Francesca Hong is the “left wing” candidate for governor in Wisconsin. She’s running the playbook that we’ve seen in other elections: opposition to data centers, no corporate PAC money, free school lunch, universal health insurance (“BadgerCare for all”) and others that you can see on her campaign site. Since she’s the “leftist” candidate, that raises questions of “electability” in the general election among centrist Democrats and the consultants who take their money.
However, this is not the case for Republican consultants. Scott sent me a Twitter link to a piece by Ken Klippenstein about a leaked Republican consultant’s report on Hong, and I tracked down the original source from the Milwaukee Sentinel. It sounds like it could have been written by someone writing or commenting at this blog:
The memo compares Hong to other potential Democratic candidates [Republican candidate Tom] Tiffany could face in the Nov. 3 general election, viewing her as someone whose nomination "virtually guarantees elevated Democratic enthusiasm and turnout in Dane County and the Milwaukee media market, where statewide races are decided."
In contrast, the memo expects "more moderate and establishment Democratic alternatives would likely produce lower base motivation and depressed turnout."
"Unlike more moderate or establishment Democrats, Hong energizes the progressive base in a way that could drive record Democratic turnout precisely when midterms historically favor the party out of power," the consultants wrote. "Her issues resonate broadly with working- and middle-class voters and have some crossover with our populist positions. Hong could bring some turnout advantages with positions that reach outside Democrats' core base."
Tiffany's consultants characterized Hong's policy agenda as "broadly popular and difficult to counter."
Her platform is "built around kitchen-table issues that poll strongly with independents, working families, and even some rural voters, issues that directly undercut Republican messaging on taxes and cost of living," they wrote, adding that in focus groups and internal polling, undecided voters respond better to economic relief proposals than "culture-war messaging."
"Hong’s path to the nomination is clear, and her general-election strengths are formidable," the memo continues, highlighting three key elements: a combination of Democratic base mobilization and crossover appeal, a highly motivated bloc of volunteers and a populist biography that could blunt efforts to frame her as a "radical socialist."
Here’s Hong’s intro video if you want to get an idea of her “populist biography”. It’s impressive.
“Leftist” Democrats have found a key to winning elections: promise things people want and don’t let yourself be bought by donors. This incredibly sophisticated strategy is apparently beyond the ken of the Democratic consultants who were, for example, advising Hayley Stevens. I watched a few minutes of the Stevens/El-Sayed debate and AES made big hay on the millions of dollars AIPAC and others poured into ads for Stevens’ campaign. She had no good response, though she did parrot a bunch of what I’m sure were well-workshopped slogans (she’s “transparent”). Politicians taking a bunch of corporate money isn’t popular, and people aren’t stupid: they know that corporate money buys influence, and they don’t like it.
Another thing about following shitty Democratic consultants’ advice is that they’re constantly taking the game to the Republican candidate’s home turf. On a huge number of issues — healthcare, ICE, school funding, school lunches, among others — these consultants advise candidates to split the difference between Republican policies and what people really want. One example I saw today was Amy Klobuchar detailing how two Minneapolis residents were shot in the back by ICE and then concluding: this is why we must reform ICE. This just leads to Republicans saying, well, perhaps, a few reforms here and there are called for. This is blah on white bread with a tiny smear of mayo. People do not want masked secret police wilding on the streets. Making sure they have bodycams that they’ll inevitably turn off, one “reform”, is bullshit and everyone who’s ever had contact with shitty cops knows it. “Abolish ICE” is the position that Democrats who want to win elections should adopt.
The Republican consultant writing this memo is worried because he knows that Hong’s policies are things that MAGA doesn’t want to deliver. He would much rather call Hong a commie full of airy-fairy ideas in a blizzard of 30 second spots. He can’t, in part because “leftist” Democrats reach the electorate via social media and door knocking, and in part because Hong obviously knows how to work and take care of her kid. Hong’s not here to play the “hide out and run ads” game, and the consultant’s boss is going to look like a bozo if he doesn’t have some response to why kids can’t have free lunches in Wisconsin like they have in Minnesota. So this consultant is going to have to step up his game if Hong wins the primary — he’s going to have to do more than donor service. Fortunately for him, Republican donors want to win at all costs, so they’ll probably allow Tom Tiffany to tell a few lies that violate the MAGA orthodoxy. (“We’ll have free lunches, but we’ll rig it so that only white kids will get them.”)
Unfortunately, the Democrats’ consultants don’t have this luxury. They know that their grasp on donor money isn’t as tight as Republicans’. If the candidate they’re advising won’t be a Republican lite, then the donor money will go to a real Republican, and they’ll be out of a job. That’s why they advise anyone who’s listening that Francesca Hong is a dangerous option, and Democrats better be askerit of her because she’s almost certain to lose. If only Hong would support means-tested free school lunches, then her election would be virtually guaranteed, they’ll tell us with a straight face.
Only the Republican consultant has the freedom to say that she’s more likely to win, which is the truth.
