Being a socialist could well bury a candidate in the general election. The trouble for Democrats is that it could win a candidate their nomination in August.
It was conceded that the latest Marquette poll, which came out yesterday, was going to be of limited utility. But limited is not the same as useless. I think there were some things of note.
To step back, Marquette was in the field last week just as the race for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was changing fast. The leader of the moderate wing of the party, Sara Rodriguez, dropped out and a new presumptive leader of that group, David Crowley, dropped back in — and with Gov. Tony Evers’ endorsement. The poll couldn’t take any of that into account and so Marquette will do a do over and we’ll see another set of results in a week or two.
But there were three things that struck me from this round.
First, Francesca Hong is going to be tough to beat. Not surprisingly, she leads with 26%, followed by Mandela Barnes at 15% and Rodriguez at 11%. And Hong’s support is the strongest, with 72% of her voters saying they are sure they will vote for her.
So, even the leading moderate candidate at the time was down by 15 point. It’s hard to see how Crowley, who apparently was only at around 5% before he dropped out, can make up that ground. Sure, there are 45% of Democrats still to make up their minds, but some of those voters could be undecided between Hong and Barnes. It’s not necessarily all, or even mostly, moderates looking to coalesce behind one candidate.
In fact, even if you spot Crowley Rodriguez’ 11%, he’d still have to capture two-thirds of the undecideds to over take Hong. Joel Brennan and Kelda Roys are polling at only 2% and 1%, respectively. So, even if they were to drop out and endorse Crowley it wouldn’t have any effect. And then there’s blow back against the party establishment trying to snuff out the insurgent populist. All of which is to say that I’d be surprised if the next poll finds Crowley anywhere near striking distance of Hong.
The second thing I noticed is that nobody is doing especially well against Republican Tom Tiffany in head-to-head matchups. It’s essentially a toss up. Barnes does best, beating him by 4%, but all of the other candidates lose to him by a point or two. The specific numbers don’t mean anything, but this shows how close the race will be in the fall.
Still, give Democrats a built-in edge simply because they are more fired up to vote than Republicans.
For now.
Except for my last point.
Which is that socialism is toxic. These are the numbers that I found most troubling. Around 55% of Democrats have a favorable impression of Democratic Socialism while about 55% of all voters have an unfavorable view of that term. That means that the only declared socialist in the race, Hong, has a good chance of getting the nomination… and then losing in the general election, when Republicans will spare no effort in making voters aware of her label.
To make matters worse, Democrats don’t seem to see it coming. Fully 69% of Hong voters, even slightly more than the 67% of Democrats overall, say that picking a candidate who can win against Tiffany is the most important thing. And yet they are about to nominate a candidate who proudly embraces a toxic label. The problem is that the party has moved so far to the left that it just doesn’t see the toxicity.
I would be shocked if, all of a sudden, Crowley emerges from the ashes to take a lead over Hong. And keep in mind that, while Crowley gears back up, mail-in voting continues apace. He’s losing ground every day.
One more thought before I go back to my summer. Evers may have picked the wrong horse. Barnes may be the better bet to head off Hong. Many Democrats are disappointed in him for not beating Sen. Ron Johnson when he was the party’s nominee in 2022 and he has his own hard-left baggage, But he did lose by only 20,000 votes, he is not a Democratic Socialist, he is the only candidate to beat Tiffany in the matchups, and he does much better than Hong with a wider swath of Democrats.
But, ya know, I’ve been wrong before. See you back here after we hear from Uncle Charles Franklin next.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
if Hong was just a Democrat, without the “Social”, she could win. I agree the Republicans own the narrative on socialism; they’ve made it toxic for voters. But they cash their social security checks, enjoy their Medicare and Medicaid, get their US Mail, etc.
LikeLike
But that’s not the same thing. If you read the DSA platform it’ll make your hair (what’s left of it, Peter) stand on end. I don’t think you’re for abolishing the police and jails. I don’t think you’d support eliminating the US Senate and completely gutting separation of powers by making the Supreme Court and the president appointments of the House. You may support free college, eliminating student debt, free child care and Medicare for all, but I ask the pesky question about how we might pay for all that when the national debt is at $30 trillion and the top 1% of earners already pays 40% of federal income taxes. Most people fear and oppose socialism for very good reasons. I know I do.
LikeLike
“If you read the DSA platform it’ll make your hair (what’s left of it, Peter) stand on end.”
It isn’t that bad…or is it?
“You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded.
“Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities…OK, enough about bills.
“What do you do on your day off?…what if you were free to spend your time how you like without worrying about cost or dreading going back to work?
“What if you didn’t have to think about paying rent or loans at the end of the month, or saving for college, or affording groceries?”
This is an easy pitch to a receptive SPECIAL GENERATION.
