1
00:00:01,068 --> 00:00:04,137
a political comeback for
the ages. How did he do it

2
00:00:04,204 --> 00:00:08,375
and what does it mean for
November? This is inside

3
00:00:08,442 --> 00:00:10,444
Wisconsin politics.

4
00:00:13,313 --> 00:00:15,816
I'm Shawn Johnson here with my
colleague Zac Schultz and

5
00:00:15,883 --> 00:00:17,784
Rich Kremer in Eau Claire.
Hey, guys.

6
00:00:17,851 --> 00:00:20,721
>> Hello.
>> So let's go back just

7
00:00:20,787 --> 00:00:24,625
one month here. David
Crowley was not a candidate

8
00:00:24,691 --> 00:00:27,761
for governor. He had ended
his campaign, told us that

9
00:00:27,828 --> 00:00:29,363
it was because he knew he
was not going to be the

10
00:00:29,429 --> 00:00:32,232
nominee.
Tuesday he received

11
00:00:32,933 --> 00:00:37,871
315,000 votes. Around 40%
of the Democratic voting

12
00:00:37,938 --> 00:00:41,909
electorate. Zac, I want to
hear how he did this. How

13
00:00:41,975 --> 00:00:45,078
did he pull off this one
month comeback?

14
00:00:45,145 --> 00:00:46,914
>> Well, I think most
importantly is he didn't do

15
00:00:46,980 --> 00:00:50,217
it alone. He did this with
all of the team players.

16
00:00:50,284 --> 00:00:52,986
And I know he doesn't like
the idea of being the

17
00:00:53,053 --> 00:00:55,255
establishment, but the
Democratic establishment is

18
00:00:55,322 --> 00:00:58,192
what pushed him over the
line and pulled him all the

19
00:00:58,258 --> 00:01:00,561
way to this nomination. He
certainly worked for it.

20
00:01:00,627 --> 00:01:02,930
But Tony Evers coming back
with his endorsement, and

21
00:01:02,996 --> 00:01:04,798
we talked before on this
podcast about how

22
00:01:04,865 --> 00:01:06,934
endorsements aren't
everything. But then he

23
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:09,570
followed up by doing the
work with him. Tony Evers

24
00:01:09,636 --> 00:01:11,705
campaigning, bringing the
media attention to every

25
00:01:11,772 --> 00:01:14,341
one of David Crowley stops
along the way was critical

26
00:01:14,408 --> 00:01:16,743
because it got him on more
television sets, more

27
00:01:16,810 --> 00:01:20,013
newscasts, got people aware
that there were contrasts

28
00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:22,082
in this race, that it
wasn't a runaway, and that

29
00:01:22,149 --> 00:01:24,284
if Crowley had a chance,
voters needed to be

30
00:01:24,351 --> 00:01:27,187
thinking about it. I can't
tell you how many people I

31
00:01:27,254 --> 00:01:30,190
ran into in just the last
week who said they had not

32
00:01:30,257 --> 00:01:32,860
made up their minds. They
truly were still undecided

33
00:01:32,926 --> 00:01:35,429
going into the final few
days, where they had a

34
00:01:35,495 --> 00:01:37,798
chance to to decide this
election. And it's clear a

35
00:01:37,865 --> 00:01:40,968
lot of them went to David
Crowley.

36
00:01:41,034 --> 00:01:44,304
>> Rich, what's your take
on this dramatic comeback

37
00:01:44,371 --> 00:01:48,475
here by Crowley?
>> Well, it was remarkable.

38
00:01:48,542 --> 00:01:52,579
It was not expected. I mean,
I was I was fully on board

39
00:01:52,646 --> 00:01:56,416
with these polls that we
were seeing showing

40
00:01:56,483 --> 00:01:59,186
Francesca Hong way ahead.
But I do remember, you know,

41
00:01:59,253 --> 00:02:02,389
what Zac just mentioned
reminded me of talking with

42
00:02:02,456 --> 00:02:04,958
Charles Franklin, and he
essentially said, well,

43
00:02:05,025 --> 00:02:07,895
there are a lot of
undecided people out there.

