Here & Now

Here & Now for Sept. 21, 2018

Announcer:
The following program is part of our “Here & Now” 2018 Wisconsin Vote election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” an interview with the Democrat running for governor Tony Evers. We’ll run the latest numbers on a Marquette Law School Poll. And why politicians cannot resist running those nasty political ads. It’s “Here & Now” for September 21st.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:
With just over six weeks left until election day, the race for governor is heating up on and off the campaign trail. This week’s Marquette University Law School poll shows Democrat Tony Evers up by five points over incumbent Republican Governor Scott Walker. We have asked both candidates to join us for an in-depth interview. Tonight a conversation with Tony Evers. Evers is the current state school superintendent, first elected to that post in 2009. He was re-elected in 2013 and again in 2017. He’s a former classroom teacher and high school principal. Evers also the former Oakfield and Verona School District Administrator. Tony Evers joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Tony Evers:
Thank you. Good to be back.

Frederica Freyberg:
We wanted to ask you, right out of the chutes, your reaction to this week’s Marquette Law School Poll putting you up five points on Scott Walker.

Tony Evers:
Well, I think what it shows is Scott Walker’s baseless attacks on me haven’t worked. Unfortunately we expected it. Scott Walker is a typical politician and we expected him to try to divert attention from his record. So having the poll being ahead is great. Clearly we have a long way to go to election day, but it does give me some belief in the system. That people understand what is rhetoric and lies and what isn’t. So we feel good about that.

Frederica Freyberg:
Speaking of attack ads, they are wall to wall, scorching you for failing to fire a teacher who viewed porn in school. In retrospect, should you have done more?

Tony Evers:
I couldn’t have done more. That is the basic issue here, is that the law presented me from — there’s a loophole in the law — prevented me from revoking that license. I did not — as a result I worked with the legislature to change the law. And we have — I’ve revoked probably 1,000 licenses since I’ve been state superintendent. So this isn’t an area that I’m particularly unfamiliar with. But I am familiar with the law. The law prevented me from doing it. We didn’t do it. We worked with the legislature to change the law. And that’s the sum total of the issue.

Frederica Freyberg:
On another matter, Scott Walker, who championed truth in sentencing, is saying that you want to empty out the prisons of dangerous felons. Who would you like to release and why?

Tony Evers:
First of all, again, one lie after another. I’ve never said that. What my, what I — what we will do is keep violent criminals in prison. What I intend to do going forward is not what Scott Walker’s done. He’s clearly decided he’s not having any hands-on. There’s no buck stopping with him. In fact, the buck is stopping elsewhere. He refuses to go to correctional institutions. He says going forward it makes no sense for him to be going to the institutions. I have to — I will be a governor that actually listens to the people in the institutions. But most importantly, we as a state have to think about are there better ways for nonviolent offenders to be treated in lieu of incarceration: diversion programs, other ways, drug courts, ways to rehabilitate people, give them mental health services. I’m with Tommy Thompson on this issue. I’m sure you’ve seen that he’s talked about in retrospect of his time. He said one of his great regrets is not looking at rehabilitation more seriously. It’s cheaper and it’s more effective. That’s what I’ll be doing in addition to being a leader and going to these institutions.

Frederica Freyberg:
Moving on to other issues. First up, jobs and the economy, we continue to do reporting on attracting and retaining workers in Wisconsin. What would you do on that score?

Tony Evers:
Attracting and retaining? Well, first of all, we need to make sure we invest in Wisconsin companies. That is absolutely critical. Clearly the Foxconn issue has been a high-profile issue in the state. I’m sure every one of your viewers that are watching this program would suggest that they could have cut a better deal than Scott Walker did for Foxconn. We have to stop the “Hail Mary” passes. We have to invest in those young start-ups that are real important in this state. That not only keeps them in the state, but it also gives other young people hope that the state can play a positive role in helping them become productive workers and part of the Wisconsin society. Instead of moving out of state. We have to stop that out-flow. We have to make sure that we invest in Wisconsin, in Wisconsin entrepreneurs.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum publication, growth in Wisconsin’s economy has been uneven, especially in the northern part of the state, where they report that jobs declined between 2009 and 2017. What would you do to address this?