LikeLike
Aspiring towards a society that minimizes crime doesn’t seem evil to me. Nobody rational argues for instant elimination. First we improve our lives, then crime will go down. I agree that the slogan is unwise.
I’m pro-democracy. The Senate is quite detached from democracy.
I’d have to research this more. It seems aligned with the pro-democracy angle.
Other countries have this, how do they pay for it? Why can’t “the greatest country in history” figure out how to do this? Medicare for all will save money, not cost more – take a look at your health insurance premiums and deductibles, then get back to me. I’m spending quite a bit this year on health care for my family, and as a country we pay more for worse care.
LikeLike
I’m inclined to agree about Evers. This late in the game he probably should have just backed Barnes, rather than revive Crowley and further splinter the non-Hong vote.
At this point I’m just going to vote for whichever non-Hong candidate is polling the best on primary election day – whether Barnes or Crowley.
And I think Hong is going to be even harder to beat after the police-shooting in Madison yesterday. The far left is going to embrace her, and her abolish the police mantra, even more leading into the primary; not recognizing that position will still be widely unpopular (and her views on police even more widely circulated) among the statewide electorate.
LikeLike
Always appreciate your work here, Dave.
Wondering if you’re interested in pursuing this topic, as I’ve been bothered by the fact that no media outlet in the state has addressed it and there doesn’t seem to be any other conversation around this matter: Hong’s credit card debt and sudden repayment in late May. It seems to have been pushed under the rug after the debt was paid and the lawsuit dismissed.
Hong doesn’t deny ownership of the debt. But lawsuits to recoup credit card debt don’t happen overnight – there must have been a lengthy span of several months of Hong choosing not to make payments on that debt, as well as ignoring several warnings from the credit provider that it would eventually pursue legal action. These are decisions Hong made that require some accountability and answers to voters electing a state governor – but no one is asking her.
Based on those decisions Hong made not to pay on the debt and ignore warnings from the creditor of going to court – particularly at a time when she’s in the public eye campaigning for the governor’s office – how does she then suddenly come up with the full amount of ~$30k and pay the debt off overnight? Not too many people have the means to do that – and is generally the reason they’re not making good on their debt in the first place. Again, I’m surprised this question of how Hong paid off the debt hasn’t been discussed in media stories – it certainly begs questions of whether a donor paid it? Her campaign? A special interest group or PAC? Voters have a right to know if Hong is beholden to anyone.
I certainly expected Hong to be upfront and proactive in addressing these aspects of her circumstance when the story broke – I would have respected her much more had she done so. Food for thought for you to consider … All my best, Dave.
Sean Fitzgerald Oshkosh sean@newnorthb2b.com
LikeLike
Well, I think you just pursued that issue for me. You make good points. This is no small matter. But I’m more concerned about what she believes and what she will do as a policy maker. So, what I plan is a deeper dive at some point into the DSA and her previous policy proposals and statements. For example, her statement today that the police-involved shooting in Madison was “an execution” is just beyond the pale and almost disqualifies her from public office. I’ve been involved personally in similar situations. The initial reports are chaotic and almost always wrong. People of sound judgement wait for more information and they do not inflame passions.
LikeLike
This Cap Times article answers the question of who paid the debt pretty directly it seems:
“Her parents helped her pay off the debt the same day she was notified of the lawsuit, and no campaign funds were used.”
LikeLike
Incredible to read in the last set of comments that our host will not vote D if Hong is the candidate. Just like DSA types wouldn’t vote for a D moderate in a general election and sunk candidates in the false idea that it would teach a lesson, here now moderates are doing the same if a progressive is nominated.
Ds have“ideals” that they incorrectly think they’re sticking to with that choice to not vote D. But, they obviously don’t understand that our political system is not designed for the expression of voters’ ideals, it’s a broken system where you are picking between 2 and only 2 options – one or the other – no matter how you vote.
Anyone who remotely cares about pretty much any D issue will see more of their policy goals achieved under Hong than Tiffany. Just like the DSA types who couldn’t support Harris because of Gaza – their vote did nothing to help Gaza, their vote made life worse for everyone in Gaza by ensuring that an even worse candidate was elected. But these voters selfishly felt self righteous… Those who think they’re “making a statement” or “voting their conscience” with their 3rd party or write-in vote this year will be rewarded with an R governor and regression on D policy goals.
Yeah, our voting system is broken. The most important policy goal should be to fix it to actually allow voters to cast votes that express their ideals. To end the need to vote for the lesser of two evils. To allow a system where moderate candidates have a chance. Guess which political movement is the only one that has a concrete plan to achieve that ultimate goal, that goal that opens the door for all other meaningful goals? Socialists.
But, moderates who bemoan the fact that moderates are disadvantaged in our system won’t vote for a socialist who will advocate to fix that problem because they don’t agree 100% with every single socialist policy position. Insane.
LikeLike