Why Are Democrats Backing Trumpists in GOP Primaries?

[Contrarian]

I want to bring back to life a theory that I first heard actually on an European think tank. This idea that a lot of Trumpists were pushed by Democrats in the GOP primaries. 

The libertarian Reason.com publication had an article in regards to this in the past.

If this was indeed the tactic, imagine these Trumpists win. Talk about irony. You run away from men like Mitch McConnell ---> just to find Trump standing there. 😂 or maybe the hope is that a lot of moderate republicans will vote for the Democrats? 

Democrats paid $435,000 to back a pro-Trump Republican in Michigan—nearly $100,000 more than the candidate himself raised.

On August 2, freshman Rep. Peter Meijer lost the Republican primary for Michigan's 3rd Congressional District to John Gibbs, a challenger backed by former President Donald Trump. Gibbs' victory over Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump, highlights the strange role Democrats are now playing in the GOP's internecine battles.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) funded an ad labeling Gibbs "handpicked by Trump" and "too conservative for west Michigan." While ostensibly an attack, the ad also served to entice Republican primary voters. The DCCC paid $435,000 for the 30-second ad—nearly $100,000 more than Gibbs raised in total contributions. Gibbs beat Meijer by more than 3,000 votes.

For a decade, Meijer's district was represented by Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-Libertarian who quit the GOP while criticizing Trump and Trumpism. Meijer won the seat in 2020 after Amash chose not to seek reelection, and his single term was characterized by an independent streak reminiscent of his predecessor. Most notably, Meijer was one of only 10 Republicans (and the only freshman) to vote for Trump's impeachment after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Despite Meijer's principled opposition to Trumpism, the DCCC saw Gibbs, a far-right conspiracy theorist who believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, as preferable because he will be easier to beat in the November general election. Based on similar logic, Democrats have backed Trumpists over centrists in several GOP primaries.

In July, the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) spent $1.2 million on ads targeting Dan Cox, a Republican state delegate in Maryland who attended Trump's pre-riot "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6 and is now running for governor. The DGA's ads said Cox was "handpicked" by Trump and "too conservative for Maryland." He ultimately beat his more moderate Republican opponent by 15 percentage points.

In May, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat running for governor, sponsored an ad describing state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a GOP gubernatorial candidate who was photographed on the Capitol grounds on January 6, as "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters." Mastriano prevailed over his closest primary competitor by more than 20 points.

These pro-Trump candidates might have won their primaries without help from Democrats, and Democrats may be right that extreme candidates will be unpalatable to the general electorate in November. But it's a risky bet with serious consequences: As Pennsylvania's governor, Mastriano would have the power to appoint a secretary of state who could directly challenge the results of the next presidential election.

This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Why Are Democrats Backing Trumpists?".

https://reason.com/2022/10/31/why-are-democrats-backing-trumpists/

*A leading libertarian publication outside the left/right spectrum. 

Midterms are coming soon. Almost there. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Contrarian

[DogOnPorch]

I'd hazard it's because the demented Democrats feel they can beat the 'Trumpists' by trying to connect them to drug crazed hippie nudists from Berkeley...and similar nefarious plots.

Edited November 2, 2022 by DogOnPorch

[robosmith]

31 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I want to bring back to life a theory that I first heard actually on an European think tank. This idea that a lot of Trumpists were pushed by Democrats in the GOP primaries. 

The libertarian Reason.com publication had an article in regards to this in the past.

If this was indeed the tactic, imagine these Trumpists win. Talk about irony. You run away from men like Mitch McConnell ---> just to find Trump standing there. 😂 or maybe the hope is that a lot of centrists republicans will vote for the Democrats? 

Democrats paid $435,000 to back a pro-Trump Republican in Michigan—nearly $100,000 more than the candidate himself raised.

On August 2, freshman Rep. Peter Meijer lost the Republican primary for Michigan's 3rd Congressional District to John Gibbs, a challenger backed by former President Donald Trump. Gibbs' victory over Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump, highlights the strange role Democrats are now playing in the GOP's internecine battles.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) funded an ad labeling Gibbs "handpicked by Trump" and "too conservative for west Michigan." While ostensibly an attack, the ad also served to entice Republican primary voters. The DCCC paid $435,000 for the 30-second ad—nearly $100,000 more than Gibbs raised in total contributions. Gibbs beat Meijer by more than 3,000 votes.

