Wisconsin Broadcasters Association Foundation U.S. Senate Debate Between Senator Tammy Baldwin and Eric Hovde

Good evening and welcome to Civic Media's coverage of the U.S. Senate debate in Wisconsin,

pitting Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin against Republican challenger Eric Havdy.

I'm Terry Belf from Civic Media News. I'm joined by the host of the Todd Abba Show, Todd Abba himself and this will be an important night in the race for U.S. Senate.

This will be the one and only debate between these two candidates and it happens at a time when the race is tightening down to two points according to the Cook Political Report that I'm partisan Cook Political Report and in a race where that seemed to be Baldwin's run.

I'm running away at one point in the summer. Now it seems to be tightening up quite a bit. So what happens tonight, Todd Abba? Maybe is the winner is the candidate who does not make a faithful mistake.

Good evening and good evening to all of our listeners. Always great to be with you on these exciting nights for those of us that are a bit of a political junkie and yeah, absolutely some of the pulling out as you said, the Cook Report has us down two points, I think Mark Kett had it within around four so last time around, you know, the point is I think that Democrats have used these numbers to kind of gin up fundraising a little bit and make hay of them. Republicans are trying to use it to say that, hey, Eric Havdy has some momentum.

He's not going to trigger Jolson from the Lincoln Project who studies these polls quite a lot. He said, look, whether it's Harris or whether it's Baldwin, things have been pretty steady, but I think you're right, Terry, that for Tammy Baldwin tonight, you know, she's trying to solidify some things of lower minds for Eric Havdy.

He's trying to make a big splash. I mean, I mean, he is not the incumbent Tammy Baldwin is and these things and competency tends to matter quite a bit as we know, Wisconsin is a ticket, ticket splitting state.

Last time we had a US Senate race, of course, with Ron Johnson at the top on the same ticket was Democratic governor Tony Evers.

Evers wins and so does Republican Ron Johnson. So Wisconsin is a little schizophrenic when it comes to how they're going to vote.

And it's not maybe a crazy scenario in that case that say Kamala Harris wins Wisconsin and maybe so does Eric Havdy.

It could be or it could be the other room. Maybe Trump wins Wisconsin, but so does Tammy Baldwin. I mean, it sounds odd to some people.

But I think there is a portion of Wisconsin that people like to know like, you know, who could we relate to?

So I mean, we have a couple of keys here where you want to go through them for both Havdy and Tammy, wherever you want to do that.

Yeah, absolutely. What are you looking for tonight? What does each candidate have to do and maybe what do they have to avoid doing?

I believe in you know, I spent 30 years in Republican politics left the party in 2011. So I basis on some past experience.

I think for Tammy Baldwin tonight, the incumbent, she has to remind voters of her record of accomplishment, whether that's a three and a half million dollars she brought in for dairy businesses.

I think what's really important is the case work that her team has done, whether it's delivery passports for people, whether it's helping people with visas or constituent services.

I think that's really important for her to drive home tonight because a lot of Wisconsinites have experienced that she's brought in money for high speed internet for real parts of Wisconsin and helped veterans.

She also needs to remind voters that her seat matters when it comes to confirming Supreme Court justices, whether you're concerned about women's health care, LGBTQ rights, things like that.

And finally be positive tonight while also attacking Havdy are trying to attach Havdy rather to Donald Trump.

And if you're air accompany tonight, I think that he has to try to separate his prize, the biggest part of me, the biggest challenge in my opinion, because he has to try to separate himself from Trump when it comes to Trump and advances national abortion

will also not losing his mega base as kind of a touchy thing to do. He has to try to establish himself as a serious candidate.

He started off this race by literally jumping into a lake. I think he has to try to bring out some of his business record and remind voters of that, talk about his record as a business owner.

And finally, I'm not joking around. He has to try to seem quote unquote normal to dispel Tammy Baldwin's tagline of what's wrong with this guy.

Remember Tammy Baldwin beat favorite son Tommy Thompson in 2012 for the same seat. A lot of people thought Tommy Thompson would run away with it. She beat Tommy with the tagline.

He's not for you anymore. And it worked because Tommy's actions backed it up.

Well, let's talk about that tagline. What's wrong with this guy? That's based on a couple of claims that have been debunked by our friends at Wisconsin watch.

One that he said that farmers don't work hard. That's taking what he said out of context a bit. And another saying that older people ought not to vote.

Again, taking a statement he said and kind of running with it in a way that he did not intend.

I think, you know, whether you're a style of context, but the fact is those comments. I believe I can stay corrected. I've never questioned the folks at Wisconsin watch.

I think those are things that he said in interviews with Steve Walters on Wisconsin. I, which is of course Wisconsin's version of C span, which you're just taking what a guy says or a person says and using that when it comes to seniors and voting.

I think that not I think we heard it in his own words. He said that once people get to into a nursing home, they only have quote five or six months to live unquote.

Now that was our reference to you know what the life expectancy. Now the argument can be made. It was taken out of context, I suppose, but did he say those things? Sure. And again, in politics, sometimes perception is reality.

I think the perception if you take those words, whether they're in context or out of context. And then you see a guy who literally jumps into a frozen lake to start his campaign.

I think voters that the tagline of what's wrong with this guy. I think that sticks.

The interesting thing I think about tonight is that you know, it is Friday night, not a time when people are really glued to their radios and televisions, especially for a political debate.

And this is played. This is held up over time is that people who watch debates are pretty much made up their minds.

There are not a lot of people watching and listening tonight that I think don't have a pretty good idea of who they're going to vote for.

So what becomes important tonight is as we mentioned before, just simply not making a mistake, not making that big gap, not making that you know viral moment that works against you.

On the other hand, maybe what you do try to do is you have that, you know, that catchy thing you say the thing that catches on with people of thing that resonates.

Whatever is in advertisements or streaming on social media on Monday is probably the goal of what candidates try to accomplish tonight.

Yeah, I mean, you've been a broadcaster long time along with myself, Terry, you know, in television, they for a long time, they called Friday nights the graveyard because they put shows there to go there to die.

Although CBS turned that around in the 80s with Dallas on Friday nights and Duke's hazard.

And more recently with blue blood on Friday night, one of my favorite shows, by the way, but yes, traditionally people are going out.

They're going to tonight, a lot of people at high school football games around the state of Wisconsin.

So well, a lot of people will be watching or listening to this tonight live.

Who knows? I think you're absolutely right in the era of TikToks and and reels on on on Facebook and Insta.

That's what it comes down to very good in a moment.

We are going to take you to the studios of WMTV channel 15 in Madison brought to you by the Wisconsin broadcasters association foundation and the one debate.

The season between Eric Covey and Tammy Baldur. Thank you for tuning in to civic media special coverage.

Live from the WMTV studios in Madison, the Wisconsin broadcasters association foundation presents the 2024 U.S. Senate debate with incumbent democratic senator Tammy Baldur and Republican challenger Eric Covey.

Now, here's WBA foundation president and CEO Michelle Vetterkind.

Good evening. The Wisconsin broadcasters association and its member radio and television stations are pleased to welcome you to the US Senate debate.

Tonight's event originates from Madison, Wisconsin at the studios of WMTV TV.

We have a team of broadcasters from communities large and small across the state involved in bringing this debate to you.

Tonight's debate continues the WBA's longstanding commitment to excellence and public service.

The debate is underwritten by the WBA foundation and supported by a grant from the Wisconsin Counties Association.

Let's go now to our moderator, a veteran Wisconsin broadcaster, member of the WBA Hall of Fame and professor of leadership and media integrity at Loyola University Chicago, Jill Geisler.

Good evening. On Tuesday, November 5th, Wisconsin voters will choose between two candidates for U.S. Senator.

Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin and Republican challenger Eric Covey.

Now, quickly, these are the rules to which they have agreed.

For all questions from our statewide team of journalists, candidates will be told the length of time they have for a response.

It will usually be 60 seconds. We all see countdown clocks.

And when candidates hit their time limit, I will remind them.

And if they continue, their microphone will cease to function.

As moderator, I also have the option to note when a candidate hasn't actually answered the question they were asked,

and I'll give them 30 seconds to do so, and to be fair, their opponent will also then get an additional 30 seconds to respond.

Now, we are providing another important service to this debate thanks to our data team.

Many complex issues require deeper context and verification from reliable sources.

Now, we have that for you. After each question, our data team will post links to resources on our WBA debate website.

I'll remind you throughout the debate and a QR code and a link will direct you there.

Now, please note, we are addressing the candidates using the titles they have requested.

The order of response for the first question and the last question was determined by a coin toss.

So, with that, let us begin with the first question. It comes from Alison Fergit of WKBT in La Crosse.

We're going to begin by discussing the economy, specifically pocketbook issues.

The stock market today closed at an all-time high. Employment in Wisconsin is at a record high, and inflation has slowed.

Yet we know many people still feel that the cost of many things is still too high.

So, we're going to ask about the variety of issues that focus on the cost of living, and we'll begin with healthcare.