44
00:02:07,961 --> 00:02:11,465
But, you know, with hung at
the, you know, 20, 30

45
00:02:11,532 --> 00:02:13,700
points ahead that we'd seen
in some polls, it would

46
00:02:13,767 --> 00:02:16,436
take essentially every
undecided person, you know,

47
00:02:16,503 --> 00:02:18,939
rallying behind one
candidate when he told me

48
00:02:19,006 --> 00:02:21,575
that it wasn't, you know,
we still had other

49
00:02:21,642 --> 00:02:25,512
candidates like Barnes in
the race. So it does appear

50
00:02:25,579 --> 00:02:30,417
that the end of undecided
voters did make a decision

51
00:02:30,484 --> 00:02:34,321
and went out. So it was it
was just something else.

52
00:02:34,388 --> 00:02:37,758
And being at a Republican
event on Tuesday night was

53
00:02:37,824 --> 00:02:39,927
interesting because of the
reactions that I saw from

54
00:02:39,993 --> 00:02:42,930
people.
polls just a little bit

55
00:02:42,996 --> 00:02:45,365
more, because I can imagine
somebody sitting at home

56
00:02:45,432 --> 00:02:49,136
and thinking, hey, you know,
the news presented this to

57
00:02:49,203 --> 00:02:53,507
me as Francesca Hong
victory, you know, weeks

58
00:02:53,574 --> 00:02:55,742
ago essentially, that there
were these repeated polls

59
00:02:55,809 --> 00:02:58,745
that showed her leading and
that gave the clear

60
00:02:58,812 --> 00:03:01,415
impression that, you know,
she was going to win this

61
00:03:01,481 --> 00:03:05,385
thing. Zac. I mean, what
would you say to someone

62
00:03:05,452 --> 00:03:07,387
with with those qualms
about the information they

63
00:03:07,454 --> 00:03:09,556
were receiving?
>> They are right to have

64
00:03:09,623 --> 00:03:11,859
qualms about polling.
Everyone should always take

65
00:03:11,925 --> 00:03:14,027
polling with a grain of
salt. Even the pollsters

66
00:03:14,094 --> 00:03:16,230
say that. But the thing
that most people I think

67
00:03:16,296 --> 00:03:19,433
get wrong about what polls
are is even Charles

68
00:03:19,499 --> 00:03:22,336
Franklin will say it. They
are a snapshot of that

69
00:03:22,402 --> 00:03:24,671
moment. So the mistake I
think some people make is

70
00:03:24,738 --> 00:03:27,741
they think polling is like
the the score of a game in

71
00:03:27,808 --> 00:03:31,044
the third quarter. They say,
oh, well, hangs up 21

72
00:03:31,111 --> 00:03:32,946
points. It's like the
Packers being up 21 points.

73
00:03:33,013 --> 00:03:35,616
They should have this in
the bag. If they lose it's

74
00:03:35,682 --> 00:03:38,619
a complete colossal failure.
But you have to think of

75
00:03:38,685 --> 00:03:41,555
those polls that came out a
few weeks ago as more of

76
00:03:41,622 --> 00:03:43,790
like a preseason game. They
were a snapshot of where

77
00:03:43,857 --> 00:03:46,660
the race looked at that
time. The real game was on

78
00:03:46,727 --> 00:03:50,097
election night, and at that
point, it was a toss up

79
00:03:50,163 --> 00:03:52,566
because so many more people
had been changing their

80
00:03:52,633 --> 00:03:55,068
minds and moving to Crowley,
and the polls weren't

81
00:03:55,135 --> 00:03:57,304
updated to be able to
reflect that. So if you

82
00:03:57,371 --> 00:04:00,073
think of the polls as a
snapshot and not reality

83
00:04:00,140 --> 00:04:03,443
and not a score on the
board, they are a little

84
00:04:03,510 --> 00:04:06,780
better guide Pfaff to what
the situation may be, and I

85
00:04:06,847 --> 00:04:09,783
think everyone should note
Francesca Hong polling said

86
00:04:09,850 --> 00:04:13,554
she was going to get 40%,
she got 40%. And that was,

87
00:04:13,620 --> 00:04:16,390
you know, considering that
primary polling has an even

88
00:04:16,456 --> 00:04:20,060
larger margin of error, she
the polls really got her

89
00:04:20,127 --> 00:04:22,863
support correct. And they
did reflect the amount of

90
00:04:22,930 --> 00:04:25,365
undecideds. It is rare to
see all the undecideds go

91
00:04:25,432 --> 00:04:27,968
to the second place
candidate, but I think that

92
00:04:28,035 --> 00:04:30,170
goes more to what we were
just talking about of the

93
00:04:30,237 --> 00:04:32,573
establishment telling
everyone this has to happen

94
00:04:32,639 --> 00:04:34,741
in the context of what had
happened in the Michigan

95
00:04:34,808 --> 00:04:37,444
Senate race and all these
national figureheads coming

96
00:04:37,511 --> 00:04:40,414
to Wisconsin. It really got
a lot of people thinking,

97
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:43,083
all right, this is not just
about who I like the most

98
00:04:43,150 --> 00:04:45,385
or who's leading. This is
about electability.

