The Die is Cast: Democrats Risky Strategy

During the midterm primaries, Democrats used vital resources to boost fringe Republicans; it paid off.

Trump’s active campaigning and powerful endorsement opened the door for a new wave of Republican candidates to beat more traditional ones. As candidates started announcing to run the 2022 primaries across the country, Trump put his thumb on the scale, endorsing candidates that subscribed to his vision regarding the 2020 election and the Republican establishment. These MAGA candidates supported radical, unpopular, and bizarre ideas put forth by Q-Anon and Christian Nationalism, as well as banning abortions regardless of extreme circumstances. The weakness and fringe views of candidates are precisely what primaries are for, weeding out the less electable candidates so that parties put their best (most electable) candidates forward when the general election comes around.

Democrats saw Trump’s meddling as an opportunity; if these candidates could beat their moderate Republican counterparts in the primary, then Democrats could easily beat their unpolished and clumsy MAGA opponents during the general election. To accomplish this goal, Democrats enacted the risky strategy of actively helping these radical MAGA Republicans in their primaries. Democratic strategists donated money, took out TV ads, and created email blasts. I cannot overstate how risky this strategy was. Not only does using resources on fringe Republicans take away how much they can use on their members, but there is no guarantee that these Republicans would lose their general elections. If MAGA Republicans won their elections, they would partially have Democrats to thank for it, Democrats who they believe are evil and deserve to be punished for their perceived interference in the 2020 election.

The Washington Post found that six of the 13 Democrat-backed Republican candidates won their primaries after having more than a combined $12 million spent on their behalf. These candidates were running in vital races, some in races that would decide control of congress composed of three gubernatorial candidates, two House candidates, and a Senate candidate. This did not go unnoticed; a flurry of negative headlines criticized the strategy during the primaries, especially after these candidates won. To be clear, opposition parties meddling in each other’s primaries is not new. Still, the toxicity and “unique” nature of boosting MAGA candidates was far more dangerous than encouraging another moderate Republican who would be easier to beat (as had been done in the past). Thirty-five former Democratic elected officials signed a letter suggesting the party was playing a dangerous game.

“Our democracy is fragile, therefore we cannot tolerate political parties attempting to prop up candidates whose message is to erode our dedication to fair elections,” the officials wrote in August.”

Here’s another quote from someone you may have heard of, former Republican Presidential nominee and current Utah Senator Mitt Romney:

“Be careful what you wish for, You may select somebody who actually wins, and then you hurt the country as well as your own party.”

Below is a picture of some of the advertisements Democrats took out on behalf of these candidates. Notice how many of them say, “this candidate is too conservative,” or this is Trump’s pick,” something that most Republican primary voters view as a positive rather than a negative. The same cannot be said for the much broader general electorate voters.

The first step of this strategy worked, Democrats managed to help Republican State Senator Doug Mastriano win in Pennsylvania’s governor primary, and retired Army Brigadier Don Bolduc win in the New Hampshire primary for Senate. These candidates had far less funding than the Republican mainstream candidates, and some were so divisive they could not get their own party leadership on board. Senate candidate Don Bolduc previously had a feud with New Hampshire’s current Republican Governor, Chris Sununu, calling him sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party. Sununu endorsed Bolduc’s opposition during the primary and reluctantly endorsed Bolduc after he won with Democratic help.

On election night, all the risky bets paid off. All six election-denying MAGA candidates lost, most by extensive margins. New Hampshire Democratic Maggie Hassan, who was viewed as a vulnerable Senate seat, smashed her Democrat-boosted MAGA opponent by nearly 10 points. MAGA Republican John Gibbs lost by over 13 points to Hillary Scholten, who herself was defeated just two years ago by moderate Republican (and one of the few that voted to impeach Trump) Peter Meijer. Doug Mastriano, who previously said that women should be charged with murder if they violated his proposed abortion ban, lost the Pennsylvania Governor race by over 14%. This is in a state that Trump lost in 2020 by under 2% and won in 2016.

Although this strategy worked, it is clearly not healthy for a democracy and counter-productive to Democrats' potent messaging that democracy is at risk. By elevating these candidates, Democrats risked putting dangerous people in positions of power that could have made dangerous decisions that risked the future of this country. Although none of them won, who knows how many voters they radicalized during their general election campaigning? How many will use their increased platform to run successfully in the future? Or turn their failed campaign into a comfy seat on Fox News or Newsmax? What we have learned, however, is that candidate selection still makes a difference, even in a time of extreme partisanship. Trump’s messaging that the 2020 election was stolen is not as potent as he thinks, and his (probable) 2024 run will need more than constant whining over past events to be successful. Campaigning on how evil abortion is or how January 6 was some great event does not have broad appeal. However, this strategy is far from bulletproof, and Democrats should think twice before employing it in the future. It takes only one mistake to give the reigns over to dangerous partisans.

TLDR Democrats rolled the dice on election-deniers’ unpopularity. What it means for the future will be impactful.