More than a quarter of a million Wisconsinites rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance.

The most recent polling shows that 62% of the country supports the law.

Mr. Hovey, you said we need to move beyond the ACA.

Meanwhile, Senator Baldwin, you said we need to preserve it.

If anything, what would you change about the Affordable Care Act?

Each will have 60 seconds to respond, and by the corn flip, Mr. Hovey, you will go first.

Well, thank you, and thank you, everybody, for joining tonight.

It's wonderful and Jill, for hosting and for the journalist being here.

And it's finally nice getting this debate, Senator Baldwin.

Look, the Affordable Care Act made three promises.

Promise number one, it would slow down the cost of healthcare.

Promise number two, it would increase the access to healthcare, and promise number three, that you would be able to keep your family doctor.

But I'm a believer in results, and if you look at the results, every one of those promises has failed.

Cost of healthcare have only skyrocketed higher.

Access to care has declined, and declined significantly, particularly for a lot of people in our rural communities.

And lastly, the family doctor has all but disappeared.

The only thing that is meaningful with the pre-existing conditions, look, I have multiple sclerosis, so I understand the importance of that.

But we need a significant restructuring of our healthcare system.

Thank you, Mr. Hovey. Senator?

Well, I went throughout my youth without health insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

And I grew up believing that was wrong.

I had the honor of serving on a panel when I was in the House of Representatives that wrote the Affordable Care Act.

And it was my provision that allow young people to stay on their parents' health insurance till they turn 26.

Sadly, my opponent, Eric Hubby, called that particular provision stupid and has agreed, as you hear, has said that he would overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, including my provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' health insurance.

He also opposes efforts to negotiate with the big pharmaceutical companies to lower the price of prescription drugs, saving patients and Medicare money.

We need to build upon the Affordable Care Act, and we need to build upon our efforts to negotiate lower prescription drug prices.

Thank you. We're going to stay with the cost of healthcare, going to prescription drugs.

And the question is going to come from a daily daydness of PBS Wisconsin.

The cost of insulin has been reduced and kept at $35 for many Americans.

And beginning in 2026, a number of other widely prescribed drugs will have their co-payments decreased under Medicare.

Yet many believe more needs to be done. What would you do as a U.S. Senator to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for Wisconsinites?

Well, I would certainly continue and speed up our negotiations with the big pharmaceutical companies.

We hear of people regularly going to Canada and other places to get less expensive drugs.

Why is that? Because those countries negotiate on behalf of their citizens.

Until recently, the big pharmaceutical companies had a sweetheart deal that prevented those negotiations.

But two years ago, we passed a bill to get those started. Sadly, my opponent would have voted against that measure. He said that many times.

We are seeing real reductions in prices that will save both patients' money, but will also extend the solvency of Medicare.

We are also seeing victories like my own earlier this year when I forced the asthma inhaler manufacturers to lower their prices to know more than $35 per month out of pocket.

Mr. Hubby, your response.

I can't believe what I just heard. I mean, it's one lie after another.

I believe we need to negotiate with big pharma. I think our drug prices are too high.

When I first started taking my medications for MS, they cost about $6,000 a year. Now they're costing $35,000 for generic drug prices.

I'm the one who's against big pharma. It's your Wall Street partner who invests in big pharma. You oversee it. You take massive amounts of money from big pharma.

Your whole campaign is funded by Wall Street big pharma and big tech. That's how you launch all your attack ads against me.

So I can't even believe you say that I don't want to negotiate against big pharma on drug prices. I think drug prices are wildly too high.

And I'll actually do something about it because I'm not taking big pharma's money. I'm not taking special interest money like Senator Baldwin.

In fact, her partner is making money off of it and doesn't even disclose the profit she's making.

We're going to move on to childcare and I do want to tell both of you one thing and that is at the end.

We have a final question that lets you respond to anything that you have heard tonight that you would like to challenge.

Okay, and that will be in our final question, but not right now.

Not right now. We're going to move to childcare and the question on childcare costs is going to come from Jeff Taylor at WSAW in WASA.

A typical Wisconsin family with an infant and a four year old spends about one third of their income on childcare.

And some even have a hard time finding that childcare because of a lack of workers.

Wisconsin's medium wage for childcare workers is $13.78 an hour.

How would you support childcare providers and reduce childcare costs through your policies?

This is a 60 second response with Mr. Houghney going first.

Look, this is a big problem in our country and I know this all too well because my wife was a single mother.

And I saw the struggles she had providing for childcare and that was over 30 years ago.

And it's only gotten worse.

Look, in my companies, I'm known as a family friendly, family friendly employer.

And we go out of our way to create greater flexibility for our employees who just had a child or have young children.

As I always like to say, if you have a need or a special event, you go and be at those events.

I think we need to create a partnership with business and government, whether it's tax credits directly to the individual or tax credits to a business to help this issue because it is a very serious issue that we know very personally in our family when my wife was a single mom.

Senator Bolton.

So we have a childcare crisis in this country.

Child care really struggled during the pandemic. Many day care centers closed. Many family group settings closed during the pandemic.

But we also know this is an area where the free market just doesn't work. The workers get far too little pay and tuition is just out of reach of so many people.

You know, it costs almost as much to send your child to child care as it does tuition at a UW school. That's outrageous.

You have only nine months to plan for child care expenses. You have 18 years to plan for college expenses.

But I want to tell you about the HuffD plan. He's announced a plan very recently that would reduce federal spending back to levels of the last decade.

While I've been fighting to increase the childcare development block rent by $1 billion last year and the proposal is $2 billion this year.

Thank you Senator.

Thank you Senator.

Thank you Senator.

Your time is up.

Let's move now to Social Security and that's Shannon Sims of TMJ 4 Milwaukee.

Americans want to know that Social Security will be there when they retire.

However, according to the Social Security Administration, if Congress does not act before 2035, benefits will be reduced to nearly 20%.

But there is something that Congress can do. What is your plan? You will have 60 seconds to respond. Senator Baldwin, you go first.

We can extend the solvency of Social Security very easily. It's called lifting the income cap.

Right now, multi-millionaires like my opponent Eric HuffD, pay my newt amounts. They're not doing their fair share.

And if we lifted that income cap, the solvency would be extended for many years.

But let me tell you about something even more troubling. The HuffD plan that reverts and resets spending levels to levels from the last decade would cut Social Security by 28%.

An average of $500 per month, that's $6,000 per year. Talk about, you know, when people need money in their pockets.

And why is he supporting the HuffD plan? Because he supports a $4 trillion tax giveaway to the very wealthy and big corporations.

And he supports spending just not for you.

Mr. HuffD?

Man, the one thing you have perfected in Washington is your ability to lie. I can't even believe you have the ability to stand here and say something like that.

Look, I believe we need to protect Social Security and keep it sanker sank for everybody who's on Social Security or getting ready to retire.

If you want to know why Social Security is in trouble, it's real simple. Because we've taken federal debt from, well, Senator Baldwin has been in office from $5.5 billion to $36 trillion.

That's why CBO has a projected to go cash flow negative in eight and a half years.

So if we would have kept Social Security in a trust and not pilfered from it like you have for the last 26 years as a politician, Social Security would be in much better place.

So we have to look at things for Social Security like for those younger people because life expectancy is going up to make adjustments for that.

So to that point, we're going to stay talking about seniors and we're going to talk about long-term care and that's Neil Johnson of Big Radio in Jamesville.

Wisconsin is facing a serious shortage of qualified caretakers to work in nursing homes and other long-term care settings such as in-home health care and assisted living.

One study says Wisconsin will need an additional 10,000 health care workers over the next decade. And that's for senior care alone.

Do you feel the federal government should be addressing this need? And if so, how?

Mr. Havier, first.

Oh, thank you. Look, it is a very serious problem and look, I'm the youngest year of the baby boom generation 60.

The oldest year was born in 1946 and we're going to have a lot of people hitting retirement age.

Look, the problem is we have a lot of people out of the workforce today and we got to get more people back into the workforce.

And that's an important part. A lot of nursing home owners and I've known a few are struggling with the massive amounts of regulations that they're also dealing with with

with Senator Baldwin and politicians have continued to heap on them.

So we have to take a private sector approach to try to drive more employment into that sector. And yes, that will increase call rise and wages, which would be good for those people.

Because being a nursing home worker is a difficult job.

Senator Baldwin. Yes.

We need to focus on the workforce and we need to have multiple pathways to get a great paying job caring for our seniors.

I believe in apprenticeships. I believe in the programs that are starting nursing programs in high school and then creating a debt free path to getting a higher degree.

There's a lot we can do and there's a lot that has already been advanced in the Congress to do just that.

But I have to say when we're talking about seniors, we have to respect our seniors. I was raised by my grandparents.

And it made me aware of the meaningful difference that programs like Social Security and Medicare made in our lives.

My grandmother broke her hip at age 90 and actually voted for me for Congress from her nursing room.

