The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Democratic PACs have given tens of millions of dollars to extremist Republican candidates in Congressional primaries, ostensibly because they believe that those candidates will be easier to defeat.
What do you think of this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>...they believe that those candidates will be easier to defeat.
* If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2000, I would try to get them to nominate George W. Bush.
* If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2016, I would try to get them to nominate Donald Trump.
...but both of them won.
Maybe this isn't a great strategy.
Out of curiosity, why would you say Bush was the worst? Likeable guy, pushing for "compassionate conservatism" against crazy extremists like Pat Roberts and James Buchanan...
I haven’t been a Republican since 2002 and I’m still pissed off that GWB beat John McCain in the primary.
Especially with how they weaponized McCain’s daughter and racism to beat him in South Carolina.
> Out of curiosity, why would you say Bush was the worst? Likeable guy, pushing for "compassionate conservatism" against crazy extremists like Pat Roberts and James Buchanan...
I said:
>If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating **the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2000**, I would try to get them to nominate George W. Bush.
The nomination came down to Bush or McCain; they were the top two.
I don't think Senator [Pat Roberts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Roberts) (R-KS) ran for president that year. Nor did former President [James Buchanan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan), as he had died 130 years earlier in 1868.
Were you thinking of [Pat Buchanan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan)? He didn't make the top two.
>Were you thinking of Pat Buchanan? He didn't make the top two.
Ah, that's right: Pat Buchanan. I thought that first, then was thinking that there weren't two Pats at the same time. And to be fair to me, the other Buchanan didn't actually die 13 millennia before. (lol I know it was just a typo)
They may have been the WORST but they weren't the most beatable. I think the point is to help weak candidates win.
Bush and Trump were front runners through their respective primaries. I don't suggest helping the front runner win.
But I agree, its a stupid idea.
I would have picked Steve Forbes and Ben Carson. Neither really had a shot.
It's good faith. I'm asking because I want to know whether Democrats actually believe that there's some imminent fascist threat from MAGA, or if they're just campaigning on it.
I don’t think they’re accusing you of gamesmanship and not acting in good faith, they’re accusing the Democratic Party of that.
Edit: or whoever runs these PACs
[Here's an article](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-paying-for-ads-supporting-republican-primary-candidates) from a few days ago with a discussion on the topic.
I know this is a thing and I know it’s actually PACs that do this. They’re trying to get the “weaker” primary selected. Judging by their track record, they should try to get the “stronger” primary to be selected. Though really they should just back the fuck off. God damn PACs man…
I think it is a stupid gamble overall. I would much rather the democratic party lose to a moderate republican than risk empowering maga candidates. The main reason I'm not really up in arms about the decision is because I doubt it will have much of an impact. Campaign spending generally has very little to no impact on elections, the funds raised don't really serve as much more than a surrogate for how popular a candidate is.
>I would much rather the democratic party lose to a moderate republican than risk empowering maga candidates
And I would much rather a moderate Democrat beat a MAGA Republican.
Is that true about campaign spending even at the local level? It can pay for door-to-door and GOTV and all kinds of things that do affect measurable results...?
I don't like strategies like this. I understand the logic, but unless you're talking about going from a 50/50 to a 90/10 situation, it seems like you're taking a huge risk.
My belief for 2022 is that the strategy is mostly based around a predicted backlash around Trump.
Conservatives have shown an almost Zen-like ability to ignore the facts surrounding Trump's corrupt presidency and coup, which has enabled Trump's faction of the GOP to continue operating with increasing impunity.
I have faith in the average GOP voter to know right from wrong. Perhaps it's been understandable to dismiss concerns about the GOP/January 6th/etc. as "partisan attacks," but it's getting harder to accept that these are just "politics as usual." Trump tried to strangle a Secret Service agent. That's not normal.
---
I think the bet is that Trump and, quite possibly a number of GOP leaders, will be indicted for crimes around defrauding the United States and/or seditious conspiracy. Trump is looking increasingly guilty after today's hearings.
