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 1 ad paid for by Zimmerman for WI. Show all 51 ads
Paid for by Zimmerman for WIfrom 2026-10-03spend $200–29915,000–19,999 impressions
Tom Tiffany and I are 'all in' to protect our great state. The tale of two states reveal a stark contrast. Corruption, fraud and a lack of support for law enforcement=MN. WI=The top destination for MN exile, we support law enforcement and every single session we chip away at taxes to make things more affordable.
I am honored to have Tom's support and I believe he will make an amazing Governor! Vote Zimmerman (and Tiffany) on Nov 3rd.
Glittering Generalities: The phrase 'our great state' uses vague, emotionally positive language to evoke pride without substantive meaning — for example: 'our great state'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The sentence frames two states as polar opposites with no nuance, implying Minnesota is entirely corrupt and Wisconsin entirely virtuous — for example: 'The tale of two states reveal a stark contrast'
Loaded Language: The words 'Corruption' and 'fraud' are emotionally charged terms used to trigger a negative reaction toward Minnesota rather than convey specific factual claims — for example: 'Corruption, fraud and a lack of support for law enforcement=MN'
Scapegoating: Minnesota as a state and its governance are broadly blamed for corruption, fraud, and anti-law-enforcement sentiment without specific evidence — for example: 'Corruption, fraud and a lack of support for law enforcement=MN'
Appeal to Prejudice: The framing of Wisconsin as the refuge for 'MN exile' reinforces an in-group/out-group identity, positioning Wisconsin residents as superior and Minnesota residents as fleeing a failed state — for example: 'The top destination for MN exile'
Card Stacking: The sentence selectively highlights Wisconsin's positive attributes (law enforcement support, tax cuts) while omitting any counterarguments or complexities, presenting a one-sided picture — for example: 'we support law enforcement and every single session we chip away at taxes'
Glittering Generalities
Black-and-White Fallacy
Loaded Language
Scapegoating
Appeal to Prejudice
Card Stacking
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.
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