Inside Wisconsin Politics

Wisconsin's 2026 campaign ads and big national endorsements

Shawn Johnson:
For people just getting to know the governor’s race, one 30-second TV ad at a time, what does it look like right now? We talk about a couple recent ads and issues in the campaign, plus national political figures are paying more attention to Wisconsin, with more visits on the way. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I’m Shawn Johnson, here with my colleagues Zac Schultz and Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, guys.

Zac Schultz:
Hello.

Shawn Johnson:
So before we play these ads, I just wanted to ask you both how much these things matter in politics. I mean, we like to talk about how elections are decided by national mood, who’s in the White House, candidates we’d like to think issues sometimes. So what about these ads, Zac? How important are they to who wins and who loses?

Zac Schultz:
Well, if they didn’t matter, they wouldn’t be spending hundreds of millions of dollars every single cycle, with this being the most important barometer out there. As much as people who pay attention to politics wish that wasn’t the case and it was decided on issues or the quality of the actual candidate, that’s usually not the case. That’s because when you have larger turnout, you have more people that don’t pay attention every single day to headlines. They may not even have other news sources. And so ads are the number one way that one, they get informed as to what their candidate of choice that they may lean towards thinks is most important, or becomes even aware that there’s a campaign out there to begin with and that they should think about voting. So ads really serve a lot of purposes. We can get into the psychology behind the ads when we start watching them, but they are important, they do matter. As much as the people that watch this podcast probably hate them and want them to be done, and we hear that a lot as well, they work.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich, how about you? You’ve been covering politics and government for a few years now. How does what you see in these 30-second ads differ from kind of the slow wheels of government that you spend so much time covering?

Rich Kremer:
Well, I would say the difference is kind of like the difference between an orange and a glass of Sunny Delight. There’s some juice in there, but not a whole lot. And what I mean by that is when you’re following a bill move through the state Legislature, it moves slowly. As you said, you get to see receipts, you get to see the bill, you get to look up who the lobbying groups are that are for it, against it. You get to see testimony and hear testimony from the lawmakers that are supporting these things or opposing them, and why. So there’s a lot of context that you get to help you understand the issue. With a campaign ad, you don’t. What you get are these little tiny citations at the bottom of the screen that are hard to read. And if you take the time to pause the ad, or are quick enough to jot them down and look it up, then you’ll see it brings you to another campaign website or whatever, a news article. And then you look through, and a lot of times what it is, is there’s a speck of truth in an ad, but it’s usually exaggerated or just taken way out of context. So for people that do the work and look into those, it’s not terribly different, but still more work to find out what the ad is actually getting at other than how it’s supposed to make a person feel than, when you’re looking at the bill move slowly through the Capitol.

Shawn Johnson:
OK, so those important grains of salt now established, let’s play recent ads from both candidates for governor. We’re going to start with David Crowley’s ad called “Pledge.”

President Donald Trump:
I pledge!

Voiceover:
Tom Tiffany swore his loyalty to Donald Trump, voted with Trump 100% of the time, driving up the cost of gas, groceries, everything, and cut health care so billionaires could get a massive tax cut. Now those same billionaire MAGA donors are bankrolling Tiffany, giving him $24 million. And Tiffany, he said he’ll cut their income tax to zero. It’s true. Wisconsin’s not for sale, but Tom Tiffany is. And it’ll cost you.

Shawn Johnson:
All right, for our listening audience, I’ll point out that the ad presents Tom Tiffany in a bolo tie, which I have noticed is a recurring theme this election cycle from Democrats. They seem to like to present him that way. That trivial detail aside, Zac, what stands out to you from that ad in terms of themes?

