Two groups love Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate and DSA member Francesca Hong: Committed leftists and Republican operatives. There is substantial evidence that most of the money propping up Hong — and 100 percent of the money buying her TV ads — comes from Republicans looking to ratfuck the Democratic primary. Wisconsin Politics reports that a group believed to be funded by Republicans has spent nearly a million dollars on pro-Hong TV ads — the Hong campaign, meanwhile, has spent a nice, round $0. At the same time, the Republican Governors Association has spent $3.6 million on ads “targeting” Hong; it just so happens that those ads inform voters in left-leaning places that Hong opposes Trump’s immigration agenda and will “take the Dem Party back to its progressive roots”. Wow — what a brutal takedown! It’s like running ads “warning” Republican primary voters that a candidate is a pro-America tax-cutter with a girthy, churchgoing penis.
Several things are notable here. One is yet another incident of cross-party primary ratfucking, which is something that both parties do, and it’s a problem. Another notable thing is that the Hong campaign appears to have less money than a Depression-era hobo, which means Hong will probably get crushed in TV spending when the general election rolls around. But I think the most notable thing is how little debate exists in Republican circles about whether DSA/leftist candidates are more electable or less electable than regular Democrats. To Republicans, there is no debate: Moderates are harder to beat than leftists. They believe this, they don’t waste oxygen debating this, and they expend large sums of money and political capital betting that they’re right.
Only in left-leaning circles do we debate whether voters prefer results-oriented moderates or crazy-eyed, antisocial freaks. The Freaks Lobby sees their historically paltry level of success getting cosmic nincompoops nominated by the Democratic Party as proof of an anti-Freak conspiracy. To a certain extent, they’re right: There are, indeed, many people — some of them in powerful places — who think it’s a bad idea for positions of power to be held by deluded fuckwits. I confess: I am one such person — the conspiracy is unraveling! Of course, because Democrats overwhelmingly nominate non-socialists, every time a normie loses, the DSA can say “A socialist would have won.” The claim is non-falsifiable, and I consider it to be about as supported by evidence as “I’d win the Kentucky Derby if it wasn’t limited to horses” or “Jimmy Stewart would have made a fortune on OnlyFans”. Nonetheless, the talking point persists, and it’s a key point of contention in the Democratic Party’s factional fight.
I and many others have spent a lot of time arguing that the DSA’s “secret leftist majority” theory is bunk. Some pieces of evidence supporting that argument are:
Moderate Democrats
habitually overperform the median Democrat, while progressives habitually underperform;Candidates associated with moderate caucuses (e.g. Blue Dog Democrats)
habitually overperform, while candidates associated with progressive caucuses (e.g. Justice Democrats) habitually underperform;Candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats (a far left group) have literally
never flipped a congressional seat from red to blue, while candidates backed by centrists groups do it all the time;Harris' campaign painted her as a moderate (leftists and centrists agree on this), and she
performed better in states where she campaignedthan in states where she didn't;Polls showed that voters
saw Harris as too far left;Polls showed that
Harris' biggest vulnerabilitiescame on issues where she was seen as too far left;Though issue polling is inconsistent and can be greatly manipulated by phrasing, the balance of evidence suggests that voters
do not like the progressive positionon key issues (e.g. immigration, transgender issues);
Leftists don’t find this evidence compelling, but you know who does? Republicans. And that’s why they’ve pulled out all the stops to elevate Hong. It’s also why their message in every campaign at every level dating back decades has been “my opponent is a commie freak”.
The Republican psyop might work: Polls show Hong leading her main opponent, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Republicans are tingling and engorged by the prospect of running against an über woke weirdo who 𝕏hates Thanksgiving, cosplays as Rosie the Riveter, and has boldly declared herself 𝕏anti-fun. And the Republican preference for Hong is known: The *Wisconsin Politics *article I cited is a week old, and the information was also conveyed in a 𝕏viral tweet. Even so, Wisconsin Democrats might give Republicans what they want. And if Democrats make that choice knowing that Hong is weak candidate, fair enough; sometimes people choose the candidate they prefer even when a more electable alternative is available. But they shouldn’t imagine that Hong will coast to victory on a wave of popular support; that’s a self-serving myth promoted by leftists and believed by some Democrats and absolutely zero Republicans.
