances from four years, six years ago now, that the better off it is for them.

206
00:17:51,560 --> 00:17:55,800
And Anya, just real quick, I mean, it seems like this is an issue where as much as he wants to go

207
00:17:55,800 --> 00:18:00,360
for those handful of voters who are in the middle, this is a line that he can't cross as far as

208
00:18:00,360 --> 00:18:04,120
Republicans are concerned. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the lessons from this week is that in

209
00:18:04,120 --> 00:18:09,400
state politics, it's not the time if you are a Republican to be bucking Trump. And so we are

210
00:18:09,400 --> 00:18:14,280
seeing him sort of tie himself again to this issue. And it'll be interesting to see how much does

211
00:18:14,280 --> 00:18:18,600
that motivate his Republican voters and how much does that turn off those moderate voters and

212
00:18:18,600 --> 00:18:23,160
energized Democratic voters? Absolutely. That's all the time we have for today.

213
00:18:23,160 --> 00:18:27,880
Thanks for joining us. This has been Inside Wisconsin Politics. Our colleague Rich Kramer

214
00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:34,680
will be back next week. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube, or wherever

215
00:18:34,680 --> 00:18:36,120
you get your podcasts.