Dem Campaign Chiefs Tell Different Stories on GOP Primary Meddling

The senator running Democrats’ election strategy says his party shouldn’t boost election-denying Republicans in primaries. His House counterpart disagrees.

By
44

If inflation, high gas prices, and President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings weren’t enough to rattle vulnerable Democrats ahead of the midterms, the party’s House and Senate campaign chiefs are now contradicting each other about whether their party ought to prop up election-denying candidates in Republican primaries.

“I’m not doing that. The DSCC, we’re not—we’re not engaged in that,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) Chairman Gary Peters told The Dispatch Wednesday. He was responding to a question about the Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC’s spending $4 million to boost election-denying candidate Ron Hanks ahead of Colorado’s Republican Senate primary last month. Peters, the junior senator from Michigan, is leading Senate Democrats’ campaign strategy this cycle. 

“I don’t think we should be doing that,” Peters added.

But his condemnation of the practice doesn’t comport with comments made the day before by his Democratic counterpart in the lower chamber, who defends the practice as an effective campaign strategy. 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
44
By
Comments (44)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Matt

    I'd take this more seriously if there had been anywhere near as much outrage by republicans about the time one of them recruited a fake candidate with the same last name as the Democratic candidate to run in Florida as a spoiler.

    Collapse
  2. Alan

    This all depends on how they are doing the promotion though. Unless of course voters don’t have agency, and money is the primary determiner of outcome. Which go read the sweep, it isn’t. If the commercials boosting the crazies are just honest takes about who they are and what they want, why isn’t that wholly on republican voters?

    Collapse
    1. Nicco

      Because primaries (especially in non-presidential years) are enthusiasm elections. The strategy from Dems seems to be to increase enthusiasm amongst the far right, election denying wing of the Republican base so that they will turn out and vote for the far right election deniers rather than the more reasonable (and electable) candidates. It’s not about helping people make a decision between two candidates. It’s about getting people to show up and vote rather than staying home (because it’s all rigged anyway, right?).
      That’s not to say Republican primary voters bare none of the blame. They get the lion’s share in my book. But, if someone is an existential threat to democracy, why would you do something that likely helps them move closer to power?

      Collapse
      1. Alan

        Because they will regardless of what you do. In the end the reason this happened is because we let a political party curate this base under the guise that the "smart" "real" "good" conservatives could keep the crazies locked in the basement all while those same conservatives kept lying to them (by winking and nodding at their crazy ideas when they weren't just outright saying it out loud). This lying lead to a sense by the crazies that said conservatives were not "real" members of the party (by simple majority they aren't), and lead to the current takeover we have.

        Lying to voters and rigging the system so they can't get what they want is not a solution. Voters eventually get what they want, all you can do is control how much violence is involved.

        Collapse
  3. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. Avatar photo
      Jason Gibson

      You might be right Pat. But the democrats are making that even more true by removing an incentive to do the right thing

      Collapse
      1. J r

        Why doesn't the GOP and its base incentive and demand that their candidates do the right thing?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jason Gibson

          Because it’s a sick party

          And it would be better for our country if the Unsick people in the party were helped in their effort To support what’s right in our country

          Instead of giving free disability to those who we say that we are afraid of

          Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    This entire debate is a lazy one. Every race is different. If a candidate is boosted that can't win then it is worth it. If a candidate is going to win and you define him or her prior to the general election then it is also both effective and prudent (see Pennsylvania governor race).

    If you boost a race that is razor tight that you can easily lose in the general than that is where you play with fire. But this entire debate has been devoid of subtlety and actual facts. This is the new media which forces a both-sides narrative without any consideration of specific details.

    It happened with vaccines with the dumb lie that Democrats only encourage vaccines when in power. That was easily false even with the data used against Democrats.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    DougCLE

    Here's the thing: if you say, "I don't agree with this guy, but I'm going pump him up because I think he'll be easier to beat in the general," then that is an acceptable practice. Hardball, certainly. Slimy, possibly. But not outside the expected range of behavior for a politician.