Tony Evers:
That’s the exact point. Economic development in the state of Wisconsin has to be a 72-county effort. It can’t be just one fell swoop, giving money to a foreign corporation to build something in southeast Wisconsin. It has to be — we have to give people all across the state of Wisconsin an opportunity to be productive, to be — own their businesses, grow their businesses. That’s what economic development is for and that’s what the governor should be doing. That’s what I’ll do as governor going forward.

Frederica Freyberg:
Because one of the things you’ve talked about is getting rid of the WEDC.

Tony Evers:
Absolutely. But we’re going to replace that with a state agency. The WEDC is this kind of hybrid public-private partnership when in actuality, it’s a public entity. I would develop — I would move that back into the Department of Commerce. We would work with local leaders and legislators to make that happen. At the end of the day, 72 counties deserve economic development attention by the state of Wisconsin and that’s what we’ll do.

Frederica Freyberg:
Your DPI budget calls for $1.4 billion more for K-12 in 2019-21. Why?

Tony Evers:
It’s a long time coming. Scott Walker in his first budget took hundreds of millions of dollars out of our K-12 system and we have never recovered from that. So we have extraordinary needs. I hear about it all across the state. Frankly, people of Wisconsin know it, too. Scott Walker can claim he’s this low tax guy, but over a million people in the state of Wisconsin have voted to increase taxes on themselves for their public schools because the state’s not doing their fair share. That’s what this budget is about. It’s responding to those people, saying we have to have a state commitment here. So our budget is robust, but it does not even get us back to where we were when Scott Walker was inaugurated.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now, Governor Walker blames you as Superintendent of Public Instruction for Wisconsin’s worst in the nation achievement gaps between black and white students. Why shouldn’t he blame you?

Tony Evers:
Because he has done nothing. My budgets, consistently over time, have put money in the budget for things that are really important such as students with disabilities. The achievement gap in Wisconsin is about a number of issues where kids need an extra lift. And he has consistently not funded those projects, whether it’s students with disabilities, English learners, kids with poverty. Those things have been in my budget since the day I’ve been state superintendent. He’s ignored it. Essentially he’s being the typical politician again, pointing fingers when the finger should be pointed at him.

Frederica Freyberg:
On healthcare, the Walker Administration supports a lawsuit, as you know, that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act. What’s your reaction to that?

Tony Evers:
Hypocritical. We have the governor saying, “Oh my gosh, I’m concerned about making sure that pre-existing conditions don’t prevent people from getting good health care.” That’s important to me. I’m a cancer survivor. So I get that issue. So he’s making that claim at the same time he’s in federal court with a bunch of other Republican governors saying, “My gosh, we have to get rid of this whole thing.” So I have asked him, point-blank, if you believe in making sure that pre-existing conditions aren’t an issue, drop that lawsuit. That’s what you should be doing. And the response has been crickets, frankly. We have heard nothing from him on that.

Frederica Freyberg:
Well in fact, his campaign asked you to denounce an ad on your behalf that goes after him for threatening pre-existing coverage.

Tony Evers:
I’ve never — there’s no way that I would ever say that pre-existing coverage should not be part and parcel of the health insurance industry in Wisconsin. That is a basic right. We have lots of people in Wisconsin that are in the same predicament I am. We have to make sure that they aren’t prevented. And we won’t. We’ll take the Medicaid money. He refused to take it right off the bat.

Frederica Freyberg:
How do you take the Medicaid money though, if they are successful in their lawsuit and the ACA is repealed?

Tony Evers:
We are going to work — yeah, that’s a conundrum, isn’t it? But that is Scott Walker’s typical politician answer. We’re going to — over here pretend that you don’t see this. That we’re actually trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. At the same time over here, he’s saying, “Yes, we’re really concerned about this issue.” That is hypocritical. We believe that the Congress will retain the ACA. The people of this country believe that also.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now, the Walker Administrator won a federal waiver to stabilize the individual market by leveraging $200 million in federal dollars to reduce costs to insurers and cut premiums. Do you support that?