99
00:04:45,452 --> 00:04:49,056
>> Yeah. I think the point
you made, there is

100
00:04:49,122 --> 00:04:51,859
something I want to impress
upon myself and all

101
00:04:51,925 --> 00:04:55,729
reporters for future
elections that the

102
00:04:56,463 --> 00:04:58,432
undecided number is pretty
significant. I think, even

103
00:04:58,498 --> 00:05:00,634
looking back and we're
going to talk about today,

104
00:05:00,701 --> 00:05:03,570
but in 2016, there was a
lot of talk about where the

105
00:05:03,637 --> 00:05:06,473
polls got it wrong. I think
we didn't talk about the

106
00:05:06,540 --> 00:05:08,475
undecided voters or the
people who wouldn't commit

107
00:05:08,542 --> 00:05:10,410
in the presidential race
that year. That's another

108
00:05:10,477 --> 00:05:12,579
one that sticks out in our
mind. And this just

109
00:05:12,646 --> 00:05:15,482
underscores that a
candidate can win all those,

110
00:05:15,549 --> 00:05:20,120
as David Crowley did. But
for him to do that, Rich,

111
00:05:20,787 --> 00:05:25,526
you just do not see that
level of surge at the end

112
00:05:25,592 --> 00:05:29,530
by one candidate. How big
do you think was Governor

113
00:05:29,596 --> 00:05:34,034
Tony Evers in this instance?
>> Well, obviously it was a

114
00:05:34,101 --> 00:05:37,037
big deal, which is
interesting because looking

115
00:05:37,104 --> 00:05:40,908
back to a poll that we had
before the primary, you

116
00:05:40,974 --> 00:05:43,410
know, the Marquette
University Law School asked

117
00:05:43,477 --> 00:05:46,346
people, how much does
Governor Evers endorsement

118
00:05:46,413 --> 00:05:49,983
of David Crowley impact
your decision? And majority

119
00:05:50,050 --> 00:05:54,988
said it didn't, but clearly
it did. But what also might

120
00:05:55,055 --> 00:05:58,525
have impacted and probably
did impact those undecided

121
00:05:58,592 --> 00:06:02,930
voters decision to get
behind Crowley was a big

122
00:06:02,996 --> 00:06:07,067
surge of campaign TV
advertising. So ad impact,

123
00:06:07,134 --> 00:06:10,838
which is a great service,
and they put out a tweet

124
00:06:10,904 --> 00:06:13,340
and it showed, you know, a
line graph of all the

125
00:06:13,407 --> 00:06:16,210
different candidates and
what they were spending on

126
00:06:16,276 --> 00:06:19,179
ads right up to the
election. And there's just

127
00:06:19,246 --> 00:06:21,982
one blue line that that
goes straight up like Mount

128
00:06:22,049 --> 00:06:24,852
Everest and then crashes
back down. Well, that is

129
00:06:24,918 --> 00:06:27,754
David Crowley. So it looked
like something maybe

130
00:06:27,821 --> 00:06:31,692
upwards of $1 million in
that last those final days.

131
00:06:31,758 --> 00:06:34,995
And I was talking with a
friend of the podcast,

132
00:06:35,062 --> 00:06:39,533
Anthony Chergosky, today,
and he said, TV, ad TV

133
00:06:40,868 --> 00:06:43,003
advertising does matter. It
still matters because there

134
00:06:43,070 --> 00:06:45,506
were discussions about
whether or not, you know,

135
00:06:45,572 --> 00:06:49,109
Hong's success in the polls
without spending any money

136
00:06:49,176 --> 00:06:52,079
on TV ads. I was seeing
people saying, well, maybe

137
00:06:52,145 --> 00:06:55,249
this is the new way. Maybe
the old model is dead.