Eric Hovey has said that people in nursing homes are at no point to vote.

Okay. That is time is up and we're going to move on.

And we're going to talk about reproductive rights and that question comes from Allison.

Our cut law school poll released Wednesday. Now that 61% of those pulled across the country opposed the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Sparing some lawmakers to want to codify or put into law the provisions of Roe. Roe establishes the right to an abortion but also sets some limits and includes some exceptions.

What is your position on once again making Roe the law of the land? Senator Baldwin, you will respond first. You have 60 seconds.

Well, a woman's rights and freedoms should not depend upon her zip code or state.

In the state of Wisconsin where we have a criminal abortion ban that was passed in the year 1849.

We have services accessible in three out of our 72 counties. That means 69 counties there is no access and harrowing things are happening to women in this state.

I've talked to women who face the risk of sepsis and near death before that they could get the services that they needed.

That's why I'm so proud to lead the Women's Health Protection Act which would restore Roe nationwide.

My opponent has said that he is 100% opposed to abortion rights. I'm trying to lead the way to restore Roe so that we don't see prosecution of women who have miscarried or doctors who are providing health care.

Women are dying because of the current situation.

Mr. Hubby.

Well, look, it's been brought back to our state. I think we as a state should resolve this in a common sense and compassionate approach.

I believe in the beauty of life. I've had two daughters and three grandchildren and I agree with exceptions for rape, incess, and the health of the mother and I think women should have a right to decide early on in their pregnancy.

Senator Baldwin, you have passed or pushed to allow abortion to happen up to the point of delivery where a healthy baby can be born alive and be terminated.

To me, that is unconscionable. You're shaking your head but please give what month would you stop? Is it the eighth month? It's the ninth. Is it the ninth month?

You run these ads saying I'm against a four national abortion ban. I am not for a national abortion ban. I never have been.

And when she talks about my comment from 14 years ago, yeah, my daughter is four young and then they grew up.

Mr. Hubby, you're trying to stop on these questions.

Mr. Hubby, I am going to exercise the moderator's option to redirect you to the question that was asked, which is specifically about the recodifying of the Affordable Care Act.

I'm sorry, the Affordable Care Act of a row. And information about that is on our data page.

But I'm going to ask you to respond to that question about the recodification, making it the law of the land, and then you will get 30 seconds to respond, Senator Baldwin.

I think I did. I said it's come back to the state and I think we as a state should resolve this issue with a referendum where everybody gets a right to vote.

Voters get a right to vote. I get a right to vote. I clarified where my position is. And that is, I believe that women should have a right to choose early on in their pregnancy.

But there comes a point in time where a baby can be born healthy in a life. And I think thinks it's unconscionable to terminate that child's life.

Senator, Eric Hubby, that does not happen in America. And it's very clear that he has never read Row V Wade.

I'm pushing to have that be the law of the land. Your rights and freedoms should not depend on your zip code or the state in which you live.

And while I said what he just said doesn't happen in America, let me tell you what is. There are healthcare providers facing the threat of prosecution.

There are states with six week bands. There are states with no exceptions for rape and incest.

Thank you, Senator. Your time is up.

All right, we're going to move to another contentious topic. And this one is immigration. Let's go to Aditi.

A sweeping bipartisan border bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate earlier this year. The bill would have added tougher standards to qualify for asylum, allow for partial shutdowns at the border, and open new avenues for legal immigration.

In the interest of border security, would you like to see this bill revived? Why or why not? Mr. Hubby, you'll go first. You have 60 seconds.

That bill was dead on arrival. The House had already rejected it. It was masquerading as a border bill with really funding Ukraine.

And every senator once they found out what was in it was opposed to it. The simple fact is it would have codified allowing almost 5,000 illegal immigrants coming into our country every single day.

It wasn't going to change any of the asylum laws or immigration laws at all. Here's the reality, and you can't run from this fact.

The last year president, Trump, only 300,000 illegal immigrants came into the country. The first year of Joe Biden, he lifted 95 executive orders, most importantly, stay in Mexico.

Over 3 million came in the first year, over 3 million, the second year, over 4 million in the next year. We don't know how many have come in.

But it's flooded our streets with fentanyl. We have criminal set of entered into our country, and it's created a humanitarian crisis.

I fought against sex trafficking for almost 20 years, and they can't account for 300,000 children.

Thank you, Mr. Hubby. Your time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Hubby. Your time is up. And your response, Senator Baldwin, again, the question was about the bipartisan bill.

Yes. So we negotiated on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, the toughest border bill that we've seen in years.

It would have added 1,500 new border patrol agents to our southern border, and had it passed in this spring, they would be there now.

Very importantly, the bill also deployed technology to our southern border to allow us to scan every vehicle that comes through our ports of entry.

That would have allowed us to interdict fentanyl that is poisoning folks across this country.

The border patrol agents endorse this measure.

But you know what? Eric Hubby and Donald Trump wanted the political issue. They wanted the chaos. They didn't want a solution.

I'm focusing on real solutions. Eric Hubby wants to run political ads against me.

Well, you mentioned political ads, and I think we're going to make you both a little uncomfortable with the next question because it's about misleading ads.

And the question is going to come from Shin.

Viewers and listeners have told us they are frustrated with negative misleading ads. So let's talk about two of them.

Senator Baldwin, your ad claims that Mr. Hubby called farmers lazy. Mr. Hubby, your ad claims Senator Baldwin funded a clinic offering transgender therapy for miners without parental consent.

Both of these ads have been found false by nonpartisan organizations. Both of these ads end with you saying, I approve this message.

You could pull these ads. Why don't you do it? You both have 60 seconds to respond. Senator Baldwin, you may go first.

So there have been 19 independent fact checks of Eric Hubby throughout the course of this campaign that have all produced false results. Eric Hubby is lying.

I think it's really hard to say that an ad is false when you are hearing Eric Hubby in his own words. You're seeing this with your eyes.

I'm telling you things he has said. The context of that ad relating to farmers was he was doing an interview about why we could easily increase the retirement age to 72 because farmers didn't take the physical toil they used to.

They just largely ride around on tractors. I spend so much time with dairy farmers and I can tell you they are insulted by those words and I stand by those. Mr. Hubby.

Look, every single one of Senator Baldwin's ads has been a lie. I'm supposed to leave the jerk from California. Yet I'm born raised here in this state, spent my, you know, last 12 years living where you grew up.

I vote here. I live here. I was raised here. I'm a UW grad. You're not the farmer saying law school, not undergrad.

Look, as it pertains to the clinic, she funded a near mark for that clinic. The clinic changed what's on its website and took down that it did it without parental approval.

But every single one of her ads has been false. So, you know, Senator Baldwin, you claim I live in California and that's where I am and I'm not a Wisconsin.

And even though, as I said, I live in the neighborhood, you grew up. You know, there's such thing as a way to prove it. It's called the utility bill.

I have my utility bill. Let's get them for the last 10 years. Mr. Hubby, it's you actually. Mr. Hubby.

Your time has lived in this state. Your time is up and I don't believe that we heard from either of you about the question that asked what a candidate should do.

If an ad that they have produced is known and proven to be false, should you withdraw that ad? And so I'm going to give each of you, again, another 30 seconds to answer that question starting with Senator Baldwin since you responded first.

You have seen ads where we have amplified things that Eric Hubby has said. Sometimes he said those on right wing radio talk shows. Sometimes he said those in television interviews.

I think it is totally fair for a candidate to amplify what their opponent has said, especially as a proof point of where they stand with regard to fighting for you.

Mr. Hubby.

Look, I think I addressed it. What you're saying that ad that I ran about the clinic, it's not false and they just changed what's on their web page.

As it pertains to Senator Baldwin, literally every single one of her ads, she even claims for the things that she's accomplished. She's trying to take credit for doing something against fentanyl when it was Senator Tim Scott's bill that wrote the bill.

She said Senator Baldwin offered no amendment and hadn't talked to her for two years.

Thank you, Mr. Hubby. Your time is up. We're going to change years now to foreign policy and we're going to move to Jeff.

Just this week, the leader of Hamas was killed by Israeli forces. Some hope this could bring the war between Israel and Hamas closer to a ceasefire.

Post show Americans want U.S. support for Israel but are also worried about civilian casualties.

And the Biden administration has told Israel to let more humanitarian aid into Gaza in 30 days or face reduction of U.S. aid.

Should the U.S. continue to aid Israel and should restrictions be placed on that aid? Mr. Hubby, you begin with a 60 second response.

Look, Israel was attacked and they lost thousands of lives.

And if our country was attacked, we would go wage war on that country if it happened in Mexico or in Canada.

And the Biden administration constantly meddling and trying to engage and tell them how to wage a war is wrong.

But let's go back to what this conflict really is about.

And it's not so much between the Palestinian people and Israel. It's really between Iran and the U.S.

Iran controls Hamas and Hezbollah. They're both proxies. They're funded.

