Announcer:

The following program is part of our “Here & Now” 2022 election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:

The long anticipated and heavily scrutinized Election Day in Wisconsin came and went, and for the most part, without incident, reassuring voters and officials of Wisconsin’s election process.

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Zac Schultz breaks down Tuesday’s results. We hear analysis from two political scientists from two sides of the state, and what Tuesday’s turnout tells us about Wisconsin’s electorate. It’s “Here & Now” for November 11.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided for the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Tuesday’s midterm election maintained Wisconsin’s brand of a divided statewide electorate. Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson won re-election with a narrow victory over his Democratic challenger Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes. In the race for governor, Democratic incumbent Tony Evers won 51% to 47% over Republican Tim Michels. For attorney governor, incumbent Democrat Josh Kaul goes on to another term defeating Republican challenger Eric Toney, and in the election for secretary of state, Democratic incumbent Doug La Follette holds a razor thin .3% margin over his Republican challenger Amy Loudenbeck. Senior political reporter Zac Schultz has brought us coverage throughout the election season and was on hand as the results came in.

Tony Evers:

Thank you!

[cheers and applause]

Tony Evers:

Hello, Wisconsin!

Zac Schultz:

It was a long wait, but when Governor Tony Evers took the stage just before 1:00 a.m. Wednesday morning, he declared victory with one of his favorite sayings.

Tony Evers:

Holy mackerel, folks. How about that?

Zac Schultz:

Evers has always relied on folksy style to win votes.

Tony Evers:

That’s who I am folks and that’s what I’ve always been. Some people call it boring, but you know what Wisconsin? As it turns out, boring wins.

Zac Schultz:

Evers also gave credit to supercharged turnout among young voters, especially college students, and Democrats who were motivated by the issue of abortion rights.

Tony Evers:

You showed up for each other. You showed up for the reproductive rights and the freedom for you.

The freedom for you and your neighbors to make their own healthcare decisions without having to ask me or any other elected official.

Zac Schultz:

Across the state in Milwaukee, Evers’ former lieutenant governor Mandela Barnes was not able to celebrate in his U.S. Senate race. He consistently underperformed Evers’ margins by about 2%, and his supporters were sent off with Barnes trailing incumbent Republican Ron Johnson.

Felesia Martin:

Our elections have razor thin margins, and this U.S. Senate race is no different. This race is far too close to call tonight.

Zac Schultz:

In Neenah, Johnson sent supporters home with more optimism.

Ron Johnson:

We’ve looked very closely at the numbers. We feel very confident that there’s no way that they can really make up that gap, but, you know, I’m not — I’m not going to, you know, declare victory until all the numbers are in, but I just wanted to give you guys the sense that this race is over, you know.

Zac Schultz:

By noon on Wednesday, Barnes was ready to concede.

Mandela Barnes:

Now, unfortunately, we didn’t get over the finish line this time, but I know that this movement has meant so much to all of us where just because we didn’t cross the finish line, it does not mean it’s over.

Zac Schultz:

Between the gubernatorial and Senate race, candidates in groups spent more than $300 million, and voters were inundated with nonstop negative ads. Johnson was only talking about his race, but his comments on election night seemed to sum up our current political environment.

Ron Johnson:

It’s a little depressing, isn’t it? That lies can be that effective, and if you ever wonder, quite honestly, why more good people don’t run for office, I would just recommend people take a look at the Wisconsin U.S. Senate race in the year 2022.

Zac Schultz:

Meanwhile, back in Madison, the self-described boring Tony Evers was ready to dance the night away to celebrate four more years in office.

Tony Evers:

We’re going to polka tonight and get back to work tomorrow. Thank you, Wisconsin. We love you!

Zac Schultz:

Reporting from Madison, I’m Zac Schultz for “Here & Now.”

Frederica Freyberg:

So Governor Tony Evers danced the election night away and then hit the road for a post-victory tour of K-12 schools across the state. Students he visited this week were mostly too young to vote, but our next guest says the youth vote this past Tuesday was a key to Evers’ win. Amber Wichowsky is professor of political science at Marquette University and director of the Marquette Democracy Lab. Thanks very much for being here.

Amber Wichowsky:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So you’ve got a lot of other takeaways from Tuesday’s election, but the youth vote stands out for you. Why?

