Democrats making risky bets
If you gave money to the House Majority PAC, associated with Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, you probably didn’t intend for it to help back a far-right candidate in California’s 22nd district, who believes President Donald Trump would still be in office if the 2020 votes had been “properly counted.”
Or to another California Republican candidate who trafficked in anti-Semitic tropes while running for the House of Representatives there.
But Democrats and their allies all over the country — from California to Colorado, Pennsylvania to Illinois — are putting money behind far-right Republican candidates in hopes that they’ll beat their more moderate Republican counterparts in the primaries. It’s a big gamble predicated on the somewhat smug belief that voters couldn’t possibly support an extremist, racist, conspiratorial or inexperienced candidate — in other words, Trumpy — in a general election. It was the same calculation Hillary Clinton made in 2016, assuming that elevating someone as “unlikely” and offensive as Trump in the Republican primary would make a general election a cakewalk.
Many in the media took the same approach. The over-coverage of Trump wasn’t just because of his entertainment or news value, but because there was this underlying assumption that the more we exposed, the worse he would perform.
We know how that turned out. So, we’ve all learned our lesson, right? Obviously not.
The Democrats have spent millions in ad buys pushing farright candidates.
Their biggest gamble so far is on Doug Mastriano, the Trumpsupporting Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania. During the Republican primary, the Democratic nominee Josh Shapiro ran ads calling Mastriano “one of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters,” and insisting, “If Mastriano wins, it’s a win for what Donald Trump stands for.” It was a clear effort to elevate Mastriano and get “ultraMAGA” voters out to the polls. And it worked. When asked by CNN if the strategy was irresponsible, Shapiro said, “What we did was start the general election campaign and demonstrate the clear contrast …”
Democrats had better hope it works. If Mastriano defies their calculation that Pennsylvania couldn’t possibly elect him governor, the detritus will be considerable. Among other things, Mastriano is calling for wiping the state’s voter rolls clean and appointing a secretary of state who could refuse to certify elections. Yikes.
Elsewhere, the Democrats’ plan is working … for now. In Illinois, a PAC backing Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker is spending millions pushing farright state senator Darren Bailey over the more moderate Richard Irvin. Bailey currently leads that primary by 15 points.
In Colorado, Democrats are pushing Ron Hanks, who marched to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in that state’s Senate primary, in hopes Hanks will face Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Hanks is trending up in Google searches and social media sentiments.
But in two California districts, the Democrats’ efforts were wasted. In the state’s 22nd district, Rep. David Valadao, who voted to impeach Trump, defeated Chris Mathys. And in the 40th, the more moderate Young Kim beat Greg Raths.
One hopes Democrats are looking at their maps very carefully as they venture down this fraught road. One map, from Daily Kos, may be particularly instructive.
It shows which districts in every state have gotten redder or bluer between 2008 and 2020. You’d assume that Dems have spent money elevating farright candidates in districts and states that have gotten bluer in recent years. But that’s not always true.
In Pennsylvania, a whopping 13 districts have gotten redder, compared to five that have gotten bluer, perhaps good news for Mastriano.
It’s not clear Democrats have grasped the deep reddening of certain pockets of the country.
It also seems risky considering a slew of Trumpy candidates have been elected in recent years, and to terrible effect.
From Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, to Colorado’s Lauren Boebert, to North Carolina’s Madison Cawthorn (recently ousted), there’s living proof that offensive is no longer disqualifying.
It’s a roll of the dice, with huge implications. Will it get their guys elected? Or will Democrats have helped give immense power to some of the most extreme candidates.