Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(86,314 posts)
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 10:49 PM Nov 2022

Dems propping up bad republican candidates actually worked

Kevin Robillard 🇺🇸 @Robillard
And with this race call, every single Republican who won their primary with help from Democratic meddling has lost in the general election.

AP Politics @AP_Politics
BREAKING: Democrat Hillary Scholten wins election to U.S. House in Michigan's 3rd Congressional District. #APracecall at 1:55 a.m. EST.


Democrats’ Elevation Of Election Deniers Worked

Throughout the late spring and into the summer, Democratic operatives made a series of risky choices to elevate Republican candidates who wholeheartedly embraced former President Donald Trump’s cornucopia of lies about the 2020 presidential election.

In Republican primary after Republican primary, Democrats aired ads serving two purposes: promoting seemingly unelectable candidates to the GOP base while attacking them for a general election audience. The ads noted how close the Republican candidates were to Trump, played up their support for strict restrictions or bans on abortion and other things the GOP base loved but general election voters hated.

On election night, those risky bets paid off. All six of the election-denying candidates on the ballot whom Democrats boosted ― three gubernatorial candidates, two House candidates and a Senate candidate ― lost, most of them resoundingly.

read: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-elevation-of-election-deniers-worked_n_636b5108e4b04925c8929fcf
39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dems propping up bad republican candidates actually worked (Original Post) bigtree Nov 2022 OP
I remember many talking heads were really worried and wondered if it backfired on us n/t Claustrum Nov 2022 #1
Glad it worked but that was some risky gambling! nt Quixote1818 Nov 2022 #2
No sh*t! Mme. Defarge Nov 2022 #20
YEah Dorian Gray Nov 2022 #38
It did, gab13by13 Nov 2022 #3
In it to win it!!! So happy to see Dems using strategy like this. nt Phoenix61 Nov 2022 #4
Lake is still out there, but I feel good about Hobbs AZSkiffyGeek Nov 2022 #5
WUT? Not what very wise DUers promised dpibel Nov 2022 #6
I didn't have a problem with it. As far as I am concerned, anything necessary to win tulipsandroses Nov 2022 #7
Agree Johnny2X2X Nov 2022 #8
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3-R) got primaried and lost to nutjob Joe Kent (R) Kennah Nov 2022 #9
Vancouver has the largest share of outstanding votes Zambero Nov 2022 #11
i take it barbtries Nov 2022 #10
I don't know too much about NC politics Genki Hikari Nov 2022 #31
it's great that happened somewhere. barbtries Nov 2022 #33
Sort of a "Guns Of Navarrone" approach...I like it! The Unmitigated Gall Nov 2022 #12
It poisons the electorate, though. Qutzupalotl Nov 2022 #13
This ColinC Nov 2022 #14
this is really just encouraging weakest opposition candidate bigtree Nov 2022 #15
See my post below. Their ads told the truth about those candidate. They did not "normalize" them emulatorloo Nov 2022 #17
It allows them months to expose their voters to more extremist paranoia. Qutzupalotl Nov 2022 #18
They only do it in places where they will lose in the GE JI7 Nov 2022 #28
They didn't "prop them up". They exposed their extremism. emulatorloo Nov 2022 #16
Exactly! Thanks for bringing this up! Tumbulu Nov 2022 #19
okay bigtree Nov 2022 #26
Starting to wonder if we should prop up Trump? Just A Box Of Rain Nov 2022 #21
I'd say no, given his ability to rally the braindead bigtree Nov 2022 #23
I'd say that Ron DeSantis is the bigger danger... DemocraticPatriot Nov 2022 #27
Sure, if you're big into Einstein's definition of insanity. nt Tommy Carcetti Nov 2022 #37
Einstein's (attributed) definition of insanity is: Just A Box Of Rain Nov 2022 #39
Back in 2012 during the Missouri GOP Senatorial primary xmas74 Nov 2022 #22
you gotta play against whoever shows up bigtree Nov 2022 #25
Exactly. xmas74 Nov 2022 #34
There were many Dems who expressed the same uneasiness peggysue2 Nov 2022 #24
We should do this again in 2024, but not in Bright Red states Polybius Nov 2022 #29
This ad spending has been mischaracterized, at least regarding the House race in Michigan... DemocraticPatriot Nov 2022 #30
I think you're right! Johnny2X2X Nov 2022 #35
We didn't blow our hand off with the firecracker this time Sympthsical Nov 2022 #32
It's an extremely risky gamble. Tommy Carcetti Nov 2022 #36

gab13by13

(22,058 posts)
3. It did,
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 10:51 PM
Nov 2022

I already apologized for Dems getting Mastriano the nomination, I was worried about him. He was too crazy for the crazies.

dpibel

(2,960 posts)
6. WUT? Not what very wise DUers promised
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 10:55 PM
Nov 2022

There was an awful lot of chat around here about how this was going to badly backfire!!