Tony Evers:
Well, it’s — first of all, it’s not been implemented. We still are in a position where people in Minnesota are paying a lot less for their health insurance and the same coverage here in Wisconsin. He’s late to the game. This is all about campaign promises that he hasn’t kept and really have hurt the people of Wisconsin. Health care is a basic right that we have to advance and embrace, not play shell games with people.

Frederica Freyberg:
On transportation, debt service on Wisconsin’s transportation fund revenues is projected at nearly 21% in 2018-19 and highway funding it deemed insufficient by some. An ad against you airing now says that you would raise the gas tax by $1 a gallon. Would you?

Tony Evers:
That is ridiculous. I’ve never said that. The governor knows I’ve not said it. He’s responding because people across the state — he’s diverting himself from the issues that he’s created. There’s a reason why our roads are in such poor condition related to other states. There’s a reason why 21% is going to debt service. Because he has not led on this issue. He has lied about many of these issues where he’s promised one thing and then another. Couple weeks ago he said to the people in Appleton, we’re going to expand highway 41. I think within a week he was saying, “Oh my gosh, we’re not going to do that anymore.” This is not a political issue. This is about a safety issue for the state of Wisconsin. We need to bring people together. Frankly I’m hopeful that this will be one of the first political wins, bipartisan wins we have. Every possible revenue source or cut in budget is on the table, period.

Frederica Freyberg:
You say that about revenue sources being on the table. Name them.

Tony Evers:
Well, clearly a poll ta — er, a poll tax, a toll system is one. Clearly a gas tax is one. Clearly possibly other cuts in the budgets. They’re all in the budgets of the state agencies. All those things are on the table. We can’t go in with a preconditioned solution because we need to bring people together on this. We can. Republicans and Democrats want this change. In northern Wisconsin, a lot of those places where they’re stripping off the asphalt for roads are Republican areas. Those Representatives need the courage or having the courage to make sure they change their tune on this. This is important for the state of Wisconsin, whether it’s our bridges. Whether it’s our roads. Infrastructure in the state. There’s a reason they have outdoor signage in Wisconsin that says, “Potholes are Scott-holes.” They’ve renamed them now “Scott-holes.” Governor Walker owns this issue. He’s failed at it. And we’ll change it.

Frederica Freyberg:
We need to leave it there. Tony Evers, thanks very much.

Tony Evers:
Thanks a lot.

Frederica Freyberg:
Movement in poll numbers with a little more than six weeks before election day. In tonight’s inside look, what this week’s Marquette Law School Poll shows with its director Charles Franklin. Thanks very much for being here.

Charles Franklin:
Good to be back.

Frederica Freyberg:
So quick to the numbers. Evers is up on Walker by five points in your latest polling. Does this have anything to do with the partisan makeup of the latest survey?

Charles Franklin:
Certainly this sample is a little bit more Democratic than Republican by about one point. The last survey was more Republican than Democrat. That’s shifting some of the likely voters, with Democrats being more enthusiastic this time by 11 points over Republicans. Last time Republicans were two points more enthusiastic.

Frederica Freyberg:
Incumbent Tammy Baldwin carries a wider margin over her challenger. Are people still getting to know Leah Vukmir?

Charles Franklin:
Definitely all of the non-incumbents candidates still have about 30% of the public that don’t recognize them or a little bit higher than that. I think there is still learning going on. We’re a month into the campaign, but we’ve got 40 something days I think left to go. So there will be more learning and more movement and also how do independents swish around in all of this will play a lot between now and November as well.

Frederica Freyberg:
I want to talk about independents in a little bit, but there is a bright spot for Republicans. Brad Schimel is up on Josh Kaul. But 87%, according to your survey, have not heard or don’t know Josh Kaul at this point. Does he have time to allow voters to get to know him?

