Democrats are getting more aggressive about jumping
into primaries. We look at a few examples from
Congress to the state legislature, plus two legal
decisions that could affect Wisconsin's political maps
for years to come. This is inside Wisconsin politics.
I'm Shawn Johnson here with my colleague Zac Schultz
Anya van Wagtendonk and
Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, everyone.
>> Hello. >> Hey, Shawn.
>> So before we get started with some specific examples
here, I want to start with why this kind of caught our
attention. And for me, it's because in the very recent
past, you had Democrats and liberals very wary about
jumping into primaries. What's changed Zac?
>> I think the biggest thing that's changed is
Democrats see more opportunity to win some of
these over the past 16 years. Basically, the Scott
Walker era. On when the maps didn't favor Wisconsin
and perhaps the political climate didn't favor
candidates statewide. There was a concern that a
primary just took up too many resources that were
limited, mainly money and time, and the threat that
if they went negative against each other, it
really hurt their opportunity to win
statewide. Since Democrats have gotten on a roll in 1
a lot of these races for governor, AG, state Supreme
Court, and they've got better maps, they see more
opportunity. And so there's more options for people to
get in, because the primary doesn't look quite as
devastating. was thinking about this, I
almost feel like it's directly related to
whatever the national political situation is at
the time. So we are right now in the Trump midterm.
Where were we? A few years ago in the Biden midterm,
you had Democrats jumping out of a primary for Senate,
clearing the way for Mandela Barnes. Where were
we in the first Trump midterm in 2018? You had
about a dozen Democrats running for governor that
year. And on and on and on. I think it's kind of a
really simple flow chart. Is it a midterm? Yes. Is
your president in the white House? No. Well, in that
case, you're probably going to want to jump into a
primary and and give a chance for your party.
Let's jump into one of these specific examples
this week. And, you know, I want to characterize this
as the opportunity knocks kind of a Democratic
primary in the first congressional District,
where we have Representative Bryan Steil,
a Republican, is seen as a pretty strong candidate.
The district leans Republican. And yet this
week we had a Democratic candidate say, hey, it's
not too late for me to jump in. Tell us about what
happened. been several Democrats that
have been running for quite a while, but none of them
have really been a clear front runner. None of them
have raised a significant amount of money. Bryan
Steil, by contrast, is a very good campaigner and a
very good fundraiser. He has quite a lot in his war
chest. And so there had been some rumblings that
this older person from Milwaukee was going to jump
in. And he did. Peter Burgess, he is currently a
sitting member of the Milwaukee Council. He does
not live in the district. And so him coming out, it's
really interesting because he's essentially saying, I
am the person who can get the national money that is
required to flip this district. He's trying to
make the argument that it is more flippable than
Democrats think. It is considered a of Wisconsin's
kind of two ish congressional districts,
the safer one for Republicans. But he's
saying, if we can get money, we can get in the game.
>> Rich, you've been following this district for
a while now. Why would Peter Berg Ellis look at
the field here and say, you know, why not me?
>> Well, exactly what Anna said. So, Steil, here's an
example of how good of a fundraiser he is. He's
currently sitting on more than $5.5 million in his
campaign war chest. And during the first three
months of the year, he raised more money than any
I mean, excuse me, he spent more money than any
Democrat even raised. So maybe jealous is thinking
I'll get that Democratic money, etc. But to the
point that this is this is an interesting district
because on paper it it is competitive. But Steil has
just been a powerhouse and he's easily defeated every
Democrat that has come up against him. So I don't
know if this is enough of a Democratic wave year,
potentially, that it could make it a little closer.
But it seems like Democrats think it's worth a shot.
>> Zac, can somebody come in from outside the
district? And I'm very prominently outside of a
district, too. I mean, he holds elected office
outside the district. Can he come in and say, I want
to be your congressman? >> Well, running outside
the district is not uncommon at all in
Wisconsin. You don't need to live in the district.