For a decade, Meijer's district was represented by Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-Libertarian who quit the GOP while criticizing Trump and Trumpism. Meijer won the seat in 2020 after Amash chose not to seek reelection, and his single term was characterized by an independent streak reminiscent of his predecessor. Most notably, Meijer was one of only 10 Republicans (and the only freshman) to vote for Trump's impeachment after the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Despite Meijer's principled opposition to Trumpism, the DCCC saw Gibbs, a far-right conspiracy theorist who believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, as preferable because he will be easier to beat in the November general election. Based on similar logic, Democrats have backed Trumpists over centrists in several GOP primaries.

In July, the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) spent $1.2 million on ads targeting Dan Cox, a Republican state delegate in Maryland who attended Trump's pre-riot "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6 and is now running for governor. The DGA's ads said Cox was "handpicked" by Trump and "too conservative for Maryland." He ultimately beat his more moderate Republican opponent by 15 percentage points.

In May, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat running for governor, sponsored an ad describing state Sen. Doug Mastriano, a GOP gubernatorial candidate who was photographed on the Capitol grounds on January 6, as "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters." Mastriano prevailed over his closest primary competitor by more than 20 points.

These pro-Trump candidates might have won their primaries without help from Democrats, and Democrats may be right that extreme candidates will be unpalatable to the general electorate in November. But it's a risky bet with serious consequences: As Pennsylvania's governor, Mastriano would have the power to appoint a secretary of state who could directly challenge the results of the next presidential election.

This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Why Are Democrats Backing Trumpists?".

https://reason.com/2022/10/31/why-are-democrats-backing-trumpists/

*A leading libertarian publication outside the left/right spectrum. 

Midterms are coming soon. Almost there. 

Of course it's a gamble, but PROFESSIONAL pols probably know what they're doing and have extensive research to show that the Trumpist candidate will be easier to beat.

Only time will tell if their bet was wise.

[DogOnPorch]

I'll also hazard that outside of stealing the election, the results will be a sound thrashing for the Democrats no matter what they do above-boards.

[Contrarian]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course it's a gamble, but PROFESSIONAL pols probably know what they're doing and have extensive research to show that the Trumpist candidate will be easier to beat.

Only time will tell if their bet was wise.

so far the polls are saying that Republicans are winning the house and in some, probably the senate too. Will be battle here (senate). 

We will find our answer on November 8. 

so try to be nice to republicans for the rest of the week, you might need some, if you keep putting them into one bucket, like many in your party did the past few days. I have seen it on twitter, people blaming ALL republicans. 

and your tactic is for the centrists amongst the Republicans to go and vote for the Democratic Party? Nop, it does not work like that, the people vote in anger.

The establishment fans despise Trump but they will hold their nose and vote for him anyways.

Welcome to 2022 Tribalism. 

I would be worried if this indeed was the tactic, unless it was applied for specific races. 

https://www.politico.com/2022-election/race-forecasts-ratings-and-predictions/

Edited November 2, 2022 by Contrarian

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

so far the polls are saying that Republicans are winning the house and probably the senate too. Will be battle here. 

We will find our answer on November 8. 

so try to be nice to republicans for the rest of the week, you might need the centrists, if you keep putting them into 1 bucket, like many did the past few days. I have seen it on twitter, people blaming ALL republicans. 

and your tactic is for the centrists to go and vote for the Democratic Party? Nop, it does not work like that, the people vote in anger. The establishment figures despise Trump but they will hold their nose and vote for him anyways. Welcome to 2022 Tribalism. 

I would be worried. 

It's about Independents, NOT centrist Republicans. Polls show centrist Republicans are disappearing.

Any true Independent will never vote for extremist Trumpublicans.

[DogOnPorch]

Then you have nothing to worry about...much like with your war in Ukraine.

[Contrarian]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's about Independents, NOT centrist Republicans. Polls show centrist Republicans are disappearing.

Any true Independent will never vote for extremist Trumpublicans.

I understand what you are saying. Gambling, is like the Democratic Party is playing at a casino. 

😃

I will be following those specific races. Curious what will happen. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Contrarian

[sharkman]

Just a reminder:  The same people that said the 2016 was stolen are the same ones who said 2020 was the most secure election in history.  And will say that 2022 was stolen.

Btw, it’s the same people that want to force vaccine mandates for all and demand my body my choice for abortions.  And sex change operations.

Is your head spinning yet?

