Democrats meddling in Republican Primaries

[CivilDiscourse]

DCCC, Liberal dark money groups, etc. Have been pouring money into Republican primaries, trying to get primary wins for candidates they see as more easily beatable in the general election.

There's a number of reasons this should be considered problematic by dems.

1. Hypocrisy. They are "russia" here. They are spending money to influence an election that isn't theirs.
2. It's how Hillary got Trump Elected. Hillary ran a pied-piper campaign that highlighted Trump, got news networks to focus on trump, because they thought Trump would be easier to beat than other GOP primary candidates. Well, they succeeded in the primary, then lost to Trump, effectively creating the monster they railed against for the next 4 years.
3. They are supporting candidates THEY think are dangerous. (See #2.) They try to get these candidates to win their primary, but they tell us again how dangerous these candidates are.

[rogue06]

DCCC, Liberal dark money groups, etc. Have been pouring money into Republican primaries, trying to get primary wins for candidates they see as more easily beatable in the general election.

There's a number of reasons this should be considered problematic by dems.

1. Hypocrisy. They are "russia" here. They are spending money to influence an election that isn't theirs.
2. It's how Hillary got Trump Elected. Hillary ran a pied-piper campaign that highlighted Trump, got news networks to focus on trump, because they thought Trump would be easier to beat than other GOP primary candidates. Well, they succeeded in the primary, then lost to Trump, effectively creating the monster they railed against for the next 4 years.
3. They are supporting candidates THEY think are dangerous. (See #2.) They try to get these candidates to win their primary, but they tell us again how dangerous these candidates are.

This is exactly how Georgia ended up with an "unelectable" governor back in the 60s although then it was Republicans voting in the Democrat primary to help get him nominated.

[NorrinRadd]

There's a fair chance it will work here in purple-leaning-blue PA. Actually, it really wasn't even necessary, at least in the Senate race. All the top vote-getters had sought to kiss the ring -- and anything else Bad Orange Man extended. Like Hannity, he ultimately endorsed Meh, probably considering him the "most electable" due to name recognition. I think his name recognition probably works against him, and I think he's a big ol' phony, and he was not my choice in the primaries, but I'll vote for him in November with no hesitation. But he's currently down by 11, and I don't think he'll catch up.

I think they probably have enough little clips of gubernatorial candidate Mangino speaking... uncircumspectly... to paint him as a Super-Ultra-Mega-MAGA QAnonified loon, and scare off non-Republicans. He's currently down by 10. Shapiro is a weasely-looking little fascist leftist creep, but I think he'll probably win.

[CivilDiscourse]

Apparently, the left-wing partisans here (even the foreign boot licking ones) don't care to comment on this.

[Starlight]

Apparently, the left-wing partisans here (even the foreign boot licking ones) don't care to comment on this.

1. I think people in general tend to be overoptimistic about their ability to affect voters and that goes double or triple for affecting opposition voters, and I am deeply skeptical that any amount of effort by Dems would have any practical effect on Republican voters, hence I tend to think this is a non-event.

2. I see pros and cons in such a strategy, which you somewhat outlined in the OP, and overall I am not convinced whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa. As a result, I think money and effort would be better spent elsewhere - especially since there are easy-wins this election cycle like campaigning on legal abortion and same-sex marriage.

[CivilDiscourse]

1. I think people in general tend to be overoptimistic about their ability to affect voters and that goes double or triple for affecting opposition voters, and I am deeply skeptical that any amount of effort by Dems would have any practical effect on Republican voters, hence I tend to think this is a non-event.

2. I see pros and cons in such a strategy, which you somewhat outlined in the OP, and overall I am not convinced whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa. As a result, I think money and effort would be better spent elsewhere - especially since there are easy-wins this election cycle like campaigning on legal abortion and same-sex marriage.

Of course, point 1 also downplays the impact of Russian interference.

[CivilDiscourse]

One defense put forward:

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-blame-democrats-for-what-republican-voters-want_n_62d89319e4b000da23fb74f2#comments

Don’t Blame Democrats For What Republican Voters Want
Interfering in GOP primaries is a questionable strategy, but it only works because of what the conservative base craves.

© Copyright Original Source

Of course THIS argument pretty much invalidates the ENTIRE complaint about Russian interference. People voted how they wanted, therefore Russia was justified.

But, that's part of the problem. Since Democrats ARE RUSSIA here, every justification they use can be used to justify Russia's actions that they railed against.

[rogue06]

1. I think people in general tend to be overoptimistic about their ability to affect voters and that goes double or triple for affecting opposition voters, and I am deeply skeptical that any amount of effort by Dems would have any practical effect on Republican voters, hence I tend to think this is a non-event.

2. I see pros and cons in such a strategy, which you somewhat outlined in the OP, and overall I am not convinced whether the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa. As a result, I think money and effort would be better spent elsewhere - especially since there are easy-wins this election cycle like campaigning on legal abortion and same-sex marriage.

Generally such attempts are unsuccessful because too few participate in it and you need a real close race.

That's why Democrat attempts in Michigan to crossover and vote for Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney failed back in 2012, and Rush Limbaugh's idea to vote for Hillary in 2008 primaries to weaken Obama also did not succeed.

OTOH, as I noted, in my state, Republicans voted in the Democrat primary in an attempt to get a staunch segregationist nominated for governor who they figured was unelectable. They succeeded, but ultimately lost because he became governor

[rogue06]

One defense put forward:

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dont-blame-democrats-for-what-republican-voters-want_n_62d89319e4b000da23fb74f2#comments

Don’t Blame Democrats For What Republican Voters Want
Interfering in GOP primaries is a questionable strategy, but it only works because of what the conservative base craves.

© Copyright Original Source

Of course THIS argument pretty much invalidates the ENTIRE complaint about Russian interference. People voted how they wanted, therefore Russia was justified.

But, that's part of the problem. Since Democrats ARE RUSSIA here, every justification they use can be used to justify Russia's actions that they railed against.

If liberal infiltrators are needed for the extremist to win then the argument that was who the Republican base wanted are falsified.