You're only supposed to live there by the time you
take office. So he doesn't even have to set up
residence there in order to campaign there. Even if he
does win the nomination, that's not uncommon. It is
a matter of winning a primary if you don't live
there, because he has to convince the voters in that
district that he should be the Democrat to represent
them against Steil in the fall. And that is a little
bit of a tougher ask. That is him saying, I'm the one
that's different from the rest of these that you
haven't really coalesced around in the past. And
this would represent more of trying to bring in
national attention, but it would require a national
wave to upset Steil in this district. When you look at
district congressional national Dems didn't even
invest into the third, which is a much closer
district. In past races, they didn't come close to
investing in the first, and so it would require a
completely different landscape for national
money to really come in from the Democratic Party
to say we see the first as in play.
>> It could be a case of they just want Bryan Steil
to spend his money and not have that sitting around
for a future election, too. >> That makes a big
difference. >> Let's move on to another
primary. And since I'm naming stuff today, I'm
going to call this one the Opportunity Knocks. No, we
we did the Opportunity knocks primary. I need to
get my name straight. If I'm going to do this. This
is the don't tell me what to do primary. An important
distinction in Democratic primaries. We've got a
couple of examples here today. Let's start with one
in the third Congressional District. Rich, I've heard
a lot about this district because it's our most
competitive congressional district. Derrick Van Orden
is the Republican incumbent. I've heard a lot about
Rebecca Cooke, the Democratic challenger who
has outraised him recently and seems to be getting a
lot of attention. There is a primary there who's
running. >> So the primary is
between Cooke, who's an Eau Claire Democrat raised on a
dairy farm in the county and, you know, has done
some political consulting work, fundraising work for
Democrats in years past. But now she's back. She's
really portraying herself as kind of of the district,
you know, born and bred Wisconsin, etc. Republicans
are trying to, you know, focus the attention on her
consulting work, etc. The other Democrat is longtime
Eau Claire City Council member, former council
president, until just recently, Emily Berg of Eau
Claire. And she she's portraying herself as the
grassroots choice in this race. And national
Democrats came in and started sending resources,
staff, etc. back in February to Cooke's
campaign. And Berg said, well, that's pretty dirty.
You know, she essentially said D.C. shouldn't be
deciding who is the Democrat to face Van Orden.
It should be the people of Eau Claire. And just
anecdotally, when I'm walking through the city, I
don't see a lot of Cooke signs. In fact, I don't
remember seeing any. But I see a whole bunch of Berg
signs. So this being one of the more, if not the most
populous areas in the third district, maybe that makes
a difference. But in terms of resources, Cooke is way,
way, way ahead of Berg. In all the fundraising reports
that I've seen. >> Zac, do you get the
sense that this is, you know, a competitive primary
here? >> It could be it really
depends on how much the primary voters pay
attention. And that's always the issue in some of
these primaries is name recognition makes a big
deal. That's why the National Party comes in and
puts resources behind Cooke. It's not necessarily that
they like her more. It's they think she has the
better chance to win in the fall and get her moving.
Now. It's the old mentality we talked about at the
beginning of the show of why didn't Democrats do
primaries in the past? It takes resources, it can get
ugly, it can get negative. It could hurt the candidate.
Going into the fall. I ran into Berg when she was
campaigning with Francesca Hong for governor in La
Crosse. They were doing an event at the same bookstore.
And it's not a coincidence that while we were talking
to them, they were talking about going and seeing them
at the next stop. And there there is a kind of thematic
fit with that campaign of more grassroots, more from
the bottom up and running against party types who
tell us who our candidates should be. Parties like to
dictate sometimes who the candidate can be so they
can focus resources. Sometimes that does run up
against a wall, which is why your title for this
Don't Tell Me What to Do, does fit, because there are
candidates who are going to say no. Let the people
decide. People have to pay attention though.
