In Wisconsin's Democratic gubernatorial primary, Francesca Hong, the Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidate, had been the front-runner for months. The final Marquette Law School Poll, the state's most respected survey, gave her 38 percent support, with her nearest rival, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, at just 7 percent. That same poll, released days before the election, had Hong leading by 22 points.
But on primary night, Hong lost by a narrow margin. The result was a shock, and it raises a critical question: did Hong's campaign collapse in the final days, or were the polls simply wrong?
Hong's late surge of bad press didn't help—her past online comments about abolishing Thanksgiving as a "colonialist, fascist holiday" resurfaced, and her campaign faced other oddities, including three major candidates dropping out and one, Crowley, re-entering at the last minute. Yet Hong had been the clear leader, with more support in the polls than all other serious candidates combined. Her loss suggests the polls were dramatically off.
This pattern isn't unique to Wisconsin. In Michigan's Democratic Senate primary, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a socialist and DSA member, entered election day with a 13-point lead in the polling average but won by just 1 point. In Minnesota's Republican Senate primary, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO known for extreme positions and election conspiracy theories, was the heavy favorite yet lost by a 17-point swing from the last poll to the final result.
So why do extreme candidates underperform so consistently? The answer may lie in a polling blind spot: pollsters fail to account for the "normal people" who quietly oppose such candidates. As one political observer put it, these are the voters who hated the student council candidate promising free soda fountains—they vote for anyone else, but they don't tell pollsters.
Open primaries may be the saving grace. In Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota, all of which have open primaries, independents and crossover voters can participate in either party's primary. When an extreme candidate threatens to win, these voters can "right the ship" by voting for the more mainstream option. Marquette's final Wisconsin poll, for instance, had a sample that was only 59 percent Democratic, leaving room for a surge of non-Democrats to tip the balance.
The polling error was a boon for establishment Democrats. In Wisconsin, Crowley's victory spared the party a general election fight against a candidate who wanted to cancel Thanksgiving. Now, Republican nominee Tom Tiffany faces a more credible opponent. Similarly, in Michigan, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers has a better shot against El-Sayed, who has embraced controversial figures like Hassan Piker and criticized football.
As one veteran political analyst noted, "Beating crazy is very doable. Beating normal is a lot harder." The lesson for pollsters: don't forget the normal voters. They may not be as vocal, but they show up when it matters.