Amber Wichowsky:

Yeah. Absolutely. There’s a question heading into Tuesday about whether or not the high turnout and deep civic engagement we’ve seen among Gen-Z voters would actually continue this election. There’s some polling data suggesting that younger voters weren’t as enthusiastic this time around, but on Tuesday, we saw that in many places including Wisconsin, young voters were turning out at relatively high rates. I say “relatively” because younger voters still vote at lower rates than older voters, but Tusk University estimates approximately 27% of 18 to 29-year-olds voted on Tuesday in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan. These were states where there were issues that very much are being debated, on the ballot in some cases, and these are issues that are animating young voters, and we are seeing them continue to turn out.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of the issues, what were the issues that brought younger people to the polls compared to older voters?

Amber Wichowsky:

Yeah. One issue that stands out is abortion. If you’re looking at public opinion data heading into Tuesday, abortion was more likely to be identified as a top issue for younger voters. Younger voters are also more likely to cite climate change as an issue of pressing concern for them. They are slightly less likely to say things like inflation, issues that tend to both advantage Republicans and also tend to animate older voters. So the issue with Gen-Z is not just their rates of participation, which they are civically engaged generation, but this is a generation breaking for Democrats, so they are voting 3 to 1 for Democratic candidates, and that together is going to help delivers votes for Evers here in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

So if the youth vote was a key to Evers’ win, why did it not lift Democrat Mandela Barnes to the same extent?

Amber Wichowsky:

Yeah. First, I want to qualify youth vote. There’s some really important distinctions within the youth vote. One is that young voters of color are more likely to vote Democratic compared to their white Gen-Z voters. So we have a little bit of a racial and ethnic difference with Gen-Z. We have a gender gap within Gen-Z but also a college divide as well. So, it isn’t just that all young voters are turning out. It really is those that are in college or college educated. Now, if we look at the map here in Wisconsin to try to understand where were the places, and where are the voters who were switching their ticket, splitting their tickets, excuse me, between Evers and Johnson? These tended to be places where Republicans did better. It’s not a perfect correlation, but in places of the state where Republicans did better, you were more likely to see voters split their tickets. Places that have been Democratic strongholds, Milwaukee, Dane County, you saw less ticket splitting. Now there still was some and you add all those votes together and it meant that Barnes helped to close the gap, but not enough to win on Tuesday. So, 2022 is going to come down to an election where we don’t have a clear narrative coming out of this election. There were so many factors at play across both the state as well as the country.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, as director of your Democracy Lab, you engage with Marquette students on the kind of rudiments of voting, like, what you need to do, where to go, issues. Did that have an impact in this last election, have you found?

Amber Wichowsky:

Absolutely. So, we’re still digging into the data, but if you look at ward level data here in Milwaukee County, turnout in Milwaukee County was down a little bit compared to 2018. Places where we saw turnout stay, or in some cases the percentage of registered voters increased, were actually near college campuses including here in our wards around Marquette. So some of the things that we do are just educating students about what they need to vote. What is their proof of residency? What photo ID do they need? Where is their polling location? In Milwaukee, in a cycle, our polling locations shifted somewhat because of redistricting so we had to make sure students knew where their polling locations were. If students moved since the last time they voted, students needed to know they needed to re-register. Young voters often have some additional hurdles to overcome in terms of voting. So we wanted to make sure students were informed, and they were empowered to exercise their voting rights on Tuesday.

Frederica Freyberg:

With less than a minute left, you’ve also said that Tuesday’s results show this is not a state where Donald Trump can come in and recreate 2016. Why not?

Amber Wichowsky:

Well, absolutely. Look at the suburban counties outside of Milwaukee. These used to be the Republican strongholds, and Evers, we saw it in 2018, 2020. The question was with Trump not on the ballot, and Trump not in the race, would those voters continue to vote for Democrats, at least at somewhat higher margins than they historically had? For those reasons including some areas around Green Bay, the number of votes coming out of Dane County, out of Milwaukee, those shifting margins, it’s just not a state that Trump will likely be able to win.

Frederica Freyberg:

Alright, Amber Wichowsky, thank you very much.

Amber Wichowsky:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the Evers/Johnson voters in Wisconsin, a key part of the Johnson playbook were those attack ads against Mandela Barnes calling him “different” and “dangerous.” Are they what tipped it narrowly to the incumbent senator? How do people who work to get out the vote for Barnes regard those messages, especially in Milwaukee vilified for its crime. We talk with Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, and thanks very much for being here.

Angela Lang:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you regard those attack ads against Mandela Barnes?

