Tuesday night was a big night for state politics at UW-La Crosse, as they hosted political debates between those running for the State Assembly in the 94th and 96th districts. Starting at 7pm, incumbent Assemblyman and Democrat Steve Doyle faced off against challenger Julian Bradley of the Republican party. Shortly following this debate, at roughly 8pm, the spotlight turned to the debate between incumbent Republican Assemblyman Lee Nerison and Democrat Alicia Leinberger.

According to Ballotpedia, 94th district incumbent Steve Doyle has been a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly since 2011. In the special election held that year for the Assembly spot, Doyle claimed victory and has won the position two more times since then. His opponent, Republican candidate Julian Bradley has been elected as chairman of the Republican Party of La Crosse County and to the Wisconsin GOP executive committee, alongside managing a telecommunications firm according to Ballotpedia. In the past, Bradley has run for and lost elections for both the State Assembly and Wisconsin Secretary of State.

In the 96th district, incumbent Republican Lee Nerison has been an assembly member since 2005 and currently serves as Majority Caucus Vice-Chair according to Ballotpedia. He also served on the Vernon County Board from 1998 to 2006 and is a dairy farmer. Alicia Leinberger, his opponent, has no past history or record in politics at all, but has small business experience and experience with renewable energy.

The first debate of the night, between Steve Doyle and Julian Bradley for the 94th district, drew the majority of the crowd and was competitive throughout. To break the ice in this debate, and the second the candidates joked about how it would be much more civil than the presidential debates we’ve all seen. This was an accurate statement as both candidates were very professional and composed throughout.

From beginning to end of the debate, Doyle boasted of his bipartisan voting record and his ability to work across the aisle. His opponent, Bradley, tried to challenge this on several occasions during the debate, and was met with claims from Doyle saying he votes with his party “98%” of the time, but also votes with Assembly Speaker Vos “94%” of the time.

Something both candidates agreed on more often than everything else was that K-12 funding in the state of Wisconsin needs to increase. They made it extensively clear that education is their main focus, and would continue to be, should they be elected into office. The two also showed support for a non-partisan redistricting plan, such as the one that has been implemented in Iowa. For job growth, Bradley wants to attract tech companies to the area making it a “silicon prairie” and Doyle cited his work with the Workforce Advancement Training Program.

If you’re curious about more in depth differences between these two candidates, you can go on their websites and see their full platforms. A couple differences that arose during the debates were how to combat the problem with Wisconsin roads and the subject of Medicaid. As a solution for the transportation dilemma, Doyle supports implementing a higher gas tax, whereas Bradley views this as an absolute last resort. On the topic of Medicaid, Bradley supported the rejection of it, whereas Doyle was mad that Wisconsin did not take it.

The second debate, between Nerison and Leinberger of the 96th district, occurred in front of a sparse crowd, not surprising as their district does not encompass the city of La Crosse itself. This debate was much less polished than the first one. The majority of the debate content consisted of Leinberger, the challenger, attacking Nerison’s voting record. Ironically, at one point she attacked her opponent for voting with Robin Vos 99% of the time, when only an hour earlier, fellow democrat Doyle had said that he votes with Vos 94% of the time.

Agriculture and the environment was a major topic in this debate. On the subject of frac sand mining, Nerison suggested doing more studies before implementing anything, whereas Leinberger took the stance that frac sand mining has no place in their district. In response to a question about how to fix the problem of last year’s loss of 400 farmers in the state, Nerison suggested that the solution will be found by addressing equities, and Leinberger suggested “good stable prices” to get more farmers. Overall, the stances of these candidates did not appear to deviate much from regular liberal and conservative principles.

For more information on these candidates and their stances, you can visit their websites or check out ballotpedia.org.