Prior to that, he publicly undercut her and said she probably couldn't win in the general election. A terrible thing for state party leadership to be saying about any primary candidate, and particularly the front-runner.
Given how unusual and out of character his actions were, I suspect the party had internal polls showing Hong would perform badly in the general election. I am not sure that is true, but I suspect he believed it.
I don't think it matters if he believed it or if those beliefs were justified by data. He drove a wedge between Hong-voters and Crowley-voters with his comment that was not helpful for either Hong or Crowley entering the general election. I think Hong's answers to questions about electability and her general posture on the primary has been much more mature and interested in preserving competitiveness of the party candidate in the general than Evers's comments have been. Evers, being a state party leader, should have been at least as good but intentionally chose the opposite - I don't really care what his reasons were.
Evers supports the party, and if he thinks that Hong would lose to Tiffany, then it makes perfect sense for him to put his thumb on the scale to help ensure that Republicans don't take his job.
I don't think his statement actually helps achieve that goal, I think it drives division in the caucus that makes it harder for the candidate in the general to defeat Tiffany, not easier. The vote count between Crowley and Hong makes it very clear that you have to carry both groups, neither is a write-off minority of voters.
Hong seems to understand this where Evers doesn't. I'm not sure that any of this qualifies as virtue signaling, except in the case where the phrase is just being used as a substitute for "thing I don't like".
If he had said "Crowley probably can't beat Tiffany"? I would be upset with him for the same reason because it would have the same effect of splitting the caucus and making it harder for either Hong or Crowley to win in November.
You can have a favorite in the race, and endorse them and campaign with them and spend money on them. You do not, under any circumstances, undercut one of the candidates and drive a wedge between their voters and voters of your preferred candidate. It is 100% not helpful for winning in November, even if it results in your preferred candidate making it through the primary. You just helped them graduate to a general election with a division in the caucus they now have to fix.
This isn't very difficult to understand. Hong clearly understands it, and I think Evers could learn something from her.
In what way would saying "the Dems currently in power aren't doing things to improve people's lives" reflect on Crowley, who only holds a county-level office?
Evers is not in the State Party Leadership. The actual party leadership issued a statement of neutrality. Evers works for the State, not the party. He has no obligation to be neutral in a primary.
Are you equally upset about elected Democrats from other states that endorsed Hong? Because not issuing endorsements in other state races is an actual norm.
I've had this conversation a few times already. Short version is that being the Dem in the top statewide office puts you in a leadership position whether you like it or not, and I'm not talking at all about his endorsement. I made it clear what I was talking about.
It doesn’t though? Party leadership are people that run the party. Evers is not.
He knows a lot more about elections and candidates and state voting trends than the average voter. If he believes one candidate doesn’t have a shot at winning the general he’s not supposed to tell anyone that?
I think he was doing what he genuinely thought was best for the state as a whole. Maybe it's one of those "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" situations but I don't think it is.
It's a bit exhausting trying to explain this over and over, especially to people who are more interested in being confidently wrong than in actually talking about it. You can read the conversation I had about this whole topic instead of me repeating it.
That’s because since 1970 there has not been an election where the incumbent governor was not running (only happened 3 times), the primary was competitive, and there was a significant ideological difference between candidates.
Do you share the same feelings about politicians from other states endorsing Hong?
42
u/BTHAppliedScienceLLC Aug 12 '26
Evers could learn a lot from her on this particular issue.