Senator Baldwin not only voted for the deal that President Obama allowed Iran to lift the sanctions and get cash payments that fueled ISIS and the terrorism,

but then President Trump put in crushing sanctions and had Iran out on its back.

Senator Baldwin goes back and votes for the deal that Joe Biden that lifted the sanctions that funding the terrorism.

And that's why we're in this war today.

Senator?

Yes.

A little over a year ago on October 7th, we saw a horrible terrorist attack on Israel.

1,200 people dead. Rape was used as a weapon of war. Hostages were taken.

Israel has the right to defend itself.

But as we've seen this war unfold, we've also seen untold civilian casualties, children, women.

We have to help foster a path towards ceasefire so that the hostages can be released and so that humanitarian aid can be surged into Gaza.

I am hopeful that with the confirmed death now of Yaya Sinwar, that we will have a path to that peace and keep some hope alive of a two-state solution in the region.

Let us move to another foreign policy issue, Ukraine.

And that question is going to come from Neil.

The focus now is Ukraine. Since Ukraine was invaded by Russia, the U.S. administration and other NATO allies have been strong supporters of Ukraine.

Should whomever the new president is, stay that course. You both have 60 seconds. Senator Baldwin, you may begin.

You know, this conflict is truly about democracy versus dictatorship. And we have to stand on the side of democracy.

Vladimir Putin is a dictator. He illegally invaded a sovereign democratic nation and the free world stood up to Ukraine's defense.

That's what's at stake here. If Putin were allowed to run through Ukraine without our backing the Ukrainian troops, who's next?

A NATO country? Poland? And that would mean U.S. boots on the ground. We need to stay the course, but it seems that Donald Trump doesn't know the difference between our allies and our enemies.

And Eric Havdy stands with him and would have voted against the legislation to fund Ukrainian's weaponry.

Mr. Havdy?

Look, I think the war in Ukraine is a direct result of the absolute failure in how we left Afghanistan.

We pulled out our troops. We left the key strategic military base. We left Americans behind to die.

13 Marines that died that day. Afghan allies that supported us at risk their lives. There's a reason why you saw them running, holding on to those planes, falling to their death.

We also left billions of military equipment behind. Because of that, I think our adversaries moved.

I ran through their proxies on Israel and China's getting more aggressive. As it pertains to Ukraine, the White House, an expert came to them and said, look, you're getting ready to park 17 F-15s in like 38-10s.

If you trained the Ukrainians how to use those aircrafts, Russia will not have air superiority. And we should have done that.

So we could have done things to prevent that war from even beginning. But you have sent billions of dollars.

Mr. Havdy, your time is up. And I'm going to return to the specific question. And I believe we heard from Senator Baldwin to stay the course in supporting Ukraine.

Specifically, I will ask you, are you in agreement with that idea or not? And then she's going to have 30 seconds to respond.

Sure. Do I think that Vladimir Putin is an absolutely evil man? Absolutely. But I think we need to try to find a way to get to peace.

Sadly, what's happening in Ukraine is we're wiping out generations of their people and turning a lot of their cities into rubble.

And well, I was supportive of Ukraine at first. The amounts of tens of billions of dollars that have gone to Ukraine that are not accountable causes great concern for me.

So I don't think we should continue to fund endlessly money into Ukraine.

Thank you, Mr. Havdy. Senator Baldwin.

We strongly support backing Ukraine. This is really literally about democracy versus dictatorship.

Because of those brave soldiers in Ukraine, we don't have any boots on the ground in the region. But had we not supported Ukraine, where's Russia going next? Poland?

We have to stand on the side of democracy. Eric Havdy would have voted against the measure that helps fund the Ukrainian effort.

Thank you both. We're now coming back to domestic issues. We're going to talk about farming. And let's go to Aditi.

Congress has failed to approve a new farm bill, which expired at the end of last month.

This puts funding at risk for agricultural subsidies paid to Wisconsin farmers and the supplemental nutrition assistance program commonly known as food stamps.

What will it take for each of you to vote on a new farm bill? Mr. Havdy, you have 60 seconds.

Well, I'm not an expert on the farm bill because I'm not in the U.S. Senate at this point in time.

So I can't opine specifically on all aspects of that farm bill.

But one of the problems I have with a lot of the farm bills is they're mass grading as farm bills.

And while they address some of the needs of farmers, a lot of the bills are just funding big corporations that have nothing to do with farming.

So I have a great concern about that. And I think farm bills need to get back for farmers.

Let me tell you what I hear from farmers because if you drive around the state, you see Havdy signs on literally almost every farm.

And I've been on so many different farms. And what are they talking about?

Regulations constantly, the kind of regulations that Senator Baldwin and her allies continue to push on them.

One of the big ones that they're very concerned about being passed is Wotus, Waters of the United States and all the implications that have.

So as many farmers will say, if you just stay out of my way, I know how to care for my land and how to do proper farming.

Again, the farm bill question to Senator Baldwin.

We need a farm bill that's balanced and we need to provide that certainty to Wisconsin farmers.

They're very eager to have Congress pass a new farm bill.

They need the consistency that a farm bill has.

But one of the problems with the farm bill right now is that the House, controlled by Republicans, has written a bill that's basically eviscerated nutrition programs.

Farmers support nutrition programs because it means purchasing their goods.

But I just want to say that the Havdy plan, which would revert and reset spending levels back to the last decade,

that plan would cut the U.S. Department of Agriculture by 34%.

That is not standing up for our farmers.

And I will say I was proud to receive the Wisconsin Farm Bureau endorsement.

I think I'm the first Democrat in nearly 20 years.

That's for the hard work I've done on behalf of our farmers and dairy in particular.

Thank you both.

And I'd like to remind the viewers that our data team is posting information about things like the farm bill

and all of the other topics that have been researched for this debate on the WBA debate website.

And you can look those up if you'd like to extend your knowledge as well.

All right, we're going to move to the environment.

And let's go talking now about PFAS contamination and that is Allison.

Several areas in Wisconsin are struggling with PFAS contamination.

Chemicals linked to cancer, changes in metabolism and lower birth rates.

So much so that in communities that I cover in La Crosse County have been relying on bottled water

for more than three years because of dangerous levels in their well water.

What do you believe Congress's role should be in preventing the problem from getting worse

while supporting communities dealing with PFAS right now?

Senator Baldwin, you will start. You have 60 seconds.

Thank you.

PFAS chemicals are sometimes byproducts of manufacturing.

They're also a component of firefighting foam that is in almost every airport.

I'm glad you mentioned the situation in La Crosse.

In La Crosse, they have a municipal water system that's able to filtrate the PFAS.

But on the island where the airport is, everyone has private wells.

I've worked very closely with that community, as well as with La Crosse,

including providing federal funds that were approved in the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Eric Hubdy would have opposed the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

That funding that I've secured for communities across the state, including

Wasa and Rhinelander and PeshdaGo, would not have been available.

I am proud to help lead the efforts to remediate PFAS across the state.

Mr. Hubdy, your approach to the PFAS contamination?

Look, I've been a member and a big supporter of the Clean Lakes Alliance.

I grew up on Lake Mandoda. I live on Lake Mandoda.

I swim, water ski, fish. I love our lakes.

And it's so important that we make sure our water is safe and secure.

So yes, do we need to make sure, from a regulatory standpoint,

that any of these cut chemicals that are having an impact need to get addressed

and clean up efforts? Absolutely.

But Senator Baldwin constantly goes and says,

I would have voted against this and that.

And the reason why I would have voted against a lot of these issues is really simple.

It's because we're breaking our country apart financially.

We're driving ourselves off a cliff.

That's why inflation got ignited.

That's why the price of your food has gone up, the price of your rent, your health care,

your car insurance, because of this reckless spending that she's been engaging in.

Thank you. Again, I'm going to point you to solutions and proposed solutions,

which is what the question was.

So Mr. Hubdy, you have 30 seconds then to respond about that

and Senator Baldwin, you will have a response as well.

What solutions do you propose?

Jill, I just said that the government needs to do a job of regulating any kind of chemical

that is contaminating our well water and put forth clean up efforts.

That's exactly what I said.

Okay, thank you. You can have that same response time.

So I talked about some of my work to help communities remediate

when PFAS has been found in their water supplies.

I also am a sponsor of a bipartisan bill called the Healthy H2O Act.

That would provide grants to allow private well owners that are across the state

in rural areas to test their water.

The tests are expensive and many people aren't able to test to make sure

that they have clean drinking water.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, we're covering a lot of territory tonight

and now we're going straight to Washington and the Supreme Court.

Jeff has that question.

The Marquette Law School poll out this week finds 90% of those poll

support a code of ethics for the Supreme Court justices.

While the court did adopt a code late last year, it's been criticized

because it lacks accountability by allowing justices to police themselves.

Among the proposed responses, the adoption of a code with more teeth,

as well as 18-year term limits for the Supreme Court justices,

what if any new rules do you support for the Supreme Court?

Mr. Houghley, please start our 60-second responses.