138
00:06:55,315 --> 00:06:57,451
Chergosky doesn't see it
that way. And he said, that

139
00:06:57,518 --> 00:07:01,655
ad impact graph proves it.
>> And I think that those

140
00:07:01,722 --> 00:07:04,992
ads come at a time, or they
came at a time when all

141
00:07:05,058 --> 00:07:07,027
these people who were not
paying attention to this

142
00:07:07,094 --> 00:07:09,563
race started paying
attention. They came at the

143
00:07:09,630 --> 00:07:11,999
right time for David
Crowley, essentially.

144
00:07:12,065 --> 00:07:14,601
>> So, Shawn, I want to get
your feedback here. So

145
00:07:14,668 --> 00:07:17,304
we've talked on this
podcast about Francesca

146
00:07:17,371 --> 00:07:19,373
Hong Thanksgiving tweets
and some of the things that

147
00:07:19,439 --> 00:07:22,209
were coming up out of her
past. Give me your

148
00:07:22,276 --> 00:07:24,611
impression of Crowley's
ascent with everyone

149
00:07:24,678 --> 00:07:27,147
rallying behind him,
including the money, and

150
00:07:27,214 --> 00:07:30,050
then the way Francesca Hong
handled the amount of

151
00:07:30,117 --> 00:07:32,686
national attention she was
getting, questions about

152
00:07:32,753 --> 00:07:35,889
her past that really hadn't
been pushed on her early in

153
00:07:35,956 --> 00:07:38,625
the campaign, and certainly
not by the other campaigns,

154
00:07:38,692 --> 00:07:41,995
as we saw a very friendly
only debate. So how much of

155
00:07:42,062 --> 00:07:43,830
an impact do you think that
played with those undecided

156
00:07:43,897 --> 00:07:46,700
voters in the last week or
two?

157
00:07:47,100 --> 00:07:49,469
national window for our
race was just so brief.

158
00:07:49,536 --> 00:07:52,372
There were national media
was paying attention to

159
00:07:52,439 --> 00:07:55,075
Michigan before us, and
then all of a sudden we

160
00:07:55,142 --> 00:07:57,778
were the next big thing. I
think it's fair to argue

161
00:07:57,845 --> 00:08:00,781
about whether or not people
should focus on a tweet

162
00:08:00,848 --> 00:08:05,018
from 2020, but they did. I
was visiting my dad the

163
00:08:05,085 --> 00:08:06,987
weekend before the election.
He lives in Illinois. He

164
00:08:07,054 --> 00:08:10,390
watches all the Sunday
shows religiously, and

165
00:08:10,457 --> 00:08:13,227
every one of them talked
about that Thanksgiving

166
00:08:13,293 --> 00:08:15,762
tweet. My dad doesn't know
who Francesca Hong is or

167
00:08:15,829 --> 00:08:17,965
David Crowley or much about
the governor's race in

168
00:08:18,031 --> 00:08:20,834
Wisconsin, but he got an
earful about that tweet

169
00:08:20,901 --> 00:08:23,504
that weekend. And if he'd
been watching those shows

170
00:08:23,570 --> 00:08:26,940
in Wisconsin, he would have
been seeing ads in between

171
00:08:27,007 --> 00:08:29,409
saying to vote for David
Crowley. So that stuff

172
00:08:29,476 --> 00:08:32,112
matters and the timing
matters. And she did have

173
00:08:32,179 --> 00:08:34,348
an answer about that tweet
that came later that kind

174
00:08:34,414 --> 00:08:37,251
of shrugged it off and said,
look, I'll be I'll be frank.

175
00:08:37,317 --> 00:08:40,254
I'm a curmudgeon when it
comes to the holidays. But

176
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:43,590
but I love Thanksgiving.
It's not what she said at

177
00:08:43,657 --> 00:08:47,861
first. At first she kind of
stood by it. And, you know,

178
00:08:47,928 --> 00:08:52,165
I know this stuff is is
sort of dumb, arguably, but

179
00:08:52,232 --> 00:08:56,470
it's how elections are won
and lost. And so in a race

180
00:08:56,537 --> 00:09:00,474
that was won in this case
by David Crowley by 4000

181
00:09:00,541 --> 00:09:05,412
votes, a little less stuff
like that can matter. Rich.