Angela Lang:

They were terrible. They were vile. They were really hard to watch. I think for — I know me personally and I think other folks, if we can talk to our own lieutenant governor this way, how did the campaign feel about the rest of the Black community and voters he should have been courting instead of actually vilifying? It was terrible. It was difficult and it was hard to watch, but at the same time, very encouraging to see Mandela Barnes remain really graceful in how he handled that and did not stoop to their level.

Frederica Freyberg:

What’s your response to voters who say that Barnes did not do enough to defend against them?

Angela Lang:

I think it’s complicated. I think on one hand, anything he probably would have done would have been seen as weaponized and further seen as the angry Black man so that’s why you saw him making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. His humanity was stripped because of those ads, and being a Black person, especially running a statewide — for a statewide office, you have to be careful to not further fan those flames. And people ask, would I have personally done something different? Absolutely! That’s why I’m not the candidate. I think it would have been incredibly difficult for, I think, most of us to handle it the way he did with such grace.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you think people who voted for Evers and not for Barnes were frightened as designed by that messaging?

Angela Lang:

I’m very curious to have conversations with those voters and to see if people focus group them or what have you. Ultimately, I can’t think of any other reason for those voters to exist other than racism and fear mongering, and I think that’s really sad and really tragic that some people couldn’t get past their own racism, but we have all these challenges on the line and understanding how Ron Johnson is very harmful to our communities and for whatever reason, that seemed to take a backseat in terms of racism for those folks.

Frederica Freyberg:

How does all of that speak to the racial polarization in Wisconsin?

Angela Lang:

I think it shows we have a lot of work to continue to do. I know in the last couple years since the murders of Breanna Taylor and George Floyd, there’s been more conversations happening. And I think those conversations need to continue. I think we’re in the midst of a racial reckoning that we need to continue to dig into, and I think it’s going to be awhile before this community and our state and the country as a whole comes together and actually says we demand better and all communities deserve to thrive and to have dignity and not have this racist rhetoric, but I think it starts by continuing to have conversations.

Frederica Freyberg:

You said following the Barnes defeat that, “the progressives that started the electability whisper campaign in the primary, you all are partly to blame.” What’s that about?

Angela Lang:

Yeah. I think we saw, you know, I won’t mention the campaigns, but we saw some campaigns in the primary kind of amplify some of the dog whistle politics, calling him extreme given some of his endorsements or talking about his tax record. Things that Republicans would talk about, but these were his opponents and his challengers in the primary, and I think by having some of those dog whistles, and it kind of going unchecked in some cases, really provided an opening for the Republicans to have their vile messages as well in the general election.

Frederica Freyberg:

There was a decrease in voter turnout in Milwaukee County which saw something like 47,000 fewer votes than in 2018 in the U.S. Senate race. Not for lack of effort, we know. What do you think about that?

Angela Lang:

Yeah. You know, we are still going to be digging into the numbers and figuring out what happened, but we also know, too, that we’re getting reports that hundreds of people just even in some polling places were turned away due to having the wrong polling location because of redistricting, and their polling place had moved. Did those people that got turned away, were they able to go to their correct polling place and vote? We heard reports of that, and, you know, we also heard some reports of people having childcare issues because MPS was closed as well. I’m not saying that’s all of the reasons, but I think we need to look at some of those things that are not normally talked about to really kind of put the pieces together of a puzzle of what actually happened, but I think it goes to show there’s more work to do especially for the spring elections of next year.

Frederica Freyberg:

Just briefly, you’re looking ahead to the next statewide race the race for Supreme Court. Why is that election in your sights?

Angela Lang:

I think it’s important for several reasons. Our team feels very strongly that, one, we could flip the ideology of the court away from its conservative majority. We’ve seen the court impact things like ballot drop boxes and voting on Election Day and things like that. It is also an opportunity. We have made an endorsement to elect our first Black justice in the state of Wisconsin in Everett Mitchell. We are excited to be a part of history but understand too, what’s at stake for the rest of the state if we are able to flip that seat.

Frederica Freyberg:

Angela Lang, thanks very much.

Angela Lang:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

In Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, a Trump-endorsed Republican Derrick Van Orden is headed to Washington. Weeks before the election, National Democratic Party funders pulled support from their candidate Brad Pfaff. But was it closer than expected? Did the group err in redirecting its money? We turn to Anthony Chergosky, political science professor at UW-La Crosse. Thanks for being here.

Anthony Chergosky:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to those questions, did the Democrats House Majority PAC miscalculate here?

