Wisconsin Democrats narrowly avoided nominating an openly democratic-socialist candidate for governor, but perhaps “avoided” deserves an asterisk.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley defeated State Rep. Francesca Hong by less than one percentage point, with over 780,000 votes cast. That’s a razor-thin margin over Hong, who openly embraces democratic socialism and previously advocated defunding police, abolishing ICE, and even abolishing the U.S. Senate. The national media quickly portrayed Crowley’s victory as the Democratic establishment stopping the socialist insurgency. Crowley was the “moderate.” Hong was the socialist.
Socialism defeated. Democratic moderation restored. Not so fast.
Crowley rejects the socialist label and campaigns as a pragmatic Democrat. Yet what constitutes a “moderate” Democrat in 2026?
Crowley’s own platform proposes opening BadgerCare enrollment to any household that wants it, with government subsidies and sliding-scale premiums. He proposes guaranteeing every family with a child under five a subsidized childcare slot, with costs capped at seven percent of household income, and taxpayers covering the rest. He supports universal taxpayer-funded pre-K, increasing government housing assistance, expanding Housing First statewide, raising Wisconsin’s minimum wage to $15 immediately and $20 by 2030, repealing Act 10, restoring full collective bargaining for public employees and increasing government investment in public education. He says he’s not socialist? Really?
That distinction matters. Democratic socialism advances through expanding collective responsibility and government influence over areas traditionally governed by individuals, families, communities and private markets. Hong openly embraced that philosophy. Crowley uses the language of affordability, access, opportunity and investment to promote many policies that move government further into socialism. The media nevertheless places Crowley in the “moderate” column because Hong stood considerably farther left.
Perhaps the real story isn’t that Wisconsin Democrats rejected socialism. It is that an openly democratic-socialist candidate came within a whisker of winning, while the candidate identified as the moderate, already socialist, would have represented the Democratic Party’s progressive wing not many years ago.
So, has the Democratic Party gone extreme? Wisconsin provides an illuminating answer. Hong came within 3,200 votes of winning. Those Democratic primary voters were willing to make an avowed democratic socialist their nominee for governor of a critical swing state. And the victor demonstrates how far the party’s definition of “moderate” has traveled.
Proverbs 14:15 says, “The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.”
Labels can disguise political movement. “Socialist,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “moderate” matter less than examining what candidates actually propose government should control, provide, subsidize and regulate. Wisconsin Democrats may have appeared to draw a line between socialism and moderation. But that line looks more like a distinction in language than a difference in direction.
Sources
Axios, “Crowley beats socialist Hong in Wisconsin Democratic governor primary”
Associated Press, Wisconsin Democratic primary and ideological divide
David Crowley Campaign, “Badger Basics” platform
CNN/KFile, Hong’s record advocating defunding and abolishing police
Wisconsin Watch, Democratic gubernatorial candidates and positions
Wall Street Journal, “In Wisconsin, the Centrists Strike Back With Crowley’s Win”
The Guardian, Crowley defeats Hong 39.8% to 39.4%