I think we should absolutely have a code of ethics for the justices.

I don't think they should be engaging in any kind of private investment

in the stock market while they serve in that capacity.

And I understand the desire to have a term limit.

I'm supportive of term limits.

I think career politicians should have term limits.

And in fact, when we talk about a code of ethics, I think this is a very important point.

From the get-go, I said I'm not going to take special interest money.

I will not be owned by anyone.

Unlike Senator Baldwin, who not only has taken massive amounts of special interest money

from Big Pharma, Wall Street, Big Tech, but her partner in Wall Street,

a Wall Street executive, is investing in Big Tech and Big Pharma,

a committee she oversees, and they don't disclose those investments

and how much they're profiting from it.

That's fundamentally wrong.

And you should disclose what investments your partner is making.

Thank you, Mr. Houghley.

The question on the Supreme Court?

Well, first I need to talk about what Eric Houghley just said.

Eric Houghley should stay out of my personal life.

And I think I speak for most Wisconsin women that he should stay out of all of our personal lives.

That said, with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States,

there's no trust anymore.

When we saw the exposés about Clarence Thomas and others going up private planes

to exotic locations and spas,

when we hear stories that private interests have paid off mortgages and vehicle loans,

that is outrageous.

We need a binding, tough standard of ethics and conduct.

We're also very distrustful now of the court,

because we saw three Trump-appointed nominees lie to the Judiciary Committee

about their respect for precedent.

So I think an examination of term limits for the Supreme Court

in a way that doesn't advantage one party or the other,

because we don't know who will be president when those term limits come up.

Thank you.

It would be an advisable follow-up.

Your time is up.

Thank you, Senator.

All right, we're going to move on to voting rights.

And that one is Shannon.

There's a patchwork of election laws across the country,

leaving concern about potential unequal access to the ballot box.

What role should the federal government play

in increasing voter confidence,

while also ensuring that the election process is safe and accessible?

And that question goes to?

Senator?

Senator Baldwin, you have 60 seconds.

Thank you.

So voting rights are so critical.

And we have seen, at the state level,

including hearing Wisconsin, laws passed

that make it harder for some to vote.

As the expression, some people don't want some people to vote.

My opponent has talked about people in nursing homes.

I think the exact quote was,

people in nursing homes have five, six months to live.

They are at no point to vote.

My grandmother broke her hip and voted in my first congressional election

from her nursing home.

But the Voting Rights Act has been eviscerated

by the United States Supreme Court.

And we've got to add back the provisions that were locked off

by the Supreme Court.

And we also, I think, have to pass at the federal level

laws that guarantee access and disclosure.

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

First, I have to go back to the last comment.

Senator Baldwin, I could care less about your personal life,

but when you are, your partner is investing in companies

that you're overseeing and you're not disclosing that,

that is a absolute conflict of interest.

As it pertains to voting rights,

look, we have to create confidence in our voting system.

It is causing too much tension in our country.

And let me tell you, it doesn't help when our state Supreme Court

brings back drop boxes.

When those were only used for a pandemic.

So why are they being brought back?

But look, I have an important question to ask Senator Baldwin.

There's a bill before the Senate that would bar non-U.S. citizens

from voting in elections.

But you have not taken a position on that.

So it would be very interesting.

And I'll give up my time.

Are you going to vote for that provision

that would stop non-U.S. citizens from voting in our elections?

Well, I'll take those legs three minutes.

It is already illegal for people who are non-citizens

to vote in federal elections.

Then your time is up.

Because it already is the law.

And you're both of your time is up.

Thank you.

And again, information about voting

is available on our debate website.

We are going to look now.

You had mentioned fentanyl previously.

And you mentioned it in relationship to immigration.

But there's more to the subject.

So let's talk about that.

And that's Neil's question.

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services reported last year,

fentanyl was identified in 91% of opioid overdose deaths.

The synthetic drug is making its way through legal ports

at the southern border.

A senior official with the U.S. Custom and Border Agency states

that two-thirds of those arrested

for smuggling the drug are Americans.

What bipartisan strategy would you suggest

to curb the flow into the U.S.

and address community-based treatment and prevention programs?

You both have 60 seconds.

Mr. Hubby, you may begin.

Look, this is an issue I started talking about long before

I ever got into this election.

We lost 108,000 Americans last year to this poison.

112,000 the year before.

It's the number one leading cause of death of 18 to 45-year-olds.

It's devastating communities all over the place.

My 26-year-old daughter has known five people in her college

or friends that brothers and siblings are friends

that have died from this poison.

And you're exactly right.

It is laced into a lot of pills.

So what do we need to do?

First, it's produced most of the content in China.

We've got to take hard sanctions against China.

Hold them accountable.

We've got to close our southern border

where a lot of this poor is over.

Second, or third, we've got a stiffened sentencing laws.

If you're caught lacing pills with fentanyl,

you should go away to jail for the rest of your life.

You are killing people.

And Washington has done nothing about it

and Senator Baldwin has done nothing.

Thank you.

Senator Baldwin, your turn.

This is a personal issue for me.

My mother struggled with addiction to prescription pain kills pills.

When I first came to the Senate,

the crisis, the opioid crisis,

was the over-prescribing of things like oxycontin and oxycodone.

And we have passed many sweeping reforms,

particularly in the VA,

that has reduced the number of these pills that are prescribed.

heroin came next.

And then fentanyl.

My first bill on fentanyl was introduced eight years ago.

Eric Houghney sometime somehow thinks he's the first person

who has ever focused on this problem.

We need to get Narcan,

the overdose reversal drug deployed statewide.

And I have been a leader in making sure that our first responders

haven't accessible.

Thank you.

And we don't have much time left.

We're going to give you a question that only takes 30 seconds

and it has to do with bipartisanship.

And that question is going to come from Shannon Sims.

We hear from voters who say they are tired of gridlock in Washington.

And want their representatives to be willing to work across the aisle.

So in the spirit of bipartisanship,

we're going to ask both of you to name a contemporary elected official

from the other party.

That you consider to be a role model for consensus building.

Mr. Houghney, you will get 60 seconds.

Well, sadly, the Democratic party just lost one that was fantastic at it.

And that was Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia.

It'd been nice if Senator Baldwin would exhibit some of that.

She voted 95.5% of the time with President Biden

and rarely reaches across the aisle.

Look in the world of business.

You have to reach across the aisle.

You have to compromise.

Because you're never going to get anything done.

When I become your next senator, I promise you.

I will reach across the aisle.

I'll go meet with all the senators on the other side and try to.

Thank you very much.

Senator Baldwin, who do you name?

Well, I would name Susan Collins.

I sit on the Appropriations Committee.

And our committee is chaired by Patty Murray and Susan Collins

is the ranking Republican member.

And we have passed almost all of our bills out of committee on a bipartisan basis.

I fight for Wisconsin and only Wisconsin,

which means I'll work with Republicans or Democrats,

Republican administrations or Democratic administrations,

to get the job done for Wisconsin, but also stand up to them.

Thank you.

If necessary.

Your time is up.

Well, I told you both that there would be time for you to respond to things

that didn't sit well with you.

So we're going to go to the last question,

which we call defending your record, and that's Neil.

You're off the campaign.

And in this debate, you've heard criticisms that you may believe

were inaccurate or unfair, and you'd like to respond to them.

Here's your chance.

You each have 60 seconds, and by the coin toss, Mr. Hubby, you go first.

This is the last question.

Yes.

Look, there's so many lies that Senator Baldwin has made up.

As I said, she's perfected the art of lying, where I'm from, where I live,

the things I've said.

She takes this much, what I've said, and puts it out of context,

and then tries to say, I'm saying something different than I've said.

You've heard it on Social Security.

She always tries to run around the fact that we're going.

We have gone into a debt crisis that has created the inflation

and the problems that so many people are experiencing,

that are hammering the livelihoods of most Wisconsinites.

Look, I entered into this race because I love my country.

I love America.

We've been blessed to live in this wonderful country,

but our country's gone in a wrong direction.

You can stay with Senator Baldwin, who's been in Washington for 26 years.

Do you think you're better off than you were four years ago,

or even 26 years ago?

I think it's time for a change.

I promise you I will work hard on your behalf and I'd be honored to have your vote.

Thank you, Senator.

I fight for Wisconsin and only for Wisconsin,

and that is something that I take great pride in.

But Eric Hubby just said something about lying.

Independent fact checkers have fact checked him 19 times with 19 falses.

So keep that in mind when you listen to him.

He's made assertions about my personal life.

I want to talk about his professional life.

Eric Hubby owns a $3 billion California bank,

a $7 million Laguna Beach, California home,

and he's been named among the more influential residents of Orange County,

three years in a row.

We have a Brown County, Wisconsin.

We have a Green County, Wisconsin.

We do not have an Orange County, Wisconsin.

Look, this election is about regaining our rights and freedoms.

Selection is about helping working people get ahead,

not supporting a $4 trillion tax cut for the rich and big corporations.

