Wisconsin Democrats’ Uncharacteristic Civility Masks Deeper Divide

The debate among Democratic candidates for governor in Wisconsin earlier this week was notable not only for its relative lack of personal attacks but also for the subtle hints at deeper divisions within the party. While the five contenders largely avoided direct barbs, their differing stances on key issues and the varying degrees of scrutiny they face from within the party became apparent.

At the center of this dynamic is Francesca Hong, a Democratic Socialist and front-runner in the polls, whose viability in a general election against Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany has sparked growing concerns among some Democrats. Her efforts to reassure voters that she can win over swing-state moderates seem genuine enough, but they also underscore the party’s anxieties about her left-leaning views and whether they will be too radical for Wisconsin voters.

The fact that none of her opponents directly targeted her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America during the debate suggests that some Democrats are wary of confronting their own leftward drift. The absence of direct attacks against Hong may indicate that her opponents are cautious about alienating a significant portion of the party base, which has rallied behind her campaign.

However, this civility does not necessarily mean that the divisions within the party have been resolved. In fact, the debate highlighted some of the very real differences among the candidates on issues like policing and public safety. While all five contenders expressed support for stronger public education funding, taxing the wealthy, and investing in universal childcare and affordable housing, their stances on police reform were more nuanced.

Hong’s softening of her stance on defunding police departments was particularly noteworthy, given her past calls to abolish prisons and reduce police funding. Her pledge not to sign a bill or budget that cut police funding may reassure some voters but also risks being seen as a reversal of her earlier positions by those who view her as too radical.

The question of how far left is too far left for Wisconsin remains a pressing concern. The party’s anxiety about Hong’s viability in a general election against Tiffany reflects deeper fears about its own ideological trajectory and whether it can win over swing-state voters without alienating its progressive base.

As the primary campaign enters its final weeks, Wisconsin Democrats would do well to confront these underlying tensions head-on rather than papering them over with civility. The party’s next governor will be tasked not only with navigating the state’s economic and social challenges but also its own internal divisions. Whether that leader is Hong or one of her opponents will depend on how effectively they can address these deeper issues.

The debate has highlighted another challenge facing Wisconsin Democrats: their inability to distinguish themselves from each other in a way that resonates with voters outside their party base. Barnes’s attempts to make an electability argument, touting his own statewide victory and suggesting the “establishment” is trying to rig the election for its preferred candidate, fall flat without a more compelling narrative about what sets him apart.

Crowley’s attempts to differentiate himself based on his experience running local government are similarly unconvincing without a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges facing Wisconsin. Ultimately, the outcome of the primary will depend not just on which candidate can best articulate their vision for the state but also how effectively they can address the party’s underlying anxieties and divisions.

The next governor of Wisconsin will be tasked with healing these wounds as much as governing the state.