Wisconsin Governor 2026: the ads, and who's paying for them
Tom Tiffany (Republican) and David Crowley (Democrat) are the candidates for governor of Wisconsin in the November 3, 2026 general election. Semblen has analyzed 51 ads in this race; 39 used at least one manipulation technique, most often loaded language and name calling.
Tom Tiffany (REP), David Crowley (DEM).
On the ballot as listed by Ballotpedia. 51 ads analyzed, 39 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-08.
37 of 49 (76%) flagged · Loaded Language (26), Name Calling (20), Appeal to Fear (19)
YouTube
2 of 2 flagged · Appeal to Fear (1), Appeal to Prejudice (1), Black-and-White Fallacy (1)
Reported Meta spend
$71,200–112,963 on all ads, $64,400–99,027 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“bragged” — Loaded Language, paid for by Tiffany for Wisconsin
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
Embed this race on your site
A small box with these findings and the newest ads, updated as new ads are analyzed. Free for newsrooms, blogs and campaigns alike; it links back here.
Follow Tom Tiffany vs. David Crowley
An email when new ads come in from either side or the outside groups: the techniques, the words doing the work, and who paid. And each debate's analysis the morning after. One-click unsubscribe.
Each side is the campaign plus the groups backing it. How a group is placed is explained below the table.
Side
Ads
With at least one technique
Most common
Tiffany (R)
17
14 of 17 (82%)
Loaded Language (12), Appeal to Prejudice (9), Name Calling (9)
All from the campaign; no ads here from groups placed on this side.
Crowley (D)
11
8 of 11 (73%)
Loaded Language (6), Name Calling (6), Appeal to Fear (4)
Crowley's campaign
10
7 of 10 (70%)
Loaded Language (6), Name Calling (5), Appeal to Fear (4)
1 group backing Crowley
1
1 of 1
False Urgency (1), Name Calling (1)
Not placed on a side (6 sponsors)
23
17 of 23 (74%)
Loaded Language (9), Appeal to Fear (8), Black-and-White Fallacy (7)
Read this before comparing the sides. Ads that attack an opponent use these techniques far more often than ads that introduce a candidate, whoever runs them, so the side running more attack ads shows a higher share. A technique is about wording, not about whether an ad is true. These are online ads only (Meta and YouTube), not television.
Appeal to Prejudice (1), Black-and-White Fallacy (1), Card Stacking (1)
How a group is placed: by its own filings with the Federal Election Commission. A group is with a candidate when it reported spending to support that candidate, or to oppose the other one in the general election. The parties' own committees are with their nominee. Spending against a candidate in a primary places a group nowhere, and neither does our reading of its ads: a group with no such filing is listed as not placed. The sponsor table gives the reason for each.
Decide what counts
Not everyone would call every technique manipulation. Untick the ones you'd call ordinary persuasion and the count updates.
76% of the 51 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (39 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 69% of ads.
The words doing the work
The words that show up most in phrases our model flagged as loaded language or name calling in this race's ads, by number of ads.
illegal immigrantin 6 ads· e.g. “illegal immigrants”, “bragged about being an "accomplice" to illegal immigrants”
accomplicein 5 ads· e.g. “accomplice”, “bragged about being an "accomplice" to illegal immigrants”
MAGAin 5 ads· e.g. “MAGA billionaires”, “MAGA Republicans”
moneyin 5 ads· e.g. “dark money groups”, “hard-earned money”
sanctuaryin 4 ads· e.g. “sanctuary state”, “California-style sanctuary policies”
affordin 3 ads· e.g. “Wisconsin can't afford David Crowley as governor”, “can't afford”
agendain 3 ads· e.g. “David Crowley's tax-and-spend agenda”, “tax-and-spend agenda”
buyin 3 ads· e.g. “buy this election”, “buy Wisconsin”
Semblen is free to read and has no ads. If this page was useful, you can support it.
Money in this race
Candidates for governor report their fundraising to Wisconsin's state campaign-finance office, not the FEC. This page doesn't cover those reports yet, so it shows no money figures.
The ads
51 ads, newest first. Video transcripts are shown as the model read them, without caption cues like [music].
Showing the 6 ads paid for by Forward Solutions LLC. Show all 51 ads
Paid for by Forward Solutions LLCfrom 2026-10-06spend $0–994,000–4,999 impressions
Tom Tiffany owns the affordability crisis. While Wisconsin families pay more for groceries, housing, and healthcare, he’s making life easier for his billionaire donors.
