For a second time during his campaign, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joel Brennan has been accused of racism.
The first accusation was when Brennan appeared on The Dr. Kristin Lyerly Podcast Show in April, where he was asked about being the only white guy in the governor’s race.
“I hope we get to a point in Wisconsin, in America, and maybe this is a step towards it, where we actually can just choose, and it be based on vision, based on how hard you work, based on qualifications. I don’t think we’re there yet,” Brennan said.
So when Brennan said Wisconsin isn’t “there yet” on electing non‑white governors, it landed on minority groups with a long memory of racial gatekeeping.
Not long after the podcast, Joel Brennan clarified his comments, saying that he was only responding to the interview about being the only white man in the gubernatorial race.
Brennan’s campaign told the Milwaukee Courier that his answer was being taken out of context. His campaign said his answer spoke to the question asked, which was whether it was a liability, asset, or something that we’re not supposed to talk about that he’s the only white guy in the race.
“Joel absolutely believes Wisconsin can and is ready to elect a woman or person of color to be governor,” said Brennan’s campaign manager, Sarah Abel, in a statement. “He believes Democrats should be proud to have many qualified candidates with different backgrounds, and hopes that voters consider the candidates based on their ideas and vision for Wisconsin. Full stop.”
The second incident happened July 21st. Joel Brennan launched a new ad that references Francesca Hong, Mandela Barnes, and David Crowley. However, he did not mention Kelda Roys also running for governor. Since the other three are minorities and Kelda Roys is a white woman, many minority leaders are saying his ad only takes shots at minorities.
Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC) thinks the liberal elite are backing Brennan and that his slights are in line with their elitist agenda.
Black Democratic voters, especially in Milwaukee, are highly sensitive to racial dynamics in primaries. When a candidate’s messaging disproportionately targets candidates of color, it tends to activate BLOC and other community activists.
These groups often shape the narrative of minority voters.
Once a candidate is labeled as racially insensitive, it becomes a sticky narrative, even if the candidate disputes it.
BLOC and other Democratic groups think Black Democratic voters often interpret these actions as racial gatekeeping and appealing to white moderate fears.
That perception can depress enthusiasm among base voters, especially in Milwaukee, where turnout is decisive.
This is why Brennan’s podcast comments and his July 21 ad create a compounding effect: two incidents, same theme.
Wisconsin’s Democratic primaries have a long, well‑documented pattern of racial controversy, not just in the modern era, but stretching back decades. These controversies usually emerge from racial tension between Milwaukee’s Black community and the state’s historically white liberal political power center, plus the way statewide campaigns treat Milwaukee’s Black vote as both essential and expendable.
Even if Brennan’s intent was strategic, the pattern looks like minority candidates are unelectable, white candidates are safer, and Democrats should choose the white option.
Brennan’s missteps matter more in Milwaukee than they would in Madison, Green Bay, or Eau Claire. Milwaukee’s political ecosystem is uniquely sensitive to racial messaging.
In the end, Brennan’s problem isn’t just two isolated missteps. It’s the way those missteps echo a much older pattern in Wisconsin politics. Milwaukee’s Black voters have spent decades watching statewide candidates treat them as essential on paper but expendable in practice. So when a candidate’s messaging singles out minority opponents, even unintentionally, it taps into a deep well of historical memory and political frustration.
That’s why these controversies stick. They don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in a city where racial dynamics have shaped primaries for generations, where turnout depends on trust, and where minority organizations and media have become guardians of that trust. Once a candidate is seen as racially tone‑deaf, clarifications rarely erase the impression, especially when the pattern repeats.