Charles Franklin:
It’s a strikingly large number. Early in the fall four years ago, though, Brad Schimel was in that same territory and so was his opponent then. I think we’ll see those come down. But even at the end of the 2014 campaign, both attorney general candidates four years ago were in the 60% don’t know. Schimel himself after four years in office is at 56 or 57. So that’s just a real problem. It’s the second most important office in the state statewide, and yet it’s not a terribly visible office.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now, another thing that you looked at, which is super interesting, are what you call voting groups. The demographic numbers saying Tony Evers is way up, with college-educated white females over Scott Walker, at a margin of 62 to 36%. And Walker holds the male non-college educated 52 to 40%. Similar splits hold for Baldwin and Vukmir. What are the implications of these voting groups and their preferences?

Charles Franklin:
We’ve always talked about the gender gap in voting, but in the last few years, the gender and education gap has grown. You can think of it as blue collar/white collar or other things. But blue collar men or non-college graduate men have been moving in a Republican direction for all six years that we’ve been doing the Marquette poll. College-educated women — and I should say all of these we’re talking about white women and men — have been moving in a Democratic direction. And the numbers you just put up show what a big gap in preference there now exists between those two extremes.

Frederica Freyberg:
Does that big gap, did that surprise you?

Charles Franklin:
Well, we’ve seen it coming for a long time, but we focused on it more in opinion about Donald Trump. Now we’re seeing it in votes for state offices as well. And a bit of a shift, as I said, in white male non-college men who have moved about 11 points in the direction of the Republican Party since January, 2012 when we first started the Marquette poll.

Frederica Freyberg:
In our next slide we look at independents in this polling. On Trump’s approval, 54% of the independents disapprove to 41% who approve. Otherwise you have shown that his approval is very partisan. But how has his approval with independents changed over time?

Charles Franklin:
It’s been getting a little bit tighter. But actually the independents are much more lopsided in their vote choice for the state offices, which a little bit surprising, than on the Donald Trump question itself. The independents have normally been a few points more negative about Trump than the public as a whole. In this case it’s just one point more negative. But when we look at the vote differences, we’re seeing, in the governor’s race, a 20% advantage to Evers among independents. Now the thing is, the partisans are over 90% with their party’s candidate. Independents aren’t anchored to a party, so that means they can be blown by the winds of the campaign. I think I’m pretty confident the partisans will stick with their party’s candidates. I have no idea whether the independents will stay where they are, come back towards the middle or possibly even move further in a Democratic direction.

Frederica Freyberg:
Is this election all about the independents?

Charles Franklin:
Well, it’s certainly about how they move. Now, are they moving because of President Trump or because of this campaign locally or because of other national or state issues? I think that very much remains to be seen. But at least right at the moment, we’ve seen an independent advantage in our August poll and, if anything, it grew in this month’s poll.

Frederica Freyberg:
When you lay out all those possible reasons, do you have one that you think is why?

Charles Franklin:
Well, I think in national data for the first time since late June, we’ve seen the president’s overall approval numbers come down. I think we see that just a little bit in our data this month where it came down about three points. But I think that again reflects the national field of forces, the national winds that are blowing and are going to have a role in shaping our state outcomes.

Frederica Freyberg:
Charles Franklin, thanks very much for your work.

Charles Franklin:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
In addition to polls, another sure sign of a full-on election season is the onslaught of those negative ads.

Woman:
Tony Evers should have revoked the teacher’s license. But he didn’t.

Man:
Scott Walker does what’s best, for himself.

Man:
People should assume that it will go to Washington and become part of a system which is filled with career politicians.

Man:
Tell Tammy Baldwin it’s time to work for Wisconsin, not Washington liberals.

Frederica Freyberg:
Even the candidates say they don’t like them, but that doesn’t keep them from foisting attack ads onto the airwaves and online. So they work? If so, how do they work? We take those questions to UW-Madison Professor of Marketing Tom O’Guinn. Thanks for being here.

Tom O’Guinn:
My pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
So to that question, do these kinds of ads work?

Tom O’Guinn:
Well, the tougher question to ask, now, there was a period where people thought they worked pretty well and you certainly still see them. But I hate to hedge. It depends a lot on how they’re done. What’s more effective is framing people with an issue or even a word which could be positive or negative. But in the last say two, three election cycles, there’s been a belief that they’re just not being effective anymore and people are pulling back on them. I don’t think — generally I don’t think they’re that effective, no.