Anthony Chergosky:

Yes. The race was much closer than expected, and Frederica, in most close congressional races, the political parties and the political action committees get heavily involved to assist the candidates. What was so striking about this race was the lack of party support and the lack of support from those key political action committees in helping Brad Pfaff, the Democrat. I think Democrats both within the party and within these key political action committees clearly miscalculated. They clearly did not expect this race to be as close as it was because as a political scientist, my expectation is that when a race is close, you’re going to get the party heavily involved. You’re going to get the PACs heavily involved. That did not happen. Clearly, there was some disconnect in the Democratic Party about the state of this race.

Frederica Freyberg:

Do you feel as though their calculations were based on what happened in the last election for this seat?

Anthony Chergosky:

Very possible. After all, Ron Kind, the long-time incumbent from this district, had the closest election of his career when he ran against Derrick Van Orden in 2020. It was just a three-point margin of victory for Kind. Plus, we had seen some indications in presidential elections that this area in western Wisconsin was drifting away from the Democratic Party. Democrats might have gotten a bit hung up on those results, the closer than expected result in 2020, the presidential results, and maybe had written off this district a little more than they should have. In retrospect, it was a mistake on their part, and they may have to have a course correction in 2024 to regroup in this area.

Frederica Freyberg:

So, how do Trump Republicans, like Van Orden, potentially have to moderate politically?

Anthony Chergosky:

It’s a fascinating issue, Frederica. Voters tend to vote the candidate a bit more than the party, so Mr. Van Orden’s political strategy as he becomes a member of Congress is going to be just fascinating to watch.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right, Anthony Chergosky, thanks very much.

Anthony Chergosky:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

To see our extended interview with Professor Chergosky, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org/news.

So the red tsunami did not materialize. Tony Evers won and so did Ron Johnson. How do partisans feel about these results? We turn to our political panelists, Republican Bill McCoshen, a consultant for Tim Michels, and Democrat Scot Ross. Thanks to both of you for being here.

Bill McCoshen:

Thanks for having us.

Scot Ross:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to go to you first Scot. What’s your reaction to the results Tuesday night?

Scot Ross:

I mean I think Tony Evers’ mandate now means we are going to move Wisconsin forward. Democracy was on the ballot. Abortion was on the ballot. Freedom was on the ballot, and the people responded and they said they wanted the democratic way. They wanted Tony Evers in there to make sure those freedoms are protected. We are going to have free and fair elections from now on. Let’s just see if the Republicans can join us in this mandate and move the state forward.

Frederica Freyberg:

Bill, what was your reaction?

Bill McCoshen:

It was a little like a youth soccer tournament, everybody got a trophy. Republicans won the U.S. Senate race. They won the state treasurer’s race. They won the 3rd Congressional District, and they picked up seats in both the Assembly and the Senate. There are big wins on the Republican side on Tuesday night as well. Granted, there were some significant Democratic wins. Losing the governorship and AGs race in this political climate is a massive, missed opportunity for Republicans. There’s no doubt about that.

Frederica Freyberg:

You spoke, Bill, to some lessons learned after the defeat of your candidate Tim Michels. Like what?

Bill McCoshen:

Well, I think, number one, is money, right? You need money, organization, and message to win statewide. Tim got massively outspent. At the end of the day, money matters. You can’t get outspent by $12 million to $20 million and hope to compete in the state of Wisconsin. I think that was one thing. On the ground, I’m going to give Democrats credit. They actually had a very strategic ground, microtargeting effort on campuses across the state, which, frankly, made the 3rd Congressional District closer than most people thought it would be and they targeted young people on abortion. Gen-Z is the only demographic that actually voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers on Tuesday night. Everyone else voted for Republicans. So I credit the Democrats for understanding where Gen-Z was and how to identify them and get them out.

Frederica Freyberg:

You also spoke to the idea of Dane County as the powerhouse, which, perhaps, that campaign, the Tim Michels’ campaign, did not pay enough attention to.

Bill McCoshen:

I’m a broken record on this. I’ve been saying this 20 years. When Mark Neumann lost in 1998 by 90,000 votes, the alarm bells should have been going off for every Republican. They weren’t. Tony Evers beat Tim Michels by 173,000 votes in Dane County on Tuesday night. That’s almost insurmountable. I mean Ron Johnson was able to overcome it in large measure because he defined Mandela Barnes on the terms he wanted him defined on. We’ll come back to that, but Dane County has to be a higher priority for Republicans if they ever want to win the governorship again.

