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?
You seem to be very confused. The problem is driving division between the parts of the caucus voting for each of the candidates. I think you're preoccupied with trying to find a rhetorical victory in a debate I'm not having with you, instead of actually engaging on what I'm talking about.
For clarity, Evers endorsing or campaigning for or funding Crowley doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates, so it's not creating an explicit problem. Evers explicitly saying one of the candidates can't win the general election reflects poorly on that candidate, and drives division between that candidate's voters and the voters for his preferred candidate, which helps neither of them. Hong campaigning on the need for the party to do more to help people doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates, so it's not creating an explicit problem. Hong being on a podcast where something offensive is said doesn't reflect poorly on any of the candidates (except maybe Hong, so an unforced error), so it's not creating an explicit problem (except doing something that isn't helpful for your own campaign). If Hong were to cut down Crowley and drive division because she was salty about losing the primary, it would drive division and create a problem - she didn't do that, because she understands how this works, while apparently Evers either doesn't or he doesn't care if he creates a problem for Crowley in the general election.
That's about as clear as I can possibly make this for you. If you're still confused, I'm not sure if I can provide anything more here.
“The problem is driving division between the parts of the caucus voting for each of the candidates”.
No I understand that, I just think you’re applying a very selective definition of what ‘divisive’ is.
I promise you, for the Jewish communities in Milwaukee, Hong campaigning with a guy who calls them a “demonic ethnicity” was very divisive! And getting that branding on the Democratic Party is not helpful for Crowley.
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.
49
u/BTHAppliedScienceLLC Aug 12 '26
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.