another. Don't tell me what to do. Primary Ana. This is
in one of the state Senate districts that we're
watching that could Wisconsin state Senate this
year. The 17th state Senate district. Howard Marklein
is the Republican incumbent, and the Democratic Party
had been sending strong signals that they knew who
they wanted to run for a while now. And yet there's
a candidate who says, I want to run to tell us
about it. >> Yeah. So Jenna Jacobson,
who currently serves in the Assembly, has been sort of
the anointed Democratic Howard Marklein for this
district, which also has been redrawn in a way that
could be more favorable for Democrats. So Marklein sort
of on his heels in that way. But then yesterday we got
the announcement that Corrin Hendrickson, who if
you have written an article or read an article about
child care advocacy in the last three years, you have
heard that name. She has been at the Capitol. She
was a small business owner, a daycare owner in New
Glarus. That was very much her issue. And now she's
running for office. So a political newcomer,
somebody with this kind of particular set of policy
expectations and preferences challenging a
fellow Democrat. And so that is a caught our
attention for that reason, that it's a competitive
district. It's not safe for Democrats. So here's
somebody coming in and saying, I want to throw my
hat in, and I want to advocate for my specific
approach to politics. >> And, you know, I do feel
like we have this debate about primaries pretty much
every single primary about whether it's going to help
or hurt the candidates. I think they are making a bet
this year that they can afford to have those
debates. And the argument for it helping them is that
they are going to kind of dominate the news cycle for
a little while in August and get more attention than
candidates that don't have a primary. Okay. One
primary that is really big this year in our world, the
Democratic primary for governor, we're not going
to talk about today, but if you had to name that one,
anybody got any takers here? >> The why not primary? I
think everyone and their mother is running for
governor in the state. >> So we've got at least
seven candidates running any labels for it?
>> Ana stole mine. >> I want to add. I want to
a small amendment to yours. The why not me? You know,
primaries, actually, what I had thought about. So maybe
you stole both of ours. It is kind of one of those
years where you see a race that's kind of there for
the taking. Why not jump in? >> So Shawn, let's flip
this on its head for you, because part of the idea
behind having primaries in the past or not having them
was fear of wasting resources. But the other
end of it was you can battle, test, and whoever
comes through a primary is a better candidate for the
general election. So what's your take on a wide open
primary like this? How can it help Democrats if there
are battling this many people there?
>> I think that, you know, there are plenty of
examples in the recent past, particularly among
Republicans, where you come out of a battle tested
primary and you are wounded. And it did not help them
very much in the general election. I think in 2018,
Tony Evers came out of a battle tested primary and
was a little bit out of money. So there is a risk
to it, but it does also get attention, I guess is the
thing that it does for sure. >> I think another piece of
this too, is that it's very easy to kind of present a
unified front as a party when you're in the minority,
because it doesn't really matter, right? You don't
have power. And so we might know that kind of behind
the scenes, the further left Democrats and the more
centrist Democrats don't then they all come forward
and kind of vote in alignment. And so now what
we're seeing, because there's a little bit more
of a sense that perhaps they could actually win
things and gain power. There's also, I think, a
little bit of a fight for what will the Democratic
Party in Wisconsin look like, vote like, will they
be further left? Will it be more of a Hong kind of
situation? Will they be more moderate, more kind of
aligned with national Democrats? And so I think
we're seeing that fight kind of play out or tension
play out in a lot of these primaries.
news to get to here today, including another
technically not a Democratic primary, but you
have a couple candidates running for the 2027
Supreme Court race already. Anya, how did this happen?
We just had a court race. >> We sure did. So two
weeks after, I think the the court race was resolved,
Lindsay Brunet threw in her hat. And she is a former
prosecutor, much like three of the current sitting
liberals. And then a couple days ago, Pedro Colon, who
is a Milwaukee area judge, threw his hat. And he is
also a liberal judge, but he comes from a law making
background. And so we're seeing two types of
judicial candidates, one who more closely mirrors
the Susan Crawford, Janet Protasiewicz kind of model
of the last couple of years, a Democrat, but with a law
and order background, and then one who more closely
mirrors Chris Taylor with the lawmaker advocacy
background, which again, I think shows that there's a
little bit of this wanting to push pull for what kind
of liberal judge do we want? Because liberals have the
court, no matter what they think, that they probably
have the election in the bag. And so, again, in what
direction will the liberal justice land?
