Democratic Lawmakers Blast Their Own Party for Boosting Election Deniers in GOP Primaries

[babylonsister]

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/dccc-peter-meijer-john-gibbs-election/

July 31, 2022
Democratic Lawmakers Blast Their Own Party for Boosting Election Deniers in GOP Primaries
“The DCCC is not God.”
Tim Murphy

snip//

But the DCCC isn’t just bolstering Republicans who aren’t very good campaigners or who might be poor fundraisers—in Michigan’s third congressional district, it’s specifically spending money to boost John Gibbs, an election-denying Trump loyalist, over incumbent Rep. Peter Meijer, one of a handful of Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after January 6. Specifically, the DCCC has spent $435,000 on ads that call Gibbs “too conservative for West Michigan” and note that he was “handpicked by Trump”:

snip//

Meijer isn’t happy about this, telling Politico that he’s “sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party.” But interestingly, a number of Democratic members of Congress aren’t happy either, and they’ve criticized the move publicly. New York Rep. Kathleen Rice, for example, called the use of campaign funds to help election deniers “unconscionable.” Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips said it was “just damn wrong.”

On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, New York Rep. Ritchie Torres joined the parade of Democratic critics, slamming the move as “embarrassingly hypocritical.”

“We cannot credibly defend democracy and then prop up candidates who are an existential threat to the very democracy that we’re defending,” Torres said. “And in politics, when you try to be too cute and clever, it often backfires. The DCCC is not God. It cannot guarantee the outcome of the general election. And when you prop up a conspiracy theorist in a Republican primary, you run the risk of sending an extremist to the United States Congress, and that’s an egregious misuse of Democratic resources.”

snip//

But as we’ve seen over the last few years, it also matters what individual members of Congress say and do once they get there. There are costs to adding more election deniers and Trump acolytes to the chamber—and to using money you’ve raised from grassroots donors to help them get there. In this case, elected Democrats’ vocal complaints about Gibbs are notable. After all, they’re the ones who’d have to work with him.

[Kid Berwyn]

1. Undemocratic.

Easy Blowback.

[allegorical oracle]

2. Spending Dem donor dollars on Repugs is repugnant. It especially hurts down-ballot races where

some really good candidates could use a cash infusion. Repug and Koch $$ went a long way to ensure state legislatures flipped from D to R in the past decade(s).

[JohnSJ]

13. +++

[femmedem]

3. I would never donate to anyone that boosts election deniers, including Democratic organizations.

The best hope for our democracy is for election-deniers to lose in every primary so that Republican elected officials know that catering to the fringiest elements of their base is a losing strategy.

Besides, I would not appreciate Republicans having any say in who our Democratic candidates are. We shouldn't have any say in theirs, either.

I'll be donating to individual candidates, not the DCCC, for the foreseeable future.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I can't donate to the DCCC while they do this. I'm sad and pissed about it n/t

[Demsrule86]

8. Then I guess you are OK with GOP types winning? Trying to get an opponent you can beat is

an election strategy...but hey guys stay pure...losing isn't that be right?

Let me just say the DCCC could dance naked in the street and I would support them...they could do anything and I would support them. We lose the House, it is game over. Let's get our priorities straight here.

[Sympthsical]

12. "I hope Trump wins. He'll be so easy to beat in November!"

Yeah. I heard that one a lot in 2016.

How'd that work out for everyone?

[Demsrule86]

17. This isn't a presidential election. And he would have been easy to beat if the 'but

her email crowd' had voted for the Democratic nominee. The purity police were riding hard in that election...why Hillary was the same as Trump-don't you know?

This is a midterm where historically the President's party loses. The President's Party has won only twice in 90 years...1934 and 2002. I am for trying to field opponents that can be beaten And I don't feel that any Republican would be better in office than any other Republican. I have no issue with it. Let's try everything because if the GOP wins, it is game over.

[Sympthsical]

25. You can make whatever excuses you please

The fact of the matter is that all elections have some degree of unpredictability embedded in them. By hoping for the most dangerous campaign, you're playing dice with our democracy.