I ask for your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Well, you've seen them and we hope tonight's debate will help voters make more informed choices.

Now, we thank the candidates for their time and sometimes for their patience with us as well,

as we had to get as many questions in as we could and sometimes cut you off.

But we'd also like to thank our journalists on the question team and also on our data team.

And please remember that our data teams research materials on debate topics can be found

at the WBA debate website.

And a quick thank you to that team.

It's Darryl Fair.

I'm sorry.

It's Elizabeth Waters of WMTV Madison.

Harm then Heisen from WDBHGBA Green Bay.

It's Darryl Fair of WKOW Madison and Jonathan Kraus of Woodward Communications Radio and Appleton in Ashkash.

They were working behind the scenes.

And now, once again, thank you all.

And let's go to WBA Foundation President and CEO Michele Vetterkind.

Instead of Michele, I guess it's back to us.

So you're going to even need Darryl.

Yeah, hi, Tata Abba.

And we're going to spend the next half an hour debating the hour long debate.

We just heard.

So I guess first of all, Tata Abba, your impressions.

Well, we're going to be joined here by our political editor, Dan Schaefer, as well here in a moment.

I'll be anxious to see what he has.

I have a couple of thoughts.

I thought that the headline of the night from everything that I heard was when the question was on the Supreme Court.

And whether there was a need for for ethics in the Supreme Court, Mr. Hubby went first.

He ended up attacking Tammy Baldwin's partner on her investments.

And Tammy Baldwin was ready for this and her reply.

And so I think I speak up behalf of all Wisconsin women, where I say, stay out of my life.

I thought that was, that's something that's going to be a headline tomorrow.

I think I thought it was a really strong moment for her.

Beyond that, I thought particularly a lot of the first part, which is kind of a lot back and forth.

And I have to say, I'll be anxious to see what Dan says.

I want to be very careful about this because these things are not easy to do.

Where the broadcasting realm is not easy.

I think Wisconsin Association of Broadcasters had put on a lot of great events.

I thought this one came up short tonight, particularly when Eric Covey again tried to bait Senator Baldwin on her partner.

Then tried to bait her on whether or not she supported the constitutional amendment coming up here in Wisconsin on voting.

And he said, I'll give you my two minutes.

So basically giving Senator Baldwin three minutes.

She said, look, it's already illegal to devote in Wisconsin.

You're not a citizen.

And the moderator cut her off and gave her 15 seconds of three minutes.

I thought that was ill-served and I was disappointed.

Yeah, the format seemed to leave a lot lacking.

And I think in the modern strategies debates when you ignore the question and just go off on your own talking points.

The moderators would just cut the person off and their time was up and go to the next question.

Most of the time there were efforts to ask some follow-up questions, but it just seemed a little bit off.

I thought there were too many cooks in the kitchen to put it bluntly on the moderating board there.

Too many people.

We never really got into substance onto your point.

There were some things that could have been fleshed out more.

I would have liked to see more time for Senator Baldwin to debate.

I'd be interested in the clock on who got more speaking time.

It felt like HubD did, but maybe I'm wrong in that.

30 seconds didn't seem like enough time to answer the questions, even if the candidates had gotten straight to the point.

We're going to bring Dan Schaefer in civic media's political editor and the editor of the recombobulation area.

And Dan, just first of all, let's start with your general reaction.

Yeah, I think you guys have been right on the money with this.

I think this debate did leave a little bit to be desired.

But at the end of the day, I think there were some really strong moments from Tammy Baldwin.

Todd, you mentioned the moment where she defended her attacks on her personal life.

I think that was definitely a standout moment.

HubD seemed to really try to go into some issues going back and forth with this throughout the debate,

directing a lot of his criticisms and accusations directly at her.

Baldwin really stayed above the fray for a much of the debate.

And the one time she did get into it, I thought she delivered a line that really resonated about getting into somebody's personal life.

And so I think that was definitely a standout moment.

I thought also the question on abortion rights, where the moderators, that way I thought was one of the stronger moments from the moderators,

and I repeated some questions back to HubD, saying that he didn't answer the question,

and again asked him to address some of that more directly.

And so I thought there were a couple of moments where you could really see the clear difference between the two candidates.

Yeah, also thought it was interesting.

Eric HubD's answer to the PFAS question turned into a statement about government spending,

which seems a little odd, right?

Well, I think it's what candidates do when they don't have an answer to the question.

Right.

Just you just wing it, and you hit your point that you feel are your strongest.

Our great team, Jamie Bartonson, and Cory Hartman and Luke Mathers,

and I think who else has been Mr. Rosammer's on that as well?

All kinds of people help us out with some of these cuts, Terry.

Should we take a listen to some of those?

Absolutely.

Maybe start with this one.

If we could please, Mr. Rosammer's Aaron Rosammer's on the board tonight.

The line I think that will stick out in a lot of headlines tomorrow.

Here is Senator Baldwin responding to Eric HubD when he went after her partner on her investments.

Well, first I need to talk about what Eric HubD just said.

Eric HubD should stay out of my personal life.

And I think I speak for most Wisconsin women that he should stay out of all of our personal lives.

I mean, that was the thing.

She was clearly ready for that attack with an answer.

And Eric HubD, I thought kind of set himself up for that type of a thing, Dan.

You're a journalist by trade, spend time in the lock you journal sent.

They'll launch the great and popular recapobulation area.

If you're looking for a headline tomorrow, I would think that would be one of the ones you want to choose from.

That was certainly a standout, you know, certainly a standout for the debate.

I also want to go back to one of the moments that you mentioned with about PFAS.

You know, Terry Baldwin is the type of Senator where I don't think she is necessarily, you know, the sparkling auditor that she's not the Barack Obama type of politician necessarily.

But she really gets into the weeds on a lot of these issues.

And I thought the PFAS contamination question really displayed that.

And she, you know, talked about the details of what, you know, communities were facing in lacrosse.

She talked about the French island issue with the people using water bottles.

And how that was funded by the bipartisan infrastructure law.

And conversely, the first thing that Eric HubD mentioned when asked about PFAS contamination was that he lives on a lake.

And then his answer could not have been more vague, more broad, you know, just the, you know, kind of like you mentioned briefly touching on, you know, some sort of government regulations or whatever it might be where you really see that Baldwin is a very detailed oriented senator.

And I thought that that that question really showed that is pretty stark display.

Absolutely right. Eric HubD admitted that yeah, he, he is again, some of these things that Senator Baldwin is for when it comes to clean water.

But then tried as you say, defendant by saying, well, because it raises the debt so far and a lot of independent people, nonpartisan folks have looked at this and seeing the debt actually went up during Republican and Donald Trump control during Trump's administration compared to the last four years under Biden Harris.

Well, I mean, if you're really concerned about debt as a mockery Republican, certainly be looking at your own former president and the guy at the top of the ticket on the GOP side, Dan.

Yeah, and I think the bipartisan infrastructure law is revealing to how partisan so many Wisconsin Republicans have been, you know, this was like, you know, it's in the name.

It was a bipartisan bill, but there were no Wisconsin Republicans who voted for that bill.

And over and over again, we hear, you know, Tammy Baldwin bringing back funding for, you know, PFAS contamination or building a new bridge or addressing all different kinds of things that that bipartisan infrastructure law has gone toward.

There are no, you know, the other, the other Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is never in the mix for any of those kinds of things.

And it seems like hopefully it would be more of a Senator that would be like Ron Johnson and certainly not the type of Wisconsin Senator that would reach across the aisle or, you know, really try to get things done the way that Baldwin has.

Terry Bell, allow me if I could was a little critical of the moderators of the debate up front.

I will stand by that. I thought there was a moment tonight that really showed a contrast between the two candidates. And I think help voters coming to this tonight to actually learn something.

I mean, Dan Schaefer, I want your opinion on this as well. And that was the subject of Ukraine. And we've got this cute up. We have a part of Senator Baldwin's answer and then going to Eric Covey, let's use the Baldwin answer first on Ukraine.

You know, this conflict is truly about democracy versus dictatorship. And we have to stand on the side of democracy.

Vladimir Putin is a dictator. He illegally invaded a sovereign democratic nation. And the free world stood up to Ukraine's defense.

That's what's at stake here. If Putin were allowed to run through Ukraine without our backing the Ukrainian troops, who's next? A NATO country? Poland? And that would mean US boots on the ground.

We need to stay the course. But it seems that Donald Trump doesn't know the difference between our allies and our enemies. And Eric Covey stands with him and would have voted against the legislation to fund Ukrainians' weaponry.

Terry Bell, keep me honest. There were two different kind of parts to the Havte answer. The question, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong on Ukraine was, would you continue to support the funding in Ukraine war against Russia? Correct?

Right. And Eric Covey kind of danced around it the first time.

Well, he started out by saying that he thinks that Vladimir Putin is an evil person. But then he raised some questions about, you know, how the money that

you, and any aid that you don't, it states since Ukraine is being handled. And so we kind of end good.