Wise people promised that.

tulipsandroses

(5,192 posts)
7. I didn't have a problem with it. As far as I am concerned, anything necessary to win
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 10:58 PM
Nov 2022

As long as it’s not illegal, and undeniably unethical, I don’t care how we win. Republicans count us being the ones to be the bigger person, while they kick sand in our face. Screw that. Kick that sand right back in their faces.

Kennah

(14,407 posts)
9. Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3-R) got primaried and lost to nutjob Joe Kent (R)
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 10:59 PM
Nov 2022

Kent (R) is losing to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D). Still not called.

Zambero

(9,009 posts)
11. Vancouver has the largest share of outstanding votes
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 11:08 PM
Nov 2022

It's also where Perez is performing strongest against Kent. Last I looked it was 65% tallied, with a higher percentage already accounted for in the less-populated counties. Fingers crossed for that one!

 

Genki Hikari

(1,766 posts)
31. I don't know too much about NC politics
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 09:43 AM
Nov 2022

But I suspect that the Democrats did indeed do that, at least in the 13th, because a D just beat MAGA loon, Bo Hines.

Qutzupalotl

(14,428 posts)
13. It poisons the electorate, though.
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 11:18 PM
Nov 2022

It normalizes insanity and makes it even more extreme. Yes, there is a short-term gain, but the cost to society could be enormous.

bigtree

(86,314 posts)
15. this is really just encouraging weakest opposition candidate
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 11:33 PM
Nov 2022

...it just so happens that the weakest are the worst of them.

I'm not really seeing value in less extreme republicans, especially when practically ALL of them rubberstamp the extreme legislation championed by any majority they might achieve.

emulatorloo

(44,396 posts)
17. See my post below. Their ads told the truth about those candidate. They did not "normalize" them
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 11:40 PM
Nov 2022

or “promote” them.

I fail to see how telling the truth about Republicans will cause an “enormous cost to society.”

Qutzupalotl

(14,428 posts)
18. It allows them months to expose their voters to more extremist paranoia.
Wed Nov 9, 2022, 11:59 PM
Nov 2022

More than they would get from a more centrist candidate. That has to have consequences to society.

It's one thing to “expose” them to the people who are listening to you. Undeniably, that is a good thing. But there are millions of people across the nation who will never hear the exposé, only the nutjob, day after day; and who will take that crazy football and run with it. I think we're already seeing some of that with the Paul Pelosi attack.

More crazy and more time to spew it is not a good thing for any society.

 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
21. Starting to wonder if we should prop up Trump?
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 12:34 AM
Nov 2022

No way--in my estimation--could he defeat Joe Biden.

The thought kinda make me sick, but...?

bigtree

(86,314 posts)
23. I'd say no, given his ability to rally the braindead
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:05 AM
Nov 2022

...making it into a definite strategy mostly gives me the willies.

Still, I'd say folks looking to get elected should do whatever they think will work... pretty much what candidates do every election.

DemocraticPatriot

(4,686 posts)
27. I'd say that Ron DeSantis is the bigger danger...
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 02:03 AM
Nov 2022

If it comes to a contest between the both of them, and there is no Democratic contest, I am prepared to vote for one or the other in the Republican primary-- whichever way will cause the most damage or prolong the contest.



 

Just A Box Of Rain

(5,104 posts)
39. Einstein's (attributed) definition of insanity is:
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:27 PM
Nov 2022
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

My take is that if Joe Biden and Donald Trump face off again, that Biden wins again. And with a much larger popular vote.

I'd expect the same result.

xmas74

(29,693 posts)
22. Back in 2012 during the Missouri GOP Senatorial primary
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:03 AM
Nov 2022

We referred to it as "Vote for the Worst". It came directly from an internet campaign that encouraged people to vote for the worst contestant on American Idol. In this case it was to vote for the worst GOP candidate- and it worked. Within a few days of winning the primary Todd Akin made his infamous comment during an interview and Claire McCaskill won by nearly 70%.

Unfortunately, his awful comments in 2012 are considered the gospel truth by the MAGA crowd.

bigtree

(86,314 posts)
25. you gotta play against whoever shows up
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:08 AM
Nov 2022

...it just makes sense to single out the one you think is beatable and work to make them your opponent.

Consequences either way you go.

peggysue2

(10,948 posts)
24. There were many Dems who expressed the same uneasiness
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:06 AM
Nov 2022

I had a discussion at another site with someone who was appalled that Dems were doing this, deliberately propping up the crazies bc the calculation was they would be easier to defeat.