Now maybe you're comfortable with the gamble, but I am not. Nor do I want any of my money going towards it. If I send money to the Democratic Party, that should not involve signing up for Republican Roulette.

Sometimes it's best to kill crazy in its crib rather than incubating it and hoping you can control the monster.

That historically has not gone well for us. "Maybe this time we'll be lucky."

RBG gambled similarly. Some of us desperately told her we didn't want to be at the table. Well, here we are.

Glad you're so cavalier about it.

[Polybius]

38. Make no mistake about it though, it's a form of cheating

If we can't beat a Romney-type Republican fair and square, then the voters have spoken.

[Demsrule86]

45. I don't consider it cheating.

It certainly is not illegal...I am happy you are so sure about winning and all...while the GOP pays Green candidates to run to throw the election their way.

[Polybius]

50. I agree that's it's not illegal

That's why I said it was "a form of cheating." IMO it's at the lower end of cheating, not anything major but still.

As for winning I have Democrats picking up two Senate seats. The House is another story though.

[Demsrule86]

51. There is very little polling on the house...I think we will hold the house due to Roe.

[Polybius]

53. I think we lose 20

But back to the Senate, we're winning PA for sure though. I don't think there's anything Fetterman can do to lose, even if I disagree with the trolling tactic. Oz is just that bad of a campaigner. Ohio is another too we might win. We'll hold only Georgia only for one reason. Walker is just that bad, and is quite off.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I choose the option of directly donating to Democratic candidates over allowing the DCCC

to spend my money boosting the profile of Republican candidates who are a danger to everything I believe in. Not only do I remember how much glee some Democratic operatives felt over the opportunity to run against an "unelectable" Donald Trump, I remember the same thing happening when Ronald Reagan became the Republican nominee for President.

[Demsrule86]

19. That is all very well and good...but some candidates do not receive sufficient amounts

of private donations. The DCCC helps these candidates who may not be independently wealthy. In a year where historically the President's party has lost, we should try everything...and I keep seeing people mentioning presidential elections...this is not a presidential year... apple and oranges. And if the 'but her email crowd' would have voted for the Democratic nominee, we would have won. So the argument leaves me cold. Our Republic is in tatters thanks to that crowd.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. The DCCC made it's choices. Individual donors make their choices also.

The DCCC choice was predictably controversial. Look at the OP again. It is Democrats elected to Congress who are criticizing the tactic the DCCC is using here, not the "but her email" crowd. It becomes tiresome for you to paint all critics with the same brush, and also for you to want to pin Hillary's loss exclusively on the same specific small percentage of voters. The number of registered Democrats who did not bother to vote in the 2016 presidential election far, far, far exceeds the number of registered Democrats who did vote but refused to vote for Hillary. And the number of people who tend to agree with Democrats on most issues who did not even bother to register to vote in 2016 is much larger than both of those groups combined. The Libertarian candidate for President in 2016 got multiples of the vote that Stein got also. It is the job of a political party to convince the public that it is in their interest to vote for that party's candidate. No one starts out owning anybody's vote. It simply is not how democracy works. Speaking only for myself, I want my money used to promote candidates who are on my side regarding the major issues facing America.

If election deniers and the emerging fascist right wing Republican movement are as serious a threat to our very democracy as we all keep screaming that it is, no I do not want to promote adherents of that movement onto the November ballot. Too many things can go wrong to upset all of the insider political calculations, last minute scandals, bad economic news, etc, etc, and suddenly fascists hold direct power in Governor mansions and the like.

[SunImp]

35. +1

[Demsrule86]

41. Of course it is your choice where your money goes....And I merely point out we would

not be in this situation if everyone had voted for the Democratic nominee (those that didn't know who they are). In order to produce results only seen in two elections in 90 years...the president's party won the midterm...I am willing to cut the DCCC some slack if they think this helps...as for Democrats complaining. They should stop complaining it is not helpful in this situation...and it is mostly out of New York which is a shit show due to redistricting. These are seats that will be won by Democrats quite handily. Either you support the party or you don't...it is that simple I will continue to give as much as I can. You see I have no rules regarding helping Democrats. My focus is and always has been on winning elections.