Zac Schultz:
Well, 100% it’s connecting Tiffany to Trump. Trump has the lowest ratings of any president in the modern era. They’re as low as they’ve ever been right now. It is a weight around Tiffany when it comes to independents and even moderate Republicans. So any connection to Trump is what they’re trying to bring up in the voters’ minds to get them to think that way. And then emphasizing that billionaire connection we’ve been talking about on the podcast he’s been getting more than 90% of his money from just three billionaires with connections to the state. And trying to make sure, getting through that idea, even if it looks like he’s got plenty of campaign cash, it’s not because he’s widely supported by a lot of people it’s only a handful of people. Those are the things they’re trying to bring across, and tax the rich always plays well in elections. It doesn’t play well in the Capitol when it comes time to actually pass budgets and legislate, kind of like what Rich was talking about with bills moving through. But theme-wise, that’s something that always comes up in an election.

Shawn Johnson:
Rich, how about you? What stood out to you?

Rich Kremer:
Well, a lot of the same things that Zac noticed. I mean, the first thing you see in here is President Donald Trump shouting, and then you hear about those billionaires that are funding the campaign. It almost seemed like the ad’s more focused on Trump than it is on Tom Tiffany, which, again, given the climate and the polling, is not surprising. So the other thing that stuck out, of course, was zero, zero taxes for billionaires and they’re talking about the income tax there. But someone might see that and think he’s trying to get rid of all taxes for billionaires? What does that mean, you know. So, it’s an interesting ad.

Shawn Johnson:
And he sounds like that claim is based on something Tiffany said, that he was recorded talking about the goal being moving away from the income tax. Is that right?

Rich Kremer:
Yeah, that’s right. So I looked up the website that’s linked on that ad and it’s a site that’s run by Crowley’s campaign. I clicked on the link. It was a video, I should say it’s a blank video, but audio from a Tiffany event I want to say it was in September that was posted by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. So that was a tavern talk that Tom Tiffany’s been doing around the state. And you can hear someone in the audience ask about: Are you going to get rid of the income tax? And Tiffany says: Well, first we’re going to freeze the 400-year property tax veto, we’re going to, or excuse me, we’re going to repeal that, we’re going to freeze property taxes. And then he says: In the future, we’ll certainly try to work towards that. So, the gist of it to me was that he did say it. He did say eventually that he supports eventually getting to 0% income tax, but he doesn’t seem like he was planning to say it, that he was just answering a question from the crowd. And the other thing I got to mention, is that these sorts of, whenever you, not whenever, but a lot of times when you hear audio from a campaign event, there’s a good chance that it’s coming from someone that was paid to be there tracking that candidate

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah.

Rich Kremer:

Everyone does it.

Shawn Johnson:
And I kind of like, whenever I see video or audio like that now, I get a little worried. Is this real? You know, it’s ’cause as we move into this world of AI, I just think about what it’s going to be like in the 2030 race for governor.

Zac Schultz:
Yeah, I went to one of Tom Tiffany’s tavern talks. They allowed us in. We recorded it. He does take questions from the audience. And so that will happen where someone asks an uncomfortable question that the candidate doesn’t necessarily want to answer directly

Shawn Johnson:

Mmm-hmm.

Zac Schultz:

And they pivot away. He got a number those nights. I just recently went back and listened to the whole thing to see if I could pick up anything that I might have missed while I was there, and he was pretty deft at shifting away from what some of these people in the audience wanted him to answer, and answering it in the way that he wanted to. So this kind of fits into that same pattern. Like, Republicans have talked at the state level about trying to either get to a flat tax for income tax or eliminate it altogether. It’s never been a real serious paper proposal, but it’s an idea that we’ve heard around the Capitol not just Tom Tiffany, but Republicans in general.

Shawn Johnson:
Sure. Well, speaking of video that was kind of taken from an event where the candidate was speaking and put into a 30-second ad context, we’re going to look now at the Tom Tiffany ad. This is called, “David Crowley, I’m an Accomplice.”

David Crowley:
And when it comes down to the immigrants, I’m not an ally,, I’m an accomplice. I’m going to be with you no matter what.

Voiceover:
In Dane County, a repeat drunk driver and illegal immigrant killed two teenagers.

David Crowley:

I’m an accomplice.

Voiceover:
In Fond du Lac, an illegal immigrant tied up and blindfolded a 12-year-old girl to rape her.