My estimation? Anything that might work was worth a try.

The particular candidate in question was John Gibbs from Michigan, a total RW loon, who was in fact defeated in Michigan but went so far as questioning women's suffrage (an earlier Coulter claim). The argument was the risk involved supporting/propping up these truly crazy candidates in a primary set against the fact that they could actually be elected over more 'moderate' (whatever that animal is) GOP candidates.

My argument then was that when you're in an existential battle for the very soul and continuation of the country, you need to take risks, put it all on the table, go for broke.

It will be interesting when the dust settles and final counts are in to see how many of the propped up primary crazies were defeated.

In desperate times, sometimes desperate measures are required. For better or worse, I still stand by that.

Polybius

(15,735 posts)
29. We should do this again in 2024, but not in Bright Red states
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 02:08 AM
Nov 2022

Ammon Bundy might have won in Idaho if he got the Republican nomination.

DemocraticPatriot

(4,686 posts)
30. This ad spending has been mischaracterized, at least regarding the House race in Michigan...
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 02:25 AM
Nov 2022

It is not as if Democrats ran ads saying "support this candidate" regarding the election deniers.

They ran advertising stating "X candidate is too extreme for Michigan!" These were ATTACK ads against them-- general election type attack ads, but prior to the primary election.

So hey, Republican primary voters did not take our good advice-- that was their choice, wasn't it? They fell victim to "reverse psychology", either because they WANTED the most extreme candidate, or because they have trained themselves to do the opposite of whatever Democrats say-- it matters little which.

But Democrats never "promoted" the extreme Republican candidates, at least in Michigan. They actually attacked them.

It was a clever employment of "reverse psychology", and served the further purpose of softening up these candidates for the general election-- as most of the people viewing the ads would be future general election voters rather than Republican primary voters.

If Republican primary voters were foolish enough to fall for the reverse psychology just to "own the libs"-- or because they wanted the most extreme candidate-- that's their problem. "Politics ain't beanbag", and Democrats are entitled to spend their campaign cash in any legal manner which they wish to do.

But the most important point here, is that this advertising did not "promote the extremist GOP candidate"--- it attacked them, which is clearly what Democratic advertising would be expected to do. There was no "false flag" here...

The mainstream media seems to have lined up against this effort because it was rather "clever", and Democrats aren't allowed to campaign in any way that would be considered "clever" or approach a "dirty trick"-- (even though Republicans have been far-and-away the party of "dirty tricks" for the past century).

but there were no dirty tricks here-- (at least in the Michigan campaign)-- the extremist election-denying candidate was labeled as what they were-- "too extreme for Michigan!" They may have run the same ads in the general election, and there was no change in the party's position on that candidate.

So if Democrats were able to manipulate Republican primary results by telling the truth--
that is too bad, but Trumptard voters are not too bright...




Johnny2X2X

(19,677 posts)
35. I think you're right!
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:20 PM
Nov 2022

What I saw was that they tied the candidates to Trump. Here in West Michigan, they ran ads about John Gibbs that showed him with Trump, and then said he's for abortion bans. So basically, things that would make him appealing to Republican voters, but not appealing to Dems.

It basically defined Gibbs before he got a chance to pretend he wasn't an extremist in the main election.

It was a brilliant strategy, not only did you help the weakest candidates win the primary, but you ran ads that helped your candidate win the general. And it just shows how warped Republican values are.

The criticism wasn't based on ads praising them, because those ads didn't. it was just that we didn't want to give these crazies a chance to get into office should something weird happen.

My district was Gibbs vs Hillary Scholten. She routed him by 13 points. But this is a fairly even district, it was redrawn from R+9 to D+3, but I think that Peter Meijer if he won the primary would have been really tough for Scholten to beat. Mejier is from a very respected family in West Michigan, he's a vet, a moderate, and he voted to impeach Trump.

I think at the state level, Tudor Dixon was definitely the GOP candidate that Dems most wanted to run against too. One of the more moderate candidates Dixon beat in the primaries would have done much better than the extreme Dixon. Whitmer was always going to win though, she's been great and the state loves her.

Sympthsical

(9,238 posts)
32. We didn't blow our hand off with the firecracker this time
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 09:45 AM
Nov 2022

Well, that's a relief. Because after we blew the first hand off with Trump, that wasn't lesson enough.

"Hey ma, this hand is ok this time!"

Oh, lovely. We're relying on the teenager logic.

Tommy Carcetti

(43,265 posts)
36. It's an extremely risky gamble.
Thu Nov 10, 2022, 01:22 PM
Nov 2022

Didn't work for us in 2016.

I remember how excited many people were that the Republicans were nominating Donald Trump and how November would be a bloodbath.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Dems propping up bad repu...