Frederica Freyberg:

Scot, what was your takeaway after the close loss for Mandela Barnes?

Scot Ross:

A couple things. One. The reason Dane County votes for Democrats is because Dane County — the Democrats reflect those values, and Republicans are going to have to change their stripes if they want to start to make inroads in Dane County. Let’s start there. It was very disappointing. You know, Mandela Barnes campaign was historic for Wisconsin, and it is unfortunate what happened, which, you know, you talked about the money. Mandela Barnes was outspent by $29 million. I don’t think we can, you know, I don’t think we can understate the significance of Diane Hendricks and the Uihleins. They literally got $500 million from Ron Johnson in a personal tax break he extorted publicly for them and then went on to basically finance half of the effort, you know, against Mandela Barnes for Ron Johnson. I think that’s just — it’s shocking.

Frederica Freyberg:

In Milwaukee County, turnout was down from 2018. What’s that about?

Scot Ross:

I mean, I think, you know, you have to make sure you get your voters out to the polls. I think Milwaukee does a very good job of it. You know, sometimes you come up short though, and I think, you know, depending on the breeze, you know, this was the closest Senate race I can remember or —

Bill McCoshen:

First time in history both statewide races were within 3%. First time in history.

Scot Ross:

And we have to go back to 1998 for a U.S. Senate race that was that close. And so, I think, you know, if the breeze blows a little bit different on Election Day, Mandela Barnes is our U.S. Senator-elect.

Bill McCoshen:

The three of us are old enough to remember when Wisconsin used to split their ticket. They did it in the ’90s a lot. In ’98, Tommy won again Ed Garvey for governor with 60% and Russ Feingold beat Mark Neumann.

Scot Ross:

Only by 37,000 votes.

Bill McCoshen:

Right.

Scot Ross:

This is how close.

Bill McCoshen:

But that was the last time, 24 years ago that we split our ticket at the top.

Frederica Freyberg:

Bill, you talked about Republicans having to find a different kind of candidate to appeal to suburban voters. Is the allure of Donald Trump over?

Bill McCoshen:

I think it’s over. I mean, I think the party’s ready to look forward, not backwards. And, you know, I’m hopeful president Trump does not announce for the White House next week because I think that disrupts what’s going on in the state of Georgia. I think Georgia should be Republican’s sole focus for next 30 days, and anything that gets in the way of that should be shunned by Republican voters. I think you see on his recent attack on Ron DeSantis this week that Republicans are pushing back in a big way. I — Donald Trump may, in fact, get in this race, but it’s not a given he’s going to be the nominee.

Frederica Freyberg:

Scot, I want to ask you how Democrats reclaim the support of rural voters in Wisconsin?

Scot Ross:

I think they had it. If you look at Tony Evers for instance in La Crosse and Eau Claire, he went up four points in both La Crosse and Eau Claire. He carried a lot of the counties, you know, that he carried last time. I don’t think the Democrats have a rural problem. I think Republicans have a suburban Milwaukee problem. The WOW counties, the dark red WOW counties are moving towards Democrats, and, you know, that’s where we are at.

Frederica Freyberg:

I just want to spin now to the next big race in Wisconsin which is the state Supreme Court race. What are the stakes, Bill?

Bill McCoshen:

Huge. I mean it’s a 4-3 conservative majority. Brian Hagedorn sort of swings back and forth between the two blocks of three, so it’s not decidedly conservative. This is a conservative seat that’s up. I think the stakes are very, very high. There’s at least one conservative candidate in already, former Supreme Court justice Dan Kelly. I’m fairly confident there will be another, possibly Judge Jennifer Dorow, before the end of November.

Frederica Freyberg:

Scot?

Scot Ross:

Couple things – one, Brian Hagedorn’s done with his swing dance party, like, it’s over. He’s with the Republicans from here on now.

Bill McCoshen:

I wish I could believe that.

Scot Ross:

The second thing is progressives have an incredible opportunity. Ever since Mike Gableman won in 2008, the Supreme Court’s been controlled by the Republicans. You know, Democrats have a fantastic opportunity. I think they are going to seize on it. I don’t think any other Republicans are getting in. I can’t remember when two Republicans were in a Supreme Court race.

Frederica Freyberg:

We leave it there. Scot Ross, Bill McCoshen, thanks very much.

Scot Ross, Bill McCoshen:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.