182
00:09:05,479 --> 00:09:09,550
>> If I could chime in,
I've seen some pundits

183
00:09:09,616 --> 00:09:12,619
online talking about, well,
Hong's campaign collapsed

184
00:09:12,686 --> 00:09:15,422
at the very final moments
because of the way she

185
00:09:15,489 --> 00:09:17,624
handled those media
interviews at the national

186
00:09:17,691 --> 00:09:20,594
level. I want to ask both
of you, Shawn and Zac, did

187
00:09:20,661 --> 00:09:22,829
you see her campaign, you
know, at the very final

188
00:09:22,896 --> 00:09:26,366
stages as a collapse or an
implosion?

189
00:09:27,534 --> 00:09:29,603
>> I think it's harder to
say, because she did hit

190
00:09:29,670 --> 00:09:32,639
the polling mark that she
was at. If she came in

191
00:09:32,706 --> 00:09:35,475
significant below,
significantly below what

192
00:09:35,542 --> 00:09:38,245
people were talking that
she would receive, then you

193
00:09:38,312 --> 00:09:40,747
could wonder, did some of
those soft Hong supporters

194
00:09:40,814 --> 00:09:43,350
disappear and leave her at
the end? But we didn't see

195
00:09:43,417 --> 00:09:46,119
that she hit the marks that
all the polling said she

196
00:09:46,186 --> 00:09:48,288
had along the way. The
difference is the people

197
00:09:48,355 --> 00:09:50,691
that hadn't made up their
minds chose elsewhere. I

198
00:09:50,757 --> 00:09:53,026
think those were about
electability concerns. I

199
00:09:53,093 --> 00:09:55,796
think there are legitimate
questions about how she

200
00:09:55,863 --> 00:09:57,831
answered those questions
when the national spotlight

201
00:09:57,898 --> 00:10:01,235
was on her, and whether the
people in Wisconsin that

202
00:10:01,301 --> 00:10:03,136
had been paying attention
were starting to think more

203
00:10:03,203 --> 00:10:06,607
about electability than
about policy. But I don't

204
00:10:06,673 --> 00:10:08,909
know if collapse is the
right word when she's still

205
00:10:08,976 --> 00:10:11,812
got 40% of the vote or
thereabouts. And that's a

206
00:10:11,879 --> 00:10:13,580
really strong showing from
any candidate, especially

207
00:10:13,647 --> 00:10:16,116
someone from her background
who doesn't have a long

208
00:10:16,183 --> 00:10:19,553
track record of politics in
Wisconsin and hasn't spent

209
00:10:19,620 --> 00:10:21,522
a long time developing
those relations around the

210
00:10:21,588 --> 00:10:23,490
state. So she had a very
impressive showing from

211
00:10:23,557 --> 00:10:26,793
that context.
>> And I think there are

212
00:10:26,860 --> 00:10:29,696
just choices in the way
that she ran her race in

213
00:10:29,763 --> 00:10:32,666
the closing days. I mean,
not going on television was

214
00:10:32,733 --> 00:10:35,702
a choice. I know TV is not
free, and she didn't have a

215
00:10:35,769 --> 00:10:37,971
ton of money. And the money
really flowed to David

216
00:10:38,038 --> 00:10:40,908
Crowley there at the end.
So it's not like she could

217
00:10:40,974 --> 00:10:43,810
just snap her fingers and
run TV ads. But she did run

218
00:10:43,877 --> 00:10:45,812
a campaign in different
ways. And, you know, when

219
00:10:45,879 --> 00:10:48,081
you're trying to reach
these kind of casual

220
00:10:48,148 --> 00:10:50,684
primary voters, maybe older
voters in the closing days,

221
00:10:50,751 --> 00:10:53,053
she didn't have a strategy
for that or the resources

222
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:55,889
for that in the way that
Crowley did. It's also a

223
00:10:55,956 --> 00:10:58,559
choice. I know it's her
community and she felt

224
00:10:58,625 --> 00:11:01,161
passionate about it, but it
is a choice to go to the

225
00:11:01,228 --> 00:11:04,331
site of a shooting and call
it an execution over a

226
00:11:04,398 --> 00:11:07,034
bullhorn, as she did in the
closing days of the race.

