1
00:00:01,268 --> 00:00:04,071
and Now.
>> This week's Inside

2
00:00:05,806 --> 00:00:07,741
Wisconsin Politics dug
further into the governor's

3
00:00:07,808 --> 00:00:09,576
primary, including the
heightened national

4
00:00:09,643 --> 00:00:11,979
attention on Francesca Hong
and the democratic

5
00:00:12,045 --> 00:00:14,314
socialist movement.
>> I know a lot of

6
00:00:14,381 --> 00:00:16,850
political observers
nationally were looking to

7
00:00:16,917 --> 00:00:21,555
Wisconsin. As for a lesson
in terms of whether

8
00:00:21,622 --> 00:00:24,691
democratic socialism that
has played well in other

9
00:00:24,758 --> 00:00:29,062
states can play in a
Midwest swing state. What

10
00:00:29,129 --> 00:00:31,698
lesson can they take away
from our race?

11
00:00:31,765 --> 00:00:35,068
>> The obvious takeaway is
it didn't. It didn't work

12
00:00:35,135 --> 00:00:38,805
this time. But all the
caveats being the

13
00:00:40,340 --> 00:00:42,776
coordinated effort by
establishment Democrats,

14
00:00:42,843 --> 00:00:45,979
moderate Democrats to make
it make sure that it

15
00:00:46,046 --> 00:00:49,416
doesn't happen. So I would
say at face value, yeah, I

16
00:00:49,483 --> 00:00:52,586
guess it didn't work out.
And it came pretty close in

17
00:00:52,653 --> 00:00:56,790
the effort to stop the far
left progressive candidate

18
00:00:56,857 --> 00:01:00,093
in the Senate race in
Michigan. The closeness of

19
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:02,596
that, plus this, maybe it
changed the conversation.

20
00:01:02,663 --> 00:01:06,867
I've seen some pundits
online talking about well,

21
00:01:06,934 --> 00:01:09,703
hangs campaign collapsed at
the very final moments

22
00:01:09,770 --> 00:01:12,072
because of the way she
handled those media

23
00:01:12,139 --> 00:01:14,808
interviews at the national
level.

24
00:01:14,875 --> 00:01:17,744
all the polling said she
had along the way. The

25
00:01:17,811 --> 00:01:19,546
difference is, the people
that hadn't made up their

26
00:01:19,613 --> 00:01:22,382
minds chose elsewhere. I
think those were about

27
00:01:22,449 --> 00:01:24,918
electability concerns. I
think there are legitimate

28
00:01:24,985 --> 00:01:27,221
questions about how she
answered those questions

29
00:01:27,287 --> 00:01:30,424
when the national spotlight
was on her, and whether the

30
00:01:30,490 --> 00:01:32,559
people in Wisconsin that
had been paying attention

31
00:01:32,626 --> 00:01:35,062
were starting to think more
about electability than

32
00:01:35,128 --> 00:01:38,332
about policy. But I don't
know if collapse is the

33
00:01:38,398 --> 00:01:41,101
right word when she's still
got 40% of the vote or

34
00:01:41,168 --> 00:01:43,136
thereabouts. And that's a
really strong showing from

35
00:01:43,203 --> 00:01:45,172
any candidate, especially
someone from her background

36
00:01:45,239 --> 00:01:49,042
who doesn't have a long
track record of politics in

37
00:01:49,109 --> 00:01:51,078
Wisconsin and hasn't spent
a long time developing

38
00:01:51,144 --> 00:01:53,413
those relations around the
state. So she had a very

39
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:55,582
impressive showing from
that context. We talked on

40
00:01:55,649 --> 00:01:58,819
this podcast about
Francesca Hong Thanksgiving

41
00:01:58,886 --> 00:02:00,888
tweets and some of the
things that were coming up

42
00:02:00,954 --> 00:02:03,824
out of her past. Give me
your impression of

43
00:02:03,891 --> 00:02:06,059
Crowley's ascent with
everyone rallying behind

44
00:02:06,126 --> 00:02:09,463
him, including the money
and then the wave Francesca

45
00:02:09,530 --> 00:02:11,765
Hong handled the amount of
national attention she was

46
00:02:11,832 --> 00:02:13,534
getting.
>> Well, I mean, the

47
00:02:13,600 --> 00:02:16,803
national window for our
race was just so brief.

48
00:02:16,870 --> 00:02:19,273
There were. National media
was paying attention to

49
00:02:19,339 --> 00:02:22,209
Michigan before us, and
then all of a sudden we

50
00:02:22,276 --> 00:02:25,145
were the next big thing. I
think it's fair to argue

51
00:02:25,212 --> 00:02:28,315
about whether or not people
should focus on a tweet

52
00:02:28,382 --> 00:02:31,919
from 2020, but they did. I
was visiting my dad the

53
00:02:31,985 --> 00:02:33,987
weekend before the election.
He lives in Illinois. He

54
00:02:34,054 --> 00:02:37,291
watches all the Sunday
shows religiously, and

55
00:02:37,357 --> 00:02:40,561
every one of them talked
about that Thanksgiving

56
00:02:40,627 --> 00:02:42,763
tweet. My dad doesn't know
who Francesca Hong is or

57
00:02:42,829 --> 00:02:45,199
David Crowley or much about
the governor's race in

58
00:02:45,265 --> 00:02:48,101
Wisconsin, but he got an
earful about that tweet

59
00:02:48,168 --> 00:02:50,704
that weekend. And if he'd
been watching those shows

60
00:02:50,771 --> 00:02:53,807
in Wisconsin, he would have
been seeing ads in between

61
00:02:53,874 --> 00:02:56,610
saying to vote for David
Crowley. So that stuff

62
00:02:56,677 --> 00:02:59,279
matters and the timing
matters. But it's how

63
00:02:59,346 --> 00:03:03,584
elections are won and lost.
And so in a race that was

64
00:03:03,650 --> 00:03:06,987
won in this case by David
Crowley by 4000 votes, a

65
00:03:07,054 --> 00:03:10,724
little less stuff like that
can matter.

66
00:03:11,692 --> 00:03:16,830
>> In other closely watched
>> In other closely watched