Frederica Freyberg:
And yet so why are they all over the airwaves?

Tom O’Guinn:
We’re in a transition away from them. I think there’s still candidates who get convinced to use them. It is true that humans over-value negative information over positive. It’s just this human psychology we have. Something negative happens, we weight it more heavily than something that’s positive. But we’ve become sort of inured to them. They don’t seem to make much difference anymore. They’re seen as tacky. Some candidates have discovered there’s actually blowback from them. They backfire. People start feeling sorry for the person, so unfairly, in a shallow way, accused.

Frederica Freyberg:
That’s interesting because I was going to ask whether or not there’s a point at which saturation of these turns people off.

Tom O’Guinn:
They do. And there’s also the belief that political advertising generally, particularly television, has probably reached its zenith, is falling for all kinds of reasons. The competition for eyeballs with the internet and all sorts of other streaming video. But the typical 30-second political ad is becoming, I think on its way to being a little bit of a dinosaur.

Frederica Freyberg:
And so describe what the methods are now.

Tom O’Guinn:
Well, the methods — and they particularly came into the public eye mostly during the ’08 cycle, which is just micro-targeting through largely the internet, is that the ability to learn so much about individual voters through their browsing history, the scraping of their emails, through all the things we object to on privacy grounds, have become so good that you can target several, you know, million people with slightly different messages.

Frederica Freyberg:
And how do — describe exactly what that is. Is that a Facebook ad while you’re browsing around Facebook? Or is it an email? Or is it a tweet?

Tom O’Guinn:
It’s usually all of those things. The ability once you’re identified — let’s say they identify you as somebody who’s still neutral, which is a small percentage of the electorate, right? We already know how most people are going to vote. So if they identify you as still having a good potential to be convinced, they’re going to hit you with everything they can. If you’re a big Facebook user, they’re going to show up on Facebook. And they’re also going to try to — you give these companies permission to scrape your email, to scrape all information, so they’re going to try to find out what are the issues that you’ve said to your friends are important to you and then have someone who’s similar to you or appears similar to you say something that you’ve actually already said.

Frederica Freyberg:
And so how much more effective or how effective are those methods than throwing it up on the TV airwaves or these, talk about dinosaurs, all of these come in your mailbox.

Tom O’Guinn:
And go immediately into my trash. I don’t even read them. They’re a lot more effective, at least for now. On a dollar basis, which everybody cares about, they are so much more cost effective and they appear to be speaking directly to you rather than an ad just blaring at 20 million people. Almost everyone I know who does this kind of work believes that it — highly targeted internet advertising is how it’s working. It’s often presented as news. It’s often presented as an opinion piece. It may not look like a political ad at all.

Frederica Freyberg:
Always having to be careful, as we know, about that kind of thing. Professor O’Guinn, thanks very much.

Tom O’Guinn:
Oh, my pleasure.

Frederica Freyberg:
We continue our look at the state’s Congressional districts. This week with Wisconsin’s 3rd. The 3rd Congressional District wraps around the Mississippi River, from the Illinois border up toward the Twin Cities in Minnesota. It also includes part of central Wisconsin in Portage County. The 3rd’s location in western Wisconsin makes it a prime location for farming and frac sand mining, which are two of the districts major industries. La Crosse, Eau Claire and Stevens Point all lie within the districts. Between these and other cities, the 3rd houses nearly half of the University of Wisconsin’s four-year campuses. In Congress, Democratic Ron Kind has represented the district for nearly two decades, since 1997. In November, he faces Republican Steve Toft.
From the House to the Senate, and a preview of next week’s “Here & Now.” WPR’s Shawn Johnson and Laurel White will join me for a close look at the Tammy Baldwin/Leah Vukmir race for U.S. Senate. We will hear from the candidates and provide context and analysis. That’s next Friday on “Here & Now.” As for tonight, well, it is the final production for a talented “Here & Now” team member, graphics designer Michaela Vatcheva is heading to the west coast to seek new fame and fortune. Good luck Michaela and thank you for everything. That is all for tonight’s program. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.
For more information on “Here & Now’s” 2018 election coverage, go to WisconsinVote.org.