David Crowley:
I’m an accomplice.

Voiceover:
In Milwaukee, a drunk, illegal immigrant killed a Special Olympian on his way to church.

David Crowley:
I’m an accomplice.

Voiceover:
David Crowley stands with illegal immigrants. Not you.

David Crowley:
No matter what.

Shawn Johnson:
All right, Zac, same question. What stands out to you about that ad?

Zac Schultz:
Well, we’ve heard Republicans hit on the illegal immigration tone for many election cycles in a row. Border security was one of Trump’s big issues, illegal immigration, obviously. Two years ago in Milwaukee at the GOP convention, “Mass Deportation Now” signs were handed out to everyone in the crowd, and they were enthusiastically waving them. And then, as president, he’s been part of this ICE enforcement that has taken out more than just immigrants that aren’t here legally, but also citizens or other people that are going through the process that aren’t quite naturalized. They’ve been shifted out of the country. This is something that Republicans have emphasized. I recently rewatched on C-SPAN an old hearing that Tom Tiffany was a member of on Congress, where they had these quote-unquote “angel parents” come in people whose children have been killed by illegal immigrants in America and he was trying to emphasize that. So this is a theme that he’s played up repeatedly. As for David Crowley’s comments, I believe he was talking in the concept of whether the county administration would work with ICE on enforcement. And he wasn’t saying illegal immigrants he was talking about immigrants in general. It’s a big, broad category. But when you pair them up together, this is what campaign commercials are designed to do, is they elicit a fear response in people. And if this is something that plays into what you are thinking already, then it’s designed to make you think that David Crowley is going to be someone that you don’t want to vote for.

Shawn Johnson:
Yeah, Rich, the ad there lists a few cases involving immigrants, and you’ve actually reported on at least one of those. I just wonder what actual link they have to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. I mean, in what way was he involved, or not at all?

Rich Kremer:
Heh, not at all. So the example, or the case, that I wrote about was it was a really sad situation. It was a wrong-way drunk driver. Teenagers from Minnesota were killed in Dane County. The person was here, the federal government said they’re here illegally. And then there was a bit of a battle between the federal government and Dane County in terms of well, the federal government wanted to deport this person. The sheriff said: No, they need to face justice. The DA said that. So there was that. It’s ongoing. But yeah, I mean, he was county executive when that happened in Milwaukee, on the other side of the state. So he didn’t have anything to do with it. And that’s what stuck out to me was the word “accomplice.” I saw some conservatives who really loved that ad, and some national people said, well, this is the most effective way to get that message across that they’ve seen. But people were sharing the definition of accomplice, which is like, knowingly and voluntarily helping someone commit a crime. That doesn’t fit in this situation. You know, their argument has been that if you’re soft on the border, or soft on illegal immigration, that you’re essentially enabling people to come here and commit crimes. But to say that you tried to help them commit the crimes is a whole different ball of wax. So it’s a really aggressive ad. It’s getting a lot of praise from conservatives. And I’ve even heard at least one Democrat say it’s a good ad even though they think it’s totally BS.

Shawn Johnson:
And one thing that I guess stuck out to me in that ad is just that the Tiffany campaign is unafraid of being repetitive there: We’re just going to hit that same word over and over and over again. It’s a bit jarring to watch and to listen to, but I guess they don’t care. They would rather you be jarred into paying attention to it than just kind of let it go by. The video in this ad, Rich I know we both looked it up it came from a Crowley appearance when he was a primary candidate for governor, and his credentials as a liberal were being questioned whether he was going to be tough enough on ICE. This was at an event that was similar to one of those tavern talks. I don’t know the specifics of this particular event, but he’s talking to what feels like a friendly crowd. He posted it on his social media, so I know it exists. But, one of those where, now that he doesn’t have that primary campaign to worry about, that one in particular is kind of coming back to haunt him a bit. So just to kind of review here. We have David Crowley talking about high costs, cut to health care, Trump, Trump, Trump. Tom Tiffany’s ad talking about immigration, immigration, immigration. Who’s doing it right?