#wisconsin #politics #madison #milwaukee #eauclaire
Loaded Language: The phrase 'owns the affordability crisis' uses emotionally charged framing to assign personal blame and moral responsibility to Tiffany in a provocative way — for example: 'owns the affordability crisis'
Appeal to Prejudice: Invokes 'Wisconsin families' as an in-group of ordinary people being harmed, contrasted with out-group 'billionaire donors' to stoke class-based resentment — for example: 'Wisconsin families'
Scapegoating: Blames Tiffany alone for the complex, multi-causal affordability crisis affecting groceries, housing, and healthcare — for example: 'he's making life easier for his billionaire donors'
Black-and-White Fallacy: Presents only two sides: ordinary Wisconsin families suffering versus Tiffany helping billionaire donors, leaving no room for nuance or alternative explanations — for example: "While Wisconsin families pay more for groceries, housing, and healthcare, he's making life easier for his billionaire donors".
Loaded Language
Appeal to Prejudice
Scapegoating
Black-and-White Fallacy
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Forward Solutions LLCfrom 2026-10-06spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Two billionaire families are spending $51 million to buy Wisconsin ahead of the 2028 elections.
We have to support @crowleyforwi to prevent election denier Tom Tiffany from being in charge of certifying our elections.
#wisconsin #news #politics #elonmusk #billionaire
Loaded Language: The phrase 'buy Wisconsin' uses emotionally charged language implying corruption and the commodification of democracy rather than neutral reporting on political spending — for example: 'buy Wisconsin'
Name Calling: The label 'election denier' is used as a derogatory tag to discredit Tom Tiffany rather than addressing his positions substantively — for example: 'election denier Tom Tiffany'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence creates anxiety about the dire consequence of Tiffany being 'in charge of certifying our elections,' implying a threat to electoral integrity to compel action — for example: 'prevent election denier Tom Tiffany from being in charge of certifying our elections'
False Urgency: The phrase 'We have to support' implies an imperative, non-negotiable need to act immediately, creating artificial pressure — for example: 'We have to support'
Loaded Language
Name Calling
Appeal to Fear
False Urgency
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
An email when new ads come in from either side or the outside groups: the techniques, the words doing the work, and who paid. And each debate's analysis the morning after. One-click unsubscribe.
Conspiracy Appeal: The phrase implies that Tom Tiffany is deliberately hiding information from the public, suggesting a hidden agenda or secret — for example: 'doesn't want you to know'
Conspiracy Appeal
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Forward Solutions LLCfrom 2026-10-06spend $0–992,000–2,999 impressions
Tom Tiffany says he doesn’t care about union support because he’s not worried about the “kingpins.”
So I went to Milwaukee’s Labor Day parade to see if I could find one. Turns out, I found a whole lot of Wisconsinites who work for a living.
#wisconsin #labor #politics #democrats
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Appeal to Fear: The phrase 'raise the cost of your healthcare' is designed to trigger anxiety about personal financial harm from healthcare expenses — for example: 'raise the cost of your healthcare'
Card Stacking: The juxtaposition of a vote harming ordinary people's healthcare with a tax break for data centers implies corrupt prioritization without providing context or counterarguments about either policy — for example: 'gave a tax break to data centers'
Appeal to Fear
Card Stacking
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
An ad is on this page because its own "Paid for by" line is a campaign in this race; or it ran mostly in WI and names a nominee for governor — unless its sponsor is a campaign for some other office (a U.S. Senate or House campaign included), or it also names WI's Senate nominees, in which case it is on the Senate race's page. Ads from outside groups appear alongside the campaigns' own.
The candidates are the ones certified for the November ballot, from the source linked at the top. Governors are state offices, so there are no FEC filings behind this page: no money figures, and outside groups are placed on a side only when they are a campaign or a party committee.
Campaigns run one text as many separate ads. Identical text from the same sponsor is one card here, marked with its number of variants.
A technique is a specific manipulative move in the wording, found by our model and explained in one line. It is not a claim that the ad is false.
Claims are checked when a reader asks: press "Check this ad's claims" on a card. The check runs once and its result is shown to everyone afterwards. The ten ads with the most money behind them in each race are checked ahead of time.
Claim verdicts say what the cited sources say. A verdict that an ad is wrong or misleading is shown only when it cites an established fact-checker or an institutional record — Congress, a federal agency, a court — and its confidence is not low; a weaker one is not shown at all. Each verdict shows what it rests on and how confident it is. If we got one wrong, press Disagree: a verdict that readers dispute and no one defends comes down.
Video ads come from the campaigns' own YouTube channels; the transcript is analyzed. Meta ads are analyzed on their text; their video and images are not, yet.
Get notified as this improves — new detection models, the browser
extension, and new features. Occasional email, no spam.
Semblen LLC · 5900 Balcones Drive STE 100, Austin, TX 78731 · unsubscribe any time