Wisconsin's primary was a warning for Democrats

A former party organizer shares the problems she saw from the inside

by

Opinion

David Crowley’s victory over Francesca Hong in Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary was decided by a margin so narrow that it should make Democrats pause before celebrating it as a straightforward victory for the party’s more moderate wing. Crowley won by roughly 0.4 percentage points, a difference of only a few thousand votes. On the surface, it is a primary election result. But if we dig deeper, it raises a more consequential question: What happens when a political party stops listening to the voters who make up the core of its coalition and starts deciding, instead, what it believes those voters should want? People raising concerns on how this primary came together need to be listened to. They have a very important point to make.

Crowley had previously withdrawn from the gubernatorial race, publicly saying he did not see a viable path to victory. He then returned to the race after securing the support of the Democratic establishment, including an endorsement from Gov. Tony Evers, who had repeatedly said he would not endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary. Crowley also benefited from substantial outside spending, anti-Hong Republican campaigning and institutional support. None of that makes his victory illegitimate; endorsements, fundraising and political alliances are part of every competitive election. But when a candidate who had exited the race is brought back into it with the support of powerful Democratic figures and then defeats a progressive challenger by a fraction of a percentage point, Democrats should be asking not simply who won, but what the closeness of that race is telling them about their own voters. Democrats need to sit down and understand that there is a reason why a democratic socialist progressive, who ran on grass roots organizing and fundraising, won the support of approximately half of its entire voter base...in a swing state.

I have some perspective on that question because, in 2022, I was on the inside of the Democratic electoral machine. I served as the community organizing director for Dane County during the midterm elections, and my responsibility was to reach communities that Democrats needed to bring into their electoral coalition. I spoke with Black community leaders, including leaders of Black churches. I reached out to Indian and broader Asian communities, many of whom were deeply reluctant to engage in American politics because of a fear of political retaliation and because of the feeling that their country does not always regard them as fully belonging to it.

I spoke with queer communities who were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of meaningful Democratic action on issues that were not simply questions of morality, but of survival. I worked with young Democrats on college campuses who told me they cared about things as basic as being able to afford housing, eat three meals a day, and avoid spending the rest of their lives repaying student loans at interest rates designed to keep them within the system. I also had the opportunity to speak with many members of the Muslim community and with women across these communities.

What struck me was how different these communities were, yet how remarkably consistent their political frustration was. Again and again, I heard some version of the same message: Democrats only talk to us when they need our votes. People told me they had heard promises during election cycles and watched those promises disappear afterward. They felt that communities Democrats routinely describe as the backbone of their coalition during their elaborate political speeches were being treated less like equal participants in this political system and more like a place where votes could be harvested when necessary. Some people went so far as to compare that relationship to colonial structures — systems that extract value from people they govern without treating those people as equal participants in the system they are an integral part of. These were not abstract conversations to me. They were conversations I was having as someone working inside the Democratic electoral operation, and I took them seriously enough to bring that feedback directly to some of the Democratic leaders.

I was very clear with them that perhaps this “traditional” political approach could work in 2022, but I could not, in good conscience, guarantee that it would continue working indefinitely. The issue was never whether Democrats knew these frustrations existed. They did. They have had several election cycles worth of opportunities to hear them. The problem is lack of implementation of that community feedback. Four years later, watching the Wisconsin primary unfold, I cannot help but look back to that moment in 2022 and wonder if I had predicted something I desperately do not want to come true. Loss of voter faith in Democratic party’s values and vision.

This is why Francesca Hong’s near-win matters. Hong represented a distinctly more progressive political vision, a style of leadership less invested in the traditional performance of politics and more interested in authenticity. She has been described as “not a politician,” and that description apparently resonated far beyond the progressive electorate. I have a friend who is unapologetically MAGA, and when he told me he supports Hong over Tom Tiffany, I actually asked him twice whether he was joking. He was not. His explanation was remarkably simple: “She’s not a politician, and she says what she means.” I found that revealing because authenticity is precisely what I have heard people across very different communities asking for. They do not necessarily agree with one another politically, and they certainly do not all agree with all of Hong’s politics. But they still supported her and what she stands for. Democrats had a candidate that could unify people across party lines…a candidate that could bring people together in a time of growing political division. And they lost that winning opportunity.

That brings me to what I believe is the core problem for Democrats right now: the temptation to decide for voters rather than allowing voters to decide for themselves. During this primary, institutional machinery was blatantly used as a substitute for listening to the constituents that have delivered countless victories to Democrats in the past. When voters repeatedly tell a political party what they want, and the party responds by selecting the candidate it believes those voters should want, it stops being persuasion and begins to look like political micro-management. Voters are not asking political parties to surrender leadership. They are asking to be heard.

And this is where Democrats need to understand something that political institutions are often slow to accept: fear politics may have worked for them for decades, but the overwhelming support for a candidate like Francesca Hong should tell them that it is not working for them anymore. The 2026 Democratic primary was a warning sign that Democrats are currently alienating 39.4% of their vote base and this should alarm everyone.

Ankita Bharadwaj is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School, a former community organizing director with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, and the host of the radio talk show, Subtle Desi Traits, on WORT 89.9-FM.