227
00:11:07,100 --> 00:11:09,303
That gets attention. And
she said in a debate, she

228
00:11:09,369 --> 00:11:12,439
wouldn't do that as
governor. She did it as a

229
00:11:12,506 --> 00:11:15,409
candidate for governor,
though. So those are

230
00:11:15,475 --> 00:11:18,245
choices. I think another
debatable thing in this

231
00:11:18,312 --> 00:11:21,148
campaign is the role that
these Republican ads

232
00:11:21,215 --> 00:11:24,918
attacking Hong played.
These were run backed by

233
00:11:24,985 --> 00:11:29,089
the Republican Governors
Association and the going

234
00:11:29,156 --> 00:11:33,427
theory among Democrats,
Democrats who didn't want

235
00:11:33,493 --> 00:11:35,963
Hong to be the nominee was
that these were there to

236
00:11:36,029 --> 00:11:38,999
prop her up, that they were
going to run these ads in

237
00:11:39,066 --> 00:11:42,035
these Milwaukee and Madison
media markets where all

238
00:11:42,102 --> 00:11:44,705
these Democratic voters are
and say she's too liberal

239
00:11:44,771 --> 00:11:47,140
for Wisconsin, and that
Democratic voters would see

240
00:11:47,207 --> 00:11:51,378
that and say, liberal.
That's my that's my choice.

241
00:11:51,445 --> 00:11:53,847
Zac, would you say that's
the effect that it had, or

242
00:11:53,914 --> 00:11:56,250
did they backfire on
Republicans?

243
00:11:56,316 --> 00:11:58,252
>> I think, well,
Republicans saw those ads

244
00:11:58,318 --> 00:12:02,556
as a twofer. One, they did
boost her with liberals by

245
00:12:02,623 --> 00:12:04,591
letting by giving her more
name recognition than she

246
00:12:04,658 --> 00:12:08,228
would have otherwise had.
And two, even in the

247
00:12:08,295 --> 00:12:10,330
Madison and Milwaukee
television viewing areas,

248
00:12:10,397 --> 00:12:12,599
there are a lot of
Republican voters out there.

249
00:12:12,666 --> 00:12:15,169
So it was working towards
the election. That's still

250
00:12:15,235 --> 00:12:17,938
to come. If she was the
nominee, it was weakening

251
00:12:18,005 --> 00:12:20,440
her and tarnishing her name,
attaching her to these

252
00:12:20,507 --> 00:12:22,676
issues with Republicans
that would vote, getting

253
00:12:22,743 --> 00:12:25,479
them aware of who she was.
So they definitely saw that

254
00:12:25,546 --> 00:12:29,183
as a great double by doing
two things at once. It

255
00:12:29,249 --> 00:12:32,686
backfired in the sense that
it really did alarm a lot

256
00:12:32,753 --> 00:12:35,522
of Democrats, and it made
it easier for Crowley to

257
00:12:35,589 --> 00:12:37,491
say, this is who
Republicans want to face,

258
00:12:37,558 --> 00:12:40,961
and we should talk more
about why and the

259
00:12:41,028 --> 00:12:43,397
vulnerabilities that lie
within their boosting his

260
00:12:43,463 --> 00:12:45,332
credibility. When it came
to electability.

261
00:12:45,399 --> 00:12:48,235
>> It was kind of his
opening. I mean, it let him

262
00:12:48,302 --> 00:12:50,704
attack her without really
attacking her because

263
00:12:50,771 --> 00:12:53,006
Democrats had been hands
off at that point. And

264
00:12:53,073 --> 00:12:55,442
David Crowley is going to
want her voters in November,

265
00:12:55,509 --> 00:12:58,679
so he doesn't want to
attack her too aggressively

266
00:12:58,745 --> 00:13:01,982
socialists have no place in
our party. Of course, he's

267
00:13:02,049 --> 00:13:04,618
not going to say that. He's
going to want those

268
00:13:04,685 --> 00:13:08,355
Francesca Hong supporters
were definitely the opening

269
00:13:08,422 --> 00:13:13,393
for him. Rich, I know a lot
of political observers

270
00:13:13,460 --> 00:13:17,397
nationally were looking to
Wisconsin. As for a lesson

271
00:13:17,464 --> 00:13:20,834
in terms of whether
democratic socialism that

272
00:13:20,901 --> 00:13:24,972
has played well in other
states can play in a

273
00:13:25,038 --> 00:13:28,008
Midwest swing state, what
lesson can they take away