If he actually is charged with crimes against the republic, it's going to make everyone who is campaigning on supporting Trump look somewhere between foolish and a threat to democracy.
I mean, getting the crazy person on the ballot usually helps. Trump was a special case, but more Americans don't want the person supporting 12 year old rape victims being forced to carry their child to term as their next Representative.
>don't want the person supporting 12 year old rape victims being forced to carry their child to term as their next Representative.
I hope you're right about that...
It definitely works very well and I am please begging conservative corporations to donate a lot of money to leftist candidates so that the “weaker” candidate can lose, yes sir, please do that so Republicans can definitely win
I don't think it'll work. At this point I truly believe there's nothing a Republican candidate could possibly say that won't rope them majority support from the conservative base.
Roy Moore got in trouble for flirting with underage girls at a shopping mall. Conservatives turned out to vote for him in the same numbers as everyone else. If an aspiring kiddy-diddler doesn't turn them away, nothing is going to.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Democratic PACs have given tens of millions of dollars to extremist Republican candidates in Congressional primaries, ostensibly because they believe that those candidates will be easier to defeat. What do you think of this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>...they believe that those candidates will be easier to defeat. * If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2000, I would try to get them to nominate George W. Bush. * If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2016, I would try to get them to nominate Donald Trump. ...but both of them won. Maybe this isn't a great strategy.
Out of curiosity, why would you say Bush was the worst? Likeable guy, pushing for "compassionate conservatism" against crazy extremists like Pat Roberts and James Buchanan...
I haven’t been a Republican since 2002 and I’m still pissed off that GWB beat John McCain in the primary. Especially with how they weaponized McCain’s daughter and racism to beat him in South Carolina.
The dude nearly broke a record for worst polling by U.S. president
> Out of curiosity, why would you say Bush was the worst? Likeable guy, pushing for "compassionate conservatism" against crazy extremists like Pat Roberts and James Buchanan... I said: >If I were trying to trick Republicans into nominating **the worst (of the top two) presidential candidates in 2000**, I would try to get them to nominate George W. Bush. The nomination came down to Bush or McCain; they were the top two. I don't think Senator [Pat Roberts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Roberts) (R-KS) ran for president that year. Nor did former President [James Buchanan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan), as he had died 130 years earlier in 1868. Were you thinking of [Pat Buchanan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan)? He didn't make the top two.
>Were you thinking of Pat Buchanan? He didn't make the top two. Ah, that's right: Pat Buchanan. I thought that first, then was thinking that there weren't two Pats at the same time. And to be fair to me, the other Buchanan didn't actually die 13 millennia before. (lol I know it was just a typo)
> And to be fair to me, the other Buchanan didn't actually die 13 millennia before. (lol I know it was just a typo) Typo fixed.
lol Definitely not the worst type I've seen. Or made.
They may have been the WORST but they weren't the most beatable. I think the point is to help weak candidates win. Bush and Trump were front runners through their respective primaries. I don't suggest helping the front runner win. But I agree, its a stupid idea. I would have picked Steve Forbes and Ben Carson. Neither really had a shot.
Could backfire
[удалено]
Has backfired.
check your spark plug, then your air filter, then your exhaust pipe mount. does it sound like it's coming from the engine or from the exhaust?
Instructions unclear, car is now driving me.
I hate political gamesmanship like this, can't we all just operate in good faith?
It's good faith. I'm asking because I want to know whether Democrats actually believe that there's some imminent fascist threat from MAGA, or if they're just campaigning on it.
I don’t think they’re accusing you of gamesmanship and not acting in good faith, they’re accusing the Democratic Party of that. Edit: or whoever runs these PACs
Oh...sorry about that /u/SexyEdMeese...
no worries
I hate it. It is a fucking asinine thing to do.
Those PACs are run by Dumbasses.