[Demsrule86]

47. Make your choice but I consider it a bad choice. We could lose elections based on this choice

if enough people follow your example. Again only twice in 90 years has the President's party taken the midterm...we need to pull out all the stops and win. But we can agree to disagree.

I just donated to the DCCC in honor of this thread. Have a great day. I am off to vote in Ohio.

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. Thanks for your good work in Ohio, Demsrule

A lot (as usual) is riding on Democrats winning in Ohio!

[Sympthsical]

55. You know, I'm just going to go ahead and bookmark this

And paste it again and again and again (and again) to the nonstop revisionist history of that election, where nonvoters are somehow not a thing on this plane of existence.

It's just a convenient refrain to blame an already hated group. Stein voters were a vanishingly small number of people who made a difference in 2016 when compared to non-voters or even Johnson voters.

Tired of getting lectured on what we should be doing to win in the future by individuals who absolutely refuse to acknowledge with honesty and objectivity why we lost in the past.

It's a credibility thing.

[BootinUp]

29. Tom's right. Nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. That's as insane as the MAGAts. Fucking traitors.

Time to do some purging of the DCCC -- clean out the masquerading MAGAts.

[Demsrule86]

9. They are trying to field Republicans who will lose.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. Yeah, as if GOPers won't elect unfit idiots

[Demsrule86]

14. I remember when they elected a certain Senator from Missouri and a Senator for Alabama. It

works sometimes. Do you understand that only twice in relatively recent history has the President's Party won a midterm? In 1934 and in 2002. The Democrats are trying to keep the House or it is game over for us in terms of policy-any policy. And yet, all I hear is the same old crap. Damn, let them try, Any GOP is going to be terrible-doesn't matter. So why not give it a shot. I really believe the purity police should sit down and be quiet while we try to save the Republic.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

18. I use ActBlue. I don't donate to radicalized Republicans.

[Mad_Machine76]

21. Independent/Swing Voters won't though

that's the point.

[Demsrule86]

24. That is exactly right. Hey, I hope it works. Of course, I am one who wants to win and I am

not hampered by the desire to remain 'pure'. So my response is yes let's be the third midterm where the President's Party-Biden's party won because we saved the house and the Senate. That is my only goal.

[Demsrule86]

20. Personally, I prefer to purge Republicans...but he that's just me...a yellow dog Democrat.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

22. Purging Republicans does not begin by donating to their campaigns, IMO.

[Demsrule86]

26. Sometimes it does...this tactic was use in Claire McCaskill's election. This has been done before.

[Demsrule86]

42. Sometimes it does exactly that. Mastriano is going to lose...for example.

[CrispyQ]

6. $44 million dollars to republican campaigns--WTF?

I posted this story the other day:

Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries
By Dario McCarty
July 15, 2022 11:33 am

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/

Political groups and nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns across five states’ Republican primaries to boost the profile of far-right candidates in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland.

Democrats strategy is rooted in the belief that these candidates — many of whom spread unfounded claims that the 2020 presidential race was stolen from former President Donald Trump — will be easier to defeat in a general election.

Democratic spending has helped secure Republican nominations for candidates in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

In Maryland, Democrats are spending on a Republican gubernatorial primary that is still ongoing and is viewed as a tossup. But in California and Colorado, Democrats spent money elevating the profile of candidates who did not advance to the general election.

This is infuriating.

[Demsrule86]

27. There is no mention of the DCCC in this article...where does that come from?

[CrispyQ]

31. The OPs article mentions the DCCC. -nt

[CrispyQ]

7. Send your money directly to the candidates you want to support.

BTW, all the dems I've sent money to, about five total, go through ActBlue. When did that happen?

[JohnSJ]

15. +++

[Sympthsical]

11. Some of these people will win

This is why I don't donate to national organizations.