274
00:13:28,075 --> 00:13:31,678
from our race?
>> Oh boy, that's such a

275
00:13:31,745 --> 00:13:35,415
big question. I feel a
little unqualified in

276
00:13:35,482 --> 00:13:38,986
answering, but I you know,
the obvious takeaway is it

277
00:13:39,052 --> 00:13:43,190
didn't it didn't work this
time. But all the caveats

278
00:13:43,257 --> 00:13:47,127
being the coordinated
effort by establishment

279
00:13:47,194 --> 00:13:50,130
Democrats, moderate
Democrats to make it make

280
00:13:50,197 --> 00:13:52,933
sure that it doesn't happen.
So I would say at face

281
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:55,602
value, yeah, I guess it
didn't work out. And it

282
00:13:55,669 --> 00:14:00,274
came pretty close in in the
effort to stop the far left,

283
00:14:00,340 --> 00:14:02,276
you know, progressive
candidate in the Senate

284
00:14:02,342 --> 00:14:05,179
race in Michigan, the
closeness of that, plus

285
00:14:05,245 --> 00:14:08,749
this maybe it changed the
conversation.

286
00:14:08,815 --> 00:14:11,084
>> And I guess the
counterpoint to that would

287
00:14:11,151 --> 00:14:14,621
be if if she picks up 5000
more votes, then, you know,

288
00:14:14,688 --> 00:14:16,890
we're we're having a
different discussion here

289
00:14:16,957 --> 00:14:21,128
today. What does this mean
for November? I mean, I

290
00:14:21,195 --> 00:14:24,298
think that Republicans were
starting to expect it was

291
00:14:24,364 --> 00:14:27,634
going to be Tom Tiffany
versus Francesca Hong. What

292
00:14:27,701 --> 00:14:31,738
does it mean that it is Tom
Tiffany versus David

293
00:14:31,805 --> 00:14:34,341
Crowley you were at the
Tiffany campaign

294
00:14:34,408 --> 00:14:37,411
headquarters on election
night. Rich, what's your

295
00:14:37,477 --> 00:14:40,614
impression?
>> Oh, man. It was this is

296
00:14:40,681 --> 00:14:44,151
what I was alluding to in
the beginning. It was

297
00:14:44,218 --> 00:14:46,687
really interesting. So the
spirits were high the whole

298
00:14:46,753 --> 00:14:49,723
night, because there was no
doubt that Tiffany was

299
00:14:49,790 --> 00:14:54,595
going to be the nominee.
And the other thing was,

300
00:14:54,661 --> 00:14:57,598
before the polls closed, I
talked to a few people that

301
00:14:57,664 --> 00:15:01,034
were there and they said,
well, hang. Being the

302
00:15:01,101 --> 00:15:03,704
nominee obviously makes it
easier for Tiffany. And

303
00:15:03,770 --> 00:15:07,474
people were telling me they
hang, scares them, etc. and

304
00:15:07,541 --> 00:15:10,410
then what I noticed was
spirits were still high,

305
00:15:10,477 --> 00:15:13,647
but people became more and
more glued to the big

306
00:15:13,714 --> 00:15:17,684
screen showing cable news
and their phones. And I

307
00:15:17,751 --> 00:15:20,387
went outside a couple times
and there was some young

308
00:15:20,454 --> 00:15:24,157
guys that are like, I could
overhear them talking Crow

309
00:15:24,224 --> 00:15:26,994
Crowley's being hung in
this county, but Crowley is,

310
00:15:27,060 --> 00:15:30,264
you know, they were not
expecting that. And when

311
00:15:30,330 --> 00:15:33,467
Tiffany came and he he gave
his speech at about right

312
00:15:33,534 --> 00:15:36,937
around 10 p.m. and he
talked with reporters after.