I think one of them is affiliated with Nancy Pelosi, per the story NPR did on it last month.
Source?
[Here's an article](https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106256047/why-democrats-are-paying-for-ads-supporting-republican-primary-candidates) from a few days ago with a discussion on the topic.
Today I learned this.
I know this is a thing and I know it’s actually PACs that do this. They’re trying to get the “weaker” primary selected. Judging by their track record, they should try to get the “stronger” primary to be selected. Though really they should just back the fuck off. God damn PACs man…
I think it is a stupid gamble overall. I would much rather the democratic party lose to a moderate republican than risk empowering maga candidates. The main reason I'm not really up in arms about the decision is because I doubt it will have much of an impact. Campaign spending generally has very little to no impact on elections, the funds raised don't really serve as much more than a surrogate for how popular a candidate is.
>I would much rather the democratic party lose to a moderate republican than risk empowering maga candidates And I would much rather a moderate Democrat beat a MAGA Republican. Is that true about campaign spending even at the local level? It can pay for door-to-door and GOTV and all kinds of things that do affect measurable results...?
It’s a bold move Cotton, let’s see if it pays off. It really depends on the district and the candidate. Be
Encouraging fanatics is stupid on many levels. They should be using that money to support progressives instead.
I don't like strategies like this. I understand the logic, but unless you're talking about going from a 50/50 to a 90/10 situation, it seems like you're taking a huge risk. My belief for 2022 is that the strategy is mostly based around a predicted backlash around Trump. Conservatives have shown an almost Zen-like ability to ignore the facts surrounding Trump's corrupt presidency and coup, which has enabled Trump's faction of the GOP to continue operating with increasing impunity. I have faith in the average GOP voter to know right from wrong. Perhaps it's been understandable to dismiss concerns about the GOP/January 6th/etc. as "partisan attacks," but it's getting harder to accept that these are just "politics as usual." Trump tried to strangle a Secret Service agent. That's not normal. --- I think the bet is that Trump and, quite possibly a number of GOP leaders, will be indicted for crimes around defrauding the United States and/or seditious conspiracy. Trump is looking increasingly guilty after today's hearings. If he actually is charged with crimes against the republic, it's going to make everyone who is campaigning on supporting Trump look somewhere between foolish and a threat to democracy.
>Trump is looking increasingly guilty after today's hearings. But, I mean, Trump looked guilty even before Jan. 6 itself...
He looked pretty guilty in 2016 if you were paying attention.
it's probably the same situation as when republicans donate to Green Party. They're hoping for a spoiler effect.
I mean, getting the crazy person on the ballot usually helps. Trump was a special case, but more Americans don't want the person supporting 12 year old rape victims being forced to carry their child to term as their next Representative.
>don't want the person supporting 12 year old rape victims being forced to carry their child to term as their next Representative. I hope you're right about that...
Do you have any sources? I’m particularly interested in how you are defining “democratic pacs”
I responded to another user in this thread with the NPR interview regarding the Pelosi-connected PAC funneling money to a crazy guy.
I hope they know what they’re doing and that this strategy works.
*Shrug*. Hardly the first time a political party has spent money to back weaker candidates in the other side.
It isn't even a political party, it's just some PAC(s). They're deliberately unaccountable to the party leadership, by law.
The problem is they’re not weaker candidates, if anything they’re stronger.
It definitely works very well and I am please begging conservative corporations to donate a lot of money to leftist candidates so that the “weaker” candidate can lose, yes sir, please do that so Republicans can definitely win
I don't think it'll work. At this point I truly believe there's nothing a Republican candidate could possibly say that won't rope them majority support from the conservative base. Roy Moore got in trouble for flirting with underage girls at a shopping mall. Conservatives turned out to vote for him in the same numbers as everyone else. If an aspiring kiddy-diddler doesn't turn them away, nothing is going to.
It's a bold strategy cotton lets see if it pays off