Always know exactly where your money is going. With the internet, there is zero reason to put your money in someone else's hands. They do not always know what is best or have your preferences and interests at heart.

[Demsrule86]

23. I was looking at the candidates who were helped...and one caught my eye...Mastriano.

He is losing. So maybe it is working I hope so. Also, Pritzker in Illinois is running against such a candidate- Bailey and he is losing too. I hope it works.

[CrispyQ]

34. No one can demoralize the democratic base like the democrats.

They have backed some far right candidates who lost the primary, to the tune of millions of dollars. Whether they win or lose, how would you feel as a local candidate to discover that dem organizations gave hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to your Q-anon opponent?

We shouldn't play these stupid games. We should go all in on our own candidates.

[SunImp]

36. I'd be pissed if it went to a MTG or Gaetz clone

[CrispyQ]

44. This quote from the Mother Jones article nails it:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/dccc-peter-meijer-john-gibbs-election/

snip...

On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, New York Rep. Ritchie Torres joined the parade of Democratic critics, slamming the move as “embarrassingly hypocritical.”

“We cannot credibly defend democracy and then prop up candidates who are an existential threat to the very democracy that we’re defending,” Torres said. “And in politics, when you try to be too cute and clever, it often backfires. The DCCC is not God. It cannot guarantee the outcome of the general election. And when you prop up a conspiracy theorist in a Republican primary, you run the risk of sending an extremist to the United States Congress, and that’s an egregious misuse of Democratic resources.”

[Baggies]

30. Support your own candidates

The other side does the same thing. Then, in the GE, voters will decide. Playing these games is silly.

[Demsrule86]

46. That is not true...the the side pays Greens to help them win to cut down our vote...there was a

was a post about it today. I fail to understand with our Republic hanging by a thread this quest for purity. We need to win. And I am OK with ads that denounce some righty asshat in order to get a worse right asshat that we can be easily...if we get the first guy, well we have been beating them up. If we get the second guy we can beat the crap out of him too...either way, it helps us.

[Baggies]

48. You misread my post.

I’m opposed to Republicans funding Greens. Democrats fund Democrats. Republicans fund Republicans. Greens fund Greens. Etc…

[Demsrule86]

52. Attacking Republicans is not funding Republicans...and getting the candidate you want has bee used

for years by both sides.

[Elessar Zappa]

32. I get why they're doing it but

it’s a dangerous game to play.

[Hotler]

33. STOP! Stop giving Democratic party dollars to the repugs, period. Send them bootstraps. nt

[LymphocyteLover]

37. If they ads are calling out GOP extremist candidates, I really don't see the problem

if the ads were saying vote for such and such whackjob, that's obviously different, But even the Gibbs ads should help Meijer, in theory.

[Novara]

39. Yeah, I'd like more detail

If ads are boosting these people, it pisses me off. If they are negative ads against any repug, I don't see a problem.

But I do see a problem with boosting one asshole over another because to me they are all repugnant assholes.

[LymphocyteLover]

40. they call Gibbs "too conservative for West Michigan" & he was "handpicked by Trump"

SO??? Why would Meijer care about that?

[Demsrule86]

43. These are ads against their opponents...and it does two things...maybe we get a candidate who

will lose the General easily because they are so extreme or we are beating up the candidate who is not as crazy and wins the primary anyway and runs in the General. It works either way. In fact, it is genius. These ads are against Republicans not for Republicans.

[H2O Man]

49. Recommended.

I have not donated to the DCCC in many years, and had decided long ago that I never would again. So my comments on this should be viewed in that context. The DCCC does not represent my values as a Democrat, but I have no problem with individuals who support them.

There are indeed times when there are advantages accrued in "supporting" the weaker candidate in the opposition party's primaries. This is not one of those times. This is a prime example of the difference between knowing "how" and knowing "why" a tactic can be used in a contest. In my opinion, it is also an example of what happens when people in plush offices with little or no contact with what is taking place outside of their comfort zone make really stupid choices that back-fire, time and time again.