To the moderate's credit, she brought it back and said, you know, Mr. Havte, you really didn't again restated the question.

And here now we get the actual down to the nuts of bolts answers to the question from Eric Covey. Would he indeed support remaining continuing to support funding for Ukraine war against Russia?

I think that Vladimir Putin is an absolutely evil man, absolutely. But I think we need to try to find a way to get to peace. Sadly, what's happening in Ukraine is we're wiping out generations of their people and turning a lot of their cities into rubble.

And we, well, I was supportive of Ukraine at first, the amounts of tens of billions of dollars that have gone to Ukraine that are not accountable causes great concern for me.

So I don't think we should continue to fund fund endlessly money into.

Thank you, Mr. Havte.

Dan Schaefer political editor, myself as a former Republican left the party in 2011. I came up during the era of Reagan and the first Bush.

You would have never heard a Republican giving an answer like you just heard Eric Covey tonight on Ukraine.

Certainly not. And it is revealing of I think where the Republican party is on this issue and has been drifting toward.

You know, and I thought Baldwin's response on this was an important one too. She, you know, talked about wanting to seek peace in the region as well.

The question that without this type of support that the United States have been giving, it would lead to boots on the ground and whether Russia would be attacking NATO allies.

She clearly has a much better grasp of the issues on this one than Havte does when it seems like it's just kind of, you know, trying to thread the needle on some conservative talking points where, you know, you're criticizing Vladimir Putin, but also kind of going where a number of those, you know, kind of more mega wing of the Republican party has gone.

Yeah, we don't need to, you know, we don't need to be part of the international community. More of this, you know, just kind of, you know, that what they call America first when it's really America alone.

And so I think, you know, the again, it was a clear contrast between the two candidates here. And I think what Baldwin was saying about, you know, the real threats that would be there.

If not for the United States and the international community supporting Ukraine after this invasion, I think it was, it was a really important response.

I mean, Tammy Baldwin's response, in my opinion, on Ukraine could have come out of any Republican US Senator back in the 80s and 90s and even into the 2000s.

I mean, there was nothing I'd heard out of her tonight on Ukraine that is not mainstream Republican foreign policy from it.

Apparently, it era gone by and what you heard from Hovey tonight would have been on the other side of the aisle 20 years ago.

Yeah. And he also talked about the Ukraine invasion in the context of the Afghanistan.

Yes, thank you.

Holding out of Afghanistan. You know, I thought that was, you know, it's just, it seemed like a reach.

It seemed like a real reach.

Yes, yes.

And I get the point that he's trying to make is that, you know, by making that move that, you know, maybe emboldened people around the world.

I just don't really see it that way. And then, you know, we've heard from Republicans in the Trump campaign in particular talking about, you know, no new wars and all of that during the campaign.

And then at the same time there, you know, one of the biggest criticisms of the Biden foreign policy was getting out of the war.

Right.

So, you know, there's a certain level of hypocrisy there as well.

I think if anything was anticipated tonight, if one thing that people may have been interested to hear was Eric Covey's answer to his changing positions on reproductive rights over the years.

And that's been a, a bone of contention, in fact, checking different claims as to what he does stand for now.

And, and he gave an answer to the question of, or this is his response to the question of, would he, would he support codifying Roe versus Wade?

I think I did. I said, it's come back to the state. And I think we as a state should resolve this issue with a referendum where everybody gets a right to vote.

The voters get a right to vote. I get a right to vote. I clarified where my position is. And that is, I believe that women should have a right to choose early on in their pregnancy.

But there comes a point in time where a baby can be born healthy in a life. And I think thinks it's unconscionable to terminate that child's life.

I thought Terry and Dan, this was one of the points that really stuck out for me from Hove these responses that just is simply, I mean, that part was this non-answered part.

But earlier on, he, again, brought up this absolute proven lie from Democratic, or pardon me, from Republican, Manga candidates that Tammy Baldwin, he tried to allege supports abortion up to an after birth.

We've heard this from Trump. It is a lie. It doesn't happen. We've had people like Dr. Liarly on this network. She's not ready for Congress of the eighth district, by the way.

But, but OBGYNs have clearly said that what we're talking about here are our women who are pregnant, who intend to have the child.

And through the most god awful horrendous, I would never wish on anyone's circumstances, something happened, a medical type of emergency where the basically the fetus dies in the womb or is on the verge of that.

And it's a choice between taking that fetus or the mother dying. That is legally, technically, by the book, a medical abortion.

And to try to insinuate that Tammy Baldwin or any Democrat supports post-birth abortion is simply not true. Dan Schaefer, keep me honest.

You're absolutely right about that. And I think it's just these Republican attacks that bring up that point over and over again is it's just so off base.

And I think the American people understand that and women understand that and understand that there is complexity involved in impregnancy and that you need those decisions not to be made by politicians, but to be made by doctors, by professionals.

And I think, you know, there's another aspect of this too. And I think that's worth diving into a little bit. So he talked about this desire for a referendum on this issue in the state of Wisconsin, right?

We've heard this from a number of Republicans. We heard this from Ron Johnson two years ago when he was running for reelection. We've heard this from Robin Voss at the state level.

Look, it's not currently an option under state law to have a referendum to set policy. It would be great if we did. We could have, if we had a referendum on abortion in this state, I have a feeling I would know where it would go because you see the polling, you see the issues that jump out, you know, look at that.

What's the latest constant supreme court race? What's the full of that market 60 plus percent? Oh, it's more than that. I think it's like a 70 to 80% issue that people, you know, see that that there should be a right to an abortion in the state of Wisconsin.

But this, this option that Republicans continue to push over and over again. And again, Ron Johnson did it throughout his campaign, Eric Hubby did it throughout his campaign. The media is not doing a good job at holding these, these candidates to account on this issue because this is currently not an option under Wisconsin state law.

Look, I wish it was. I wish we had policy referendum in this state. We could vote on, you know, Medicaid expansion, like so many other states have. We could vote on marijuana legalization. We could vote vote on abortion.

But we can't right now. So he is proposing something that is, you know, kick it back to the states and have the states deal with it in a way that is not currently legal in the state. It is ridiculous.

Listen, yes, go ahead. No, I was going to say to your point earlier that the Baldwin team has already out the rapid response team tonight with actual notations from when Eric Hubby said in 2012 on certain programs and certain interviews in 2012 when he was running against Tommy Thompson in a primary that he was clearly a hundred percent pro life.

But now instead of saying, hey, you know what, I'm a mature person. We learn and grow. I've decided to, you know, adjust my position and just say that.

He tries to just say, no, no, I never said that. One, in fact, it is in stone writing a video that he did.

You know, to be fair, you know, people's views can and do evolve. I mean, maybe he could be doing a better job of owning up to that.

I do think this whole proposal of refer state by state referendums is just a way to avoid taking ownership and Republicans know that they own an unpopular issue.

And, you know, and this is what they decided the response is going to be this sort of invention of state by state referenda as a solution, whereas Dan point thousand really isn't legally possible.

It's just a theoretical answer to the question and it's, you know, it would sound perhaps to be a bit of a dodge.

I think you're absolutely correct on that well stated Terry Bell.

Dan, I'm interested. Is there anything on your note card where you think that Eric company got a win or did particularly well tonight?

It's hard to say, you know, it's hard to say who exactly he was going for with this, you know, is he trying to, you know, he made those repeated accusations about Baldwin's partner.

It's a subtle there. I feel subtle there. Like how do you bring up a partner over and over again?

You know, I guess we're just going to remind people that I guess while we're reminding people of things about Tammy Baldwin making history is the first openly gay US senator passing the act in, you know,

codifying rights for gay marriage and doing it in a way that was not to score political points but to look actually get the bill passed.

I talk about that aspect of of her career and groundbreaking pioneering trailblazing elements of her record on those types of rights too.

But you know, I just, Eric Hubd has been painted across the campaign as an out of touch, you know, part time Wisconsinite California business owner.

I don't think he really dissuaded any people who are watching tonight of that caricature of him. It's just, you know, it's just seem to be pretty on the nose for those types of criticisms.

Well, didn't it say I think one of my takeaways personally as if I may interject a personal opinion is I don't think either candidate really pulled way ahead tonight.

I don't think anybody came away from this debate with a different opinion than they had going in.

No, I would say I mean, Dan, you can speak for yourself. I think you're largely correct. I think the big headline in the 90s, Tammy Baldwin staying staying stay out of my personal life on behalf of all Wisconsin women.

You know, and it's a super minor point is someone who got candidates prepped for debates before and been in the business for a long time and before I got out.

But I thought that and again, as well as things like did you listen to it on civic media or did you watch it or whatever.

I thought that Senator Baldwin looked like maybe she was fighting some hay fever or something like that. She looked tired, maybe partly because she's one of the campaign trails so much.

I thought that her answers were a little bit more measured where Eric Hubd came across to me at least as maybe a little bit pepier and on the attack tonight.

Maybe as he got ready for that, I don't know, Dan, is that too, is that too nuanced?

