“WISCONSIN nice”, the local version of Midwestern civility and friendliness, had been on display at a town hall with Donald Trump the day before the primary elections of April 5th. The event was moderated by Scott Hannity of Fox News in the Pabst theatre, an opulent concert venue built in the late 19th century. There was none of the name-calling and fist-fighting that has become increasingly frequent at other Trump gatherings. A young man explained that he didn’t know yet who to vote for and wanted to find out what Mr Trump would do to help business. (He left early.) Christopher Handler, a handyman from Green Bay who sported a glittery golden headpiece emblazoned with “Fence Painter”, said that he had come because he wanted to ask whether he can paint Mr Trump’s fence. (He never managed to ask his question.) A woman cried out “We love you, Donald” a few times, but it was more polite hollering than hysterical shrieking.
Serious, politically engaged Wisconsinites didn’t take to Mr Trump like their Midwestern neighbours in Michigan and Illinois, where the Republican front-runner won by large margins. At a Trump rally an hour after the town hall in Milwaukee, half of the seats were empty and the mood unusually subdued. Mr Trump’s true believers probably sensed that the tide was turning against their hero. On the next day Mr Trump won only 33.4% of the votes in the Republican primary, with 49.5% going to Ted Cruz, a senator from Texas, and 14.6% to John Kasich, the governor of Ohio.
The latest polls had predicted a drubbing for Mr Trump, who was leading the pack here just a month ago. They had also forecast a narrow victory for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic contest. In the event, Mr Sanders won a comfortable 56% of the vote, compared with 43.7% for Hillary Clinton—who is miles ahead of Mr Sanders in the Democrats’ national delegate count. So the two front-runners were the primaries’ in this state, as they were in the recent caucuses in neighbouring Minnesota, which has a similar tradition of progressive politics and keen interest in substantive discussions of policy.
Why did Mr Trump’s fortune turn in Wisconsin? A series of gaffes, regarding abortion and nuclear weapons, showed up his unwillingness (or inability) to think through some of the most basic issues, even in the run-up to the election. An embarrassing spat with Mr Cruz—in which Mr Trump retweeted an unflattering picture of Mr Cruz’s wife next to a glamour shot of own his wife, Melania, a former model—heightened the impression of a misogynistic boor. In order to win back affronted women, Mr Trump put Melania centre stage at the Pabst theatre, in a short, pale-blue dress, and let her explain who he is. “When you attack him, he will punch back ten times harder,” she said. She promised that “he is the one that will take care of women.” It didn’t seem to have the hoped-for effect. “Nice legs, Donald,” a man shouted from the second floor.
The Republican establishment had been hoping to give him a Waterloo in Wisconsin, seeing it as their Stop Trump campaign’s best chance to gain momentum. It seems to have worked: endorsements for Mr Cruz from Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin (who also briefly ran for the nomination), and from other local GOP grandees probably helped their cause. Mr Cruz can now count on most of the state’s 42 delegates.
Yet Mr Trump is still firmly in the lead nationally and he is expected to win an important primary on April 19th in New York, where 95 delegates are up for grabs. He might also do well in Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania, which vote the following week. PredictWise, a website that collects information from polls and betting markets, still puts his chances to win the nomination at 51%, compared with 29% for Mr Cruz. Mrs Clinton’s chances to win the Democratic nomination, on the other hand, stand at 87%, according to PredictWise, compared with only 13% for Mr Sanders.
Only a week earlier, Mr Trump’s chance of winning the nomination were deemed much higher. Wisconsin may prove to be the turning point the Republican establishment was hoping for. It makes the scenario by which none of the candidates cross the threshold of 1,237 pledged delegates—thus forcing a contested convention in Cleveland—a real possibility. The rules of such a convention are relatively simple: on the first ballot, almost all delegates are supposed to observe the preference of the primaries or caucuses in their state. If that round is inconclusive, then they may vote as they choose.
Mr Kasich’s argument for staying in the race, even though it is by now mathematically impossible for him to win the primary process, is that he could emerge as the consensus candidate at such a convention. Others hope that Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, who also happens to be from Wisconsin, will jump in and emerge as the convention’s champion. Naturally Mr Cruz thinks that he now has a good chance. “Tonight is a turning point,” he said in his victory speech: “I am more and more convinced that our campaign is going to win the 1,237 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination. Either before Cleveland or at Cleveland…”
Meanwhile Mr Sanders, triumphant after winning six of the Democrats’ past seven primaries or caucuses, and raising almost $15m more than Mrs Clinton last month, is determined to march on until the Democratic convention. In spite of Mrs Clinton’s commanding lead it is still technically possible for him to get the 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. And he has an ace up his sleeves. At a rally at the Wisconsin Convention Centre on April 4th, he told his fans that were he their party’s nominee, he would beat Mr Trump by a “yuuuuge” margin, much bigger than Mrs Clinton’s. Surveys confirm it: Mr Sanders would be in an even better position to beat Mr Trump. Yet for most Democratic voters, Mrs Clinton’s very good chance of winning a resounding victory against Mr Trump seems good enough.