313
00:15:37,004 --> 00:15:40,040
And the first question was,
If Crowley wins, does that

314
00:15:40,107 --> 00:15:42,676
change your strategy since
you've been spending so

315
00:15:42,743 --> 00:15:47,080
much time attacking hang
and he he's been using a

316
00:15:47,147 --> 00:15:50,017
line where he says there's
not a dime's worth of

317
00:15:50,083 --> 00:15:52,186
difference between the
Democrats. Okay. And then

318
00:15:52,252 --> 00:15:55,722
the next line out of his
mouth was, David Crowley

319
00:15:55,789 --> 00:15:59,092
never called out Francesca
Hong for all those crazy

320
00:15:59,159 --> 00:16:04,064
things she said, which is,
it's an answer, but you it

321
00:16:04,131 --> 00:16:07,201
just seemed like he might
not have had a whole list

322
00:16:07,267 --> 00:16:10,137
of talking points against
Crowley ready to go,

323
00:16:10,204 --> 00:16:12,639
because it was a surprise
for a lot of people that

324
00:16:12,706 --> 00:16:17,444
has happened. Tiffany's
campaign put out a its

325
00:16:17,511 --> 00:16:21,048
first campaign attack ad
against Crowley, trying to,

326
00:16:21,114 --> 00:16:24,518
you know, identify him to
the rest of the state. But

327
00:16:24,585 --> 00:16:28,222
still, on a campaign
election night, unexpected.

328
00:16:28,288 --> 00:16:31,792
>> So what are you watching
for, Zac, as the campaign

329
00:16:31,859 --> 00:16:34,962
gets going here? Week one
of the of the general

330
00:16:35,028 --> 00:16:37,364
election campaign between
Tiffany and Crowley.

331
00:16:37,431 --> 00:16:39,833
>> Right now, it's about
money. Tom. Tiffany has got

332
00:16:39,900 --> 00:16:42,736
a lot of money in the bank
and he's already spending

333
00:16:42,803 --> 00:16:44,771
it. His first ads going out
already. He's got

334
00:16:44,838 --> 00:16:46,773
billionaires funneling
money through the party to

335
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:49,576
him, so he looks like he'll
be well financed, at least

336
00:16:49,643 --> 00:16:51,712
for now. Crowley did
release a statement saying

337
00:16:51,778 --> 00:16:54,715
he raised a million and a
half in the first 24 hours.

338
00:16:54,781 --> 00:16:56,717
The big question is, can he
build on that? That might

339
00:16:56,783 --> 00:16:59,853
have been a lot of
transfers from the

340
00:16:59,920 --> 00:17:01,722
Association or the state
Democratic Party waiting to

341
00:17:01,788 --> 00:17:03,991
give money to the nominee.
So the question is, how

342
00:17:04,057 --> 00:17:06,760
fast can he get out and
start running his own ads

343
00:17:06,827 --> 00:17:09,563
before Tiffany is able to
define him? Among the

344
00:17:09,630 --> 00:17:11,999
voters in the state that
haven't heard much about

345
00:17:12,065 --> 00:17:13,600
him because they've heard
so much about Francesca

346
00:17:13,667 --> 00:17:16,203
Hong.
billionaires, the the you

347
00:17:16,270 --> 00:17:18,071
lines, and Diane Hendricks.
They're not always united

348
00:17:18,138 --> 00:17:19,706
around a Republican
candidate or backing the

349
00:17:19,773 --> 00:17:22,042
state party. They are this
time.

350
00:17:22,109 --> 00:17:24,311
>> For now.
>> I think one question you

351
00:17:24,378 --> 00:17:27,314
got to have is that this is
the first year we've had

352
00:17:27,381 --> 00:17:30,184
really rich. You alluded to
this in a story you did.

353
00:17:30,250 --> 00:17:33,387
But the first year since
2010, when you could say

354
00:17:33,453 --> 00:17:36,823
the Assembly and the Senate
and the governor's office

355
00:17:36,890 --> 00:17:40,294
are all kind of up for
grabs, either party could

356
00:17:40,360 --> 00:17:43,764
win, you know, all three.
And so big donors are going

357
00:17:43,830 --> 00:17:46,500
to have to decide, do we
want to spread this around

358
00:17:46,567 --> 00:17:49,369
or focus on where we think
our money will go the

359
00:17:49,436 --> 00:17:51,438
farthest? That's all the
time we have for today.

360
00:17:51,505 --> 00:17:53,607
Thanks for joining us. Our
colleague Anya van

361
00:17:53,674 --> 00:17:57,744
Wagtendonk will be back
next week. This has been

362
00:17:57,811 --> 00:18:01,949
inside Wisconsin politics.
wisconsin.org. WPR.org,

363
00:18:02,015 --> 00:18:06,153
YouTube, or wherever you
get your podcasts.