No, I think I think Hubd seemed very rehearsed.

Yeah, I think there were moments where he kind of had this feigned incredulous response to oh my goodness.

How could you possibly say that? And it seemed so inauthentic and it seemed rehearsed.

And I think, you know, you mentioned about the about Tammy Baldwin.

You know, I just don't think that I think there are certain strengths that she has as a senator.

And I think in the most recent Marquette University Law School poll, one of the things that more than 60% of voters in that poll agreed on is that she's working for Wisconsinites, but she has a connection for Wisconsinites.

And I think if you step back and take a big picture of who Tammy Baldwin has been as a senator, you know, I think her hallmark has been in constituent services and really working for Wisconsin.

And I think trying to be this generations her goal in a lot of ways.

You know, that was certainly a hallmark of his time as a senator as well. She's talked, you know, she talked in the past about him being her, you know, her idol in the Senate.

And but I don't think, you know, that necessarily always translates to somebody who's very deep in the weeds on the issues, who's very, you know, oriented to, you know, that type of constituent services.

It doesn't always translate to, you know, a very kind of like sparkling speech or a snappy line or anything like that.

But I think that I think it's important to remember that about Baldwin. And I'm going to go again to that PFAS contamination question, where, you know, some, the matter is asked a detailed question, not the type of question you often get in a US Senate debate that is that is going to really get to a very, you know, nuanced issue like this.

And that was one that she was able to just jump right in on and really give a detailed specific answer on and how he clearly wasn't.

I thought the fact that she brought up a little bit of her constituent service there was really important. If I'm Baldwin staff tonight, I'm saying, man, why didn't she, why didn't she talk more about this constituent service?

I think you nailed it, Dan, because, you know, there are still a few Republicans that talked to me, even though I left the party, but here's a, here's the dirty secret inside some of Republican politics and Wisconsin, I'll let our listeners in on.

They're not going to name them, but they're a high ranking Republican, some of which still hold office in the state of Wisconsin, when people call them for things like passports or immigration visas, this type of thing.

Republican state legislator calls that tells them to call Tammy Baldwin's office, not Ron Johnson's office, because Tammy Baldwin's office is known for actually getting stuff done being timely and delivering results.

And every Republican who's listening to me know as I'm 100% true, but they'll never tell it to you on the record.

You're absolutely right about that. I often, I joke about this sometimes that Wisconsin just has one US Senator because, you know, when there are those issues with the federal government, it is so often Tammy Baldwin who is delivering for Wisconsinites and really, you know, connecting the dots on a lot of these different things, bringing projects home to Wisconsin.

I thought that talk about the bipartisan infrastructure law, I think was, you know, revelatory in that sense in this debate as well.

This is going to be the one and only Senate debates in all likelihood. Eric Hubd is asked for more Senator Baldwin has not really been inclined to accept any of those invitations.

Let's say hypothetically that there was one or two war, a Senate debates, you know, is there anything you would want to hear or you would recommend that the Candidates talk about.

Yeah, I would like to see one based on particularly on those watching on the stream tonight and a lot of listeners.

I think there should be a debate that is moderated by Pam Yankee in the Midwest farm report that airs in the civic media radio network.

And Pam Yankee should do an entire debate on the farm bill lots of comments tonight on the stream that when this farm bill came up, and this is essential, not just for your typical farmer, but for rural communities who rely on the farming economics for their towns for people who have grocery stores.

I mean, it's a trickle down effect throughout Wisconsin and the fact that Eric Hubd, what you guys can keep me honest is the quote that I wrote down.

He said, quote, I'm not an expert on the farm bill because I'm not in the US Senate on quote.

I thought that was really telling to basically say, I don't really know what I'm talking about here and then tried to launch into something that his staff clearly had, you know, prepped him on.

I've been on farms. I've been on so many farms. There's so many farm. I have the greatest farms. I've been I've exaggerated a bit, but that was the standard line.

I've been quote, I've been on so many farms.

Meanwhile, we know that this one of the things I thought Dan that Senator Baldwin left on the table amongst many of her accomplishments.

She brought three and a half million dollars this year, this past year and a half to Wisconsin for dairy business.

Here's someone who's not just been on farms. She's actually brought home the bacon or in some cases, the dairy.

Yeah, and I think, you know, another thing that is released stands out to me for this is, you know, she mentioned this in the debate as well.

But she's the first Democrat running in a statewide race to get the endorsement from the Wisconsin Farm Bureau in more than 20 years.

And I think, and it's huge. And I think it is, it says something about the type of campaign that she's running and about her opponent.

I mean, I think, you know, you typically you might think of, you know, Republicans have a lot of representatives in the assembly and Senate in very rural areas.

And it has been a long time as they indicated in this endorsement, since they have endorsed a statewide Democrat.

I think it is telling about Tammy Baldwin, and I think it is telling about Eric Hubby, especially in his kind of clueless response tonight in how in what that endorsement exactly means.

I think you're still right, Dan. And, and Senator Baldwin brought this up in her response tonight.

One of the main reasons that we do not have a new farm bill, one of the main reasons that has not passed Congress and Joe Biden signed into law are because the House Republicans gut at her words eviscerated school lunch programs.

And we have, you know, a guy in Derek Van Orten on the western side of the state who goes around bragging about his on the egg committee.

But yet he can't help get a bill passed in the House of Representatives, Dan. And it would seem a little hollow for Eric Hubby in the mag of folks to go around and complain.

I mean, I don't know too many people in Wisconsin are like, you know, I just wish those school lunch programs to go away. So my kids would be hungry.

I wonder, but, and I to just get back to the Hubby's answer on this, what would the response feel like if a Democrat said they don't really know about the farm?

Do you think that would be an immediately in attack ads? It would be saying that over and over. And I think, you know, and that's part of it. You broke it down great there.

We just have a few minutes left to go in the broadcast. I going forward now. I guess, you know, how much has this debate changed the race? Yes or no?

And, you know, what does each candidate have to do? Again, very close anywhere from two to four points, depending on which poll you're looking at.

You know, and it's much has been made about the fundraising, spending, how much your company has put his own money into the race.

You know, how are things looking for these two candidates, you know, over the next two and a half weeks. We don't have much time left.

If I might gentlemen, let me give you for those fans out there, a John McLaughlin answer on a scale of one to 10, one being no change at all, 10 being metaphysical change, how much effect did this debate have tonight on the US Wisconsin Senate race?

The correct answer? One. I ask you, Dan Schaffert.

I think a look, I think it's close to one. I'll go with like a three, I guess. I ask you Terry Bell.

I would say probably 0.5. 0.5? No, I think I'm not trying to be too much light of it, but I think the most telling the only place that I felt I learned or the voters learned something was do you crane answer?

I think that you're down to right. I think also the women's reproductive right answer. Clearly, Eric Covey, you know, made made differences there. The farm bill. I think that's another one we learned that, you know, Eric Covey is a big difference between between the two candidates there.

But serious answer to your serious question, Terry. I think just keep being themselves, right? I mean, I think Tammy Baldwin, Dan, you've seen this. I think you're reporting across the state.

She's someone who's been out there. And during my time in politics, I, you know, they always said, you don't win a race, the year of the election, you win it the year before that.

How much are you actually going out and being there for your constituents, being around your district, in this case, the state, because voters will ultimately remember that more than they do your 32nd ads two weeks before race.

And in my estimation, Tammy Baldwin has been somewhere who goes around the state tires tirelessly. You know, Trig V. Olson, our, our co-host sometimes our show, who's from River Falls. He has his, as he calls him, his beer drinking buddies up there who tend to vote Republican, but they're also big Tammy supporters. And this might sound trite, but it's true.

The main reason is they said, you know what? She comes up here and goes in the bar. And guess what? She finishes her beer before she leaves. She's a real Wisconsinite.

And sometimes those things, Dan, you know, there's better than anybody. Sometimes it's those tangential connections in a race like this that is tight, that ultimately when the person has to vote behind closed doors or closed curtains, that's what counts.

You know, you're right. She has done better than most Democrats in different parts of the state rural areas, swing areas. You know, one of the examples that I always think about is in 2018, when she was reelected, she won in the Fox Valley and the Green Bay area in the same four counties.

Winnebago, Otagami, Brown and door that Scott Walker won in. And I think she wins in places that sometimes Democrats don't. And look, yes, this is a close race.

I think we've seen some of the, some of the national prognosticators move it from a lean Democrat race to a toss up. I think it probably always should have been a toss up Wisconsin and a presidential year.

Things are always going to be close. I hope he's getting a ton of cash to support his campaign. So we know this is going is going to be close. But I think you needed to do a certain job with the debate tonight. And I don't think you did it.

That will do it for our broadcast of the US Senate debates in Wisconsin. Our thanks to the Wisconsin broadcasters association, everyone behind the scenes for Todd Alba, Dan Schaefer and all of us here at Civic Media. I'm Terry Bell. Have a good night.

You