>> What what do we call this one? The we? We're
going to win this one anyway. Let's do what we
want. No, maybe I should let this one go. If we
don't have a good name, it's got to be on a bumper
sticker. Rich, you talked to Pedro Colon about why he
was getting into the race. And, you know, these
introductory interviews are usually pretty boring. They
don't say too much. I feel like Pedro Colon told you
some stuff. >> Yeah. He did. I asked,
you know, what differentiates you from
Judge Brunet? And he said, unfortunately, it's
experience. She doesn't have the substance
substantive experience that he does, which includes the
decade or so in the legislature and his years
on the bench and the state appeals court in Milwaukee.
So that surprised me. I was not expecting him right out
of the gate to take a little swipe at his
competitor. And the Brunet campaign sent me a
statement saying, as much as well. They said, look, a
number of justices have had the same amount of
experience as Judge Brunet and have been elected to
the state's highest court. So there's that. And they
also said it's interesting that on his during his
announcement, he attacked Judge Brunet.
>> So already a. >> Little.
And and endorsements too, as you reported on you,
justice elect Chris Taylor has endorsed Pedro Colon.
>> Immediately, immediately. >> And then we also have an
endorsement from Congressman Mark Pocan
endorsing Pedro Colon. Mark Pocan and Pedro Colon were
like budget buddies on the Joint Finance Committee in
2005. I can tell you that they spent a lot of time
together writing, you know, arguing against that
Republican budget that year. So you get to know each
other in politics, relationships can be a big
deal sometimes. >> Well, what's interesting
about this race is we've got two on the Liberal side
that are in. I heard both those names on election
night. I had someone in a campaign tell me, Judge
Brunette's going to announce, just watch your
inbox. That'll be coming out. That was on election
night. Judge Cologne was at the election party. I
interviewed him and talked to him and he was doing the
oh, we'll have to wait and see. But his name had been
floated for prior campaigns. So if we're looking for
labels, this is. It used to be a wait your turn one at
a time. I think there are liberal candidates
realizing I might have to wait a long time to wait my
turn. Why wait? Just get in there.
>> Seven justices, ten year terms. If you want to do it,
better get in. Zac. We had a couple decisions this
week. Court decisions on redistricting, one in state
court, which I'll summarize a little bit too quickly
here to say that three judge panel basically said
we are not going to deal with the congressional map
this year. Another big decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which, you know, court watchers have
said is going to gut the Voting Rights Act. What
could that mean for Wisconsin?
>> Well, they're kind of tailed together a little
bit. This is the second three judge panel that has
thrown out challenges to our congressional lines.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has repeatedly said, we
don't want to handle this right now. The United
States Supreme Court decision that went after
the Voting Rights Act has to do with minority
majority districts, of which the fourth
Congressional Gwen Moore district in Wisconsin is
one of those. So if lines are going to get redrawn,
if the courts are going to look at this, that could
mean some of those lines getting shifted in the
future and the way that they're drawn, without
having to protect as much of that minority and
majority district in Milwaukee. So there's a lot
of implications, one of which is will this new
makeup of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Now take a
look at these lines again, especially with new
judgment from the United States Supreme Court.
>> Yeah. And it seems like nationally, I've seen a lot
about how this could be a benefit to Republicans in
southern states. I think in Wisconsin, it's an open
question about which party would benefit. Does feel
like it is potentially detrimental, though, to
minority representation nationwide. That's all the
time we have for today. Thanks for joining us. This
has been inside Wisconsin politics. Be sure to follow
us on PBS Wisconsin. Org WPR.org, YouTube, or
wherever you get your podcasts.