Zac Schultz:
Well, who wins? We’ll find out. I mean, last week we talked about the changes in the Marquette Poll on David Crowley’s favorability, and we linked it I think rightfully so to the amount of money that Tom Tiffany has spent attacking him. Part of what Tiffany has to do to win this election is get Republicans who are not enthusiastic to vote, enthusiastic to vote. And part of the way to do that the easiest way to do that is to scare them into saying: The other guy is so much worse, no matter what you think about me and no matter what you may think about Trump, that guy is even worse. So that’s why most of these negative ads are fear- and anxiety-inducing. That is the psychology behind them. They are not accidental in that way. They have been shaped and messaged by these national groups that are very effective, knowing how it plays in the minds of independent voters, moderate voters, low-information voters and that’s who they’re targeting.

Shawn Johnson:
I want to talk about some more visits coming to Wisconsin, more attention from national figures coming to Wisconsin here. We’ve had some news this week: President Barack Obama came out with an endorsement video for David Crowley. Not a shocker, exactly, but whenever former President Obama speaks, people pay attention. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is going to campaign for David Crowley. And Speaker Mike Johnson was in Wisconsin to campaign for Derrick Van Orden. So let’s start with the governor’s race there. Zac, what’s the calculation for David Crowley with Barack Obama and Wes Moore?

Zac Schultz:
Well, Barack Obama specifically, any Democrat’s going to try and get that. He is in the elder statesman category, and any time a president is more than two terms removed from their time in office, their favorability ratings go up. People have a more nostalgic memory. Same thing happened to George W. Bush he was one of the least-liked presidents ever, but within two terms he was looked at as: Oh, he’s a statesman now. Same thing with Obama. Wes Moore is an active governor, and it’s not a surprise. These are two African American elected officials coming to campaign for what would be the first African American governor of Wisconsin, boosting turnout in liberal areas and in southeast Wisconsin. Those two could go a long way towards his credentials, and revving up that turnout in the Democratic base.

Shawn Johnson:
Yeah, it’s remarkable how little we talk about this sort of historic nature of David Crowley’s candidacy. And he would be, if he won, the first Black governor of Wisconsin ever. Rich, how about in the 3rd Congressional District, Derrick Van Orden versus Rebecca Cooke? Can Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, move votes for Derrick Van Orden in that race?

Rich Kremer:
Well, I would assume Republicans think so, otherwise they wouldn’t send him to the 3ird District. But I always wonder how many people that aren’t involved in politics or don’t study it like we do know who the speaker of the House is right now. But that said, Mike Johnson has gotten some big legislation through a tight majority in the House. He’s got a lot of support from Republicans for doing that, so he’s still a big name. And we’ve got to also mention that almost the entire cabinet of President Donald Trump has been to Wisconsin. Trump has been to Wisconsin for Derrick Van Orden and other Republicans. But they’re all in on this race, because it’s so key for the GOP keeping its majority in the House.

Zac Schultz:
And Shawn, we should mention that Tom Tiffany has some big names coming in that I want your reaction to. Ted Nugent is going to be with him in Green Bay. Brett Favre is going to be with him in Waukesha. Did those move the needle for Tom Tiffany?

Shawn Johnson:
They are going to be a certain group of voters that pay attention to what Ted Nugent and Brett Favre have to say. And so in Wisconsin, when elections are won and lost by 1% routinely, I guess candidates go for everybody, right? And I bet you Ted Nugent and Brett Favre have campaigned together before, if I just had to guess. Before we let you go, we did want to let you know we’ve got a couple free live events coming up around the state ahead of the election. Join us for an evening in Eau Claire on Tuesday, Oct. 20, or Madison on Tuesday, Oct. 27. We’ll talk about the show, what we’re seeing in our reporting as Election Day nears, and take your questions. Find the details at pbswisconsin.org/events and reserve your spot. That’s all the time we have for today. Our colleague Anya van Wagtendonk will be back next week. This has been Inside Wisconsin Politics. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.