    However, if you say, "This man is an existential threat to democracy in America, but I'm going pump him up because I think he'll be easier to beat in the general," then at that point, I have to think that either:
    A) you are willing to risk the end of democracy to win an election, which basically makes you DJT, or
    B) you are outright lying when you call your opponents a threat to democracy, and I shouldn't believe anything you say, about them or anything else.

    So... which is it?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      EricRemcon@gmail

      Exactly! Promoting weak candidates for the other side to improve your own chances is politics as usual. Promoting “existential threat” candidates for the other side to aid your own glide path is unserious, hypocritical, and immoral.

      Wait a minute .......... I guess they are both politics as usual (at least for the last decade), you know unserious, hypocritical, and immoral with principles espoused but never adhered to. 😅☹😡

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    The Dems are lucky I can’t vote for an election denier. They are giving me every reason to vote Republican even if it’s someone I don’t like

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Seth Higgins

    Good on Senator Peters, and good on The Dispatch for trying to get many politicians on the record about this practice.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Al Arcy

    This practice enrages me.
    I live in PA and hate the idea that I must choose to reward this tactic with a Shapiro governor vote, or stay home, letting Mastriano get 1 vote closer to winning.
    What do you do about a system this rotten? Up and down the line, the most cynical and craven actors seem to run the show in both parties.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    CJ Klein

    Thanks for aggregating these viewpoints in one article! Useful for me to see the division within the Democratic Party on this tactic - particularly where some elected officials stand.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    I've yet to understand how the Democratic ad on Ron Hanks that cites his less than rational policy preferences and ends with the line "Too conservative for Colorado" is an ad that promotes Ron Hanks. Since when is defining your opponent for the electorate a bad strategy? Is there some other ad I'm missing?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Audrey Fahlberg vertical-nib Author

      It’s a great question, one I explored in my first article on this trend:

      https://thedispatch.com/p/democrats-condemn-maga-republicans

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        I’ve seen a couple of these ads, Mastriano, Cox, etc., and they look more like “too conservative” warnings, not endorsements. Albeit, I haven’t seen them all.

        Bulwark’s J.V. Last’s take on it, is that “the culpability lies with the guy who loves poison and can’t wait to buy it, even after being told what it does.”. That in some cases the real problem is that some Republican and conservative “elites” are just reluctant to blame Republican voters… for obvious reasons.

        The Valadao and Mathys ads are admittedly of the “Coxonium is good for your health! Tastes great, goes down smooth and cures whatever ails you” rather than it will kill you. I’ll concede your point in such cases. And now there’s another reason I don’t like Nancy Pelosi.

        https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-democrats-made-them-do-it

        Collapse
        1. Matt

          "the culpability lies with the guy who loves poison and can’t wait to buy it, even after being told what it does.”

          I'm stealing that next time it comes up. Until the adults left in the Republican party actually get serious about not humoring the crazies, it's hard to blame the Democrats too much for preferring to run against said crazies.

          Collapse
    2. J r

      All of this hyperventilating is moderate GOPers realizing how little control they have in their own party and trying to influence the opposition party.

      These are candidates that the base wants. The criticism should be directed at the GOP for allowing these candidates to run under their banner.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      It depends: are they putting this ad out for the general, or for the R primary?

      If it's for the general, then yes, they are telling your average undecided voter not to vote for a more extreme candidate. But if it's for the primary - knowing that primary voters skew more toward the extremes - then who is its intended audience?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        Moderates?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          DougCLE

          Survey says... BZZZZT! Ooooh, sorry! But thank you for playing, and we're sending you home with this lovely jar of Turtle Wax - "Turtle Wax gives that hard shell finish!" - and a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni, "The San Francisco Treat!"

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill B

            Score!!! Love me some rice-a-roni!!!

            Collapse
    4. Roger Ellis

      If Republican on the far right hear too conservative...Dems think that is the guy they will latch on to.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        For Republicans on the far-right they left "conservative" a long time ago... I tend to think the message is for moderates wherever they can find them.

        Collapse
Load More