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I understand what you are saying. Gambling, is like the Democratic Party is playing at a casino. 

😃

I will be following those specific races. Curious what will happen. 

Politics is ALWAYS a gamble; specifically on voter turnout, and lately whether Republican pols will certify the vote count if they don't like what it says about their Party.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Just a reminder:  The same people that said the 2016 was stolen are the same ones who said 2020 was the most secure election in history.  And will say that 2022 was stolen.

Btw, it’s the same people that want to force vaccine mandates for all and demand my body my choice for abortions.  And sex change operations.

Is your head spinning yet?

Not at all. But it's clear that yours is with all ^these false equivalencies.

Who said 2016 was "stolen"? I only heard that Trump cheated with ILLEGAL campaign aid (AKA contributions) from Russia.

Apparently you don't understand the DIFFERENCES which make your equivalencies FALSE.

[sharkman]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not at all. But it's clear that yours is with all ^these false equivalencies.

Who said 2016 was "stolen"? I only heard that Trump cheated with ILLEGAL campaign aid (AKA contributions) from Russia.

Apparently you don't understand the DIFFERENCES which make your equivalencies FALSE.

Funny how your memory has gotten selective on the 2016 claims of a stolen election.  Here, watch Hilary and the gang talking’ ‘bout 2016, Trump and stolen:

 

[Hodad]

6 hours ago, sharkman said:

Just a reminder:  The same people that said the 2016 was stolen are the same ones who said 2020 was the most secure election in history.  And will say that 2022 was stolen.

Btw, it’s the same people that want to force vaccine mandates for all and demand my body my choice for abortions.  And sex change operations.

Is your head spinning yet?

Democrats didn't say that 2016 was "stolen" in terms of counting ballots, voting integrity or any of that. This is pure fiction used as whataboutism to incorrectly normalize Trump's "big lie."

They did, however, correctly acknowledge the Russian interference, voter suppression and other tactics deployed to boost Republicans. Those aren't disputed claims. 

 

[sharkman]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Democrats didn't say that 2016 was "stolen" in terms of counting ballots, voting integrity or any of that. This is pure fiction used as whataboutism to incorrectly normalize Trump's "big lie."

They did, however, correctly acknowledge the Russian interference, voter suppression and other tactics deployed to boost Republicans. Those aren't disputed claims. 

 

The video I linked above.  Has the proof.  They said it was stolen.  

[sharkman]

Hilary Clinton:  “You can run the best campaign.  You can even become the nominee.  And you can have the election stolen from you”.

Facts are stubborn things.

[Hodad]

15 minutes ago, sharkman said:

The video I linked above.  Has the proof.  They said it was stolen.  

And if you can't make the distinction between the two claims you've got major problems. Russia DID hack to tamper with our election, just not with the polls. That's not a baseless conspiracy theory. It's happened. It's not even disputed.

Remember when even Trump's DoJ indicted Russians for exactly that: Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election

^^ That's directly from the DoJ site.

 

There's no evidence they tampered with the vote, but they were quite successful at influencing the way that people voted. And the gullible among us ate up that Russian gruel like it was ambrosia. Yum!

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Hodad

[robosmith]

20 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Hilary Clinton:  “You can run the best campaign.  You can even become the nominee.  And you can have the election stolen from you”.

Facts are stubborn things.

"Can" is NOT a definitive nor specific claim, no matter how much you want to hang your hat on that false equivalence.

At best it is an inference about what might have happened. 💡

[sharkman]

You people are trying to dance on the head of a pin.  Good luck with that. 
 

 

[Rebound]

20 hours ago, robosmith said:

Of course it's a gamble, but PROFESSIONAL pols probably know what they're doing and have extensive research to show that the Trumpist candidate will be easier to beat.

Only time will tell if their bet was wise.

I donate a lot of money to Democrat candidates and I don’t like that strategy. I think it’s a lot more effective to get voters to vote FOR you than to get them to vote AGAINST the other guy. 

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I donate a lot of money to Democrat candidates and I don’t like that strategy. I think it’s a lot more effective to get voters to vote FOR you than to get them to vote AGAINST the other guy. 

Shapiro is leading Mastriano substantially, so it seems to be working in that case. 

[robosmith]

12 hours ago, sharkman said:

You people are trying to dance on the head of a pin.  Good luck with that. 
 

 

You're probably right in that the Trump cultists are unable to decipher your false equivalence. Like you were unable.