Republican post-mortem in Pennsylvania

[Bradskii]

It is a thing, and not a new one. Both parties have played with the others primaries trying to get an outcome they think is in their interests.

But don't you have to be a member to vote in the primaries? Or, and this really messes with my head, are they actually bankrolling people they think are no hopers? So if I wanted the GOP to lose, I'd fund Trump's campaign?

Say it ain't so. Please don't tell me a political system is so messed up that it allows this.

Note: Feel free to insert any Anglo Saxon term you feel is applicable in lieu of 'mess.

 

[mark46]

It is a thing, and not a new one. Both parties have played with the others primaries trying to get an outcome they think is in their interests.

Yes, trying to manipulate other candidates is indeed a thing. This time, it including the Dems spending large amounts on election-denying Republicans in the primaries, at all levels, most obviously in the Senate and Governor's races in PA.

 

[Desk trauma]

But don't you have to be a member to vote in the primaries?

It varies by state.

 

[mark46]

But don't you have to be a member to vote in the primaries? Or, and this really messes with my head, are they actually bankrolling people they think are no hopers? So if I wanted the GOP to lose, I'd fund Trump's campaign?

Say it ain't so. Please don't tell me a political system is so messed up that it allows this.

Note: Feel free to insert any Anglo Saxon term you feel is applicable in lieu of 'mess.

Let me give you the example of the NH primary. OFTEN, the contested elections are in one party only, the other is pretty set. Voters are allowed to cross over on Election Day, causing mischief in the other party's process.

Personally, I favor CLOSED primaries, with voters not being allowed switch parties for the 30 days before an election. Primaries should be for parties to choose candidates that represent the party. I don't see why independents or those of the other party should make such choices unless they choose to change party affiliation.

 

[mark46]

It varies by state.

In many states you can change parties on Election Day when you enter a voting site, vote, and then change back on the way out of the election location.

 

[morningstar2651]

Did I say it would be? It's an opinion. Supporting murder of an innocent isn't christian. My belief and opinion. Yours? Probably isn't such.

Are murderers not allowed to be Christian?

 

[morningstar2651]

In many states you can change parties on Election Day when you enter a voting site, vote, and then change back on the way out of the election location.

Can you name one state where you can do that!?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But don't you have to be a member to vote in the primaries?

Depends on the state, but Pennsylvania does have a closed primary, so it wasn't a factor there.

Or, and this really messes with my head, are they actually bankrolling people they think are no hopers? So if I wanted the GOP to lose, I'd fund Trump's campaign?

That's the most common tactic. Anyone can donate money to any candidate, and you can even funnel it anonymously through PACs and Super PACs, which can also be used to circumvent limits on personal contributions. Thanks Citizens United! They'll also do media campaigns, either supporting the preferred candidate or undermining the one they think is stronger (ads, pushing media narratives, leaking dirt, etc).

 

[Hans Blaster]

j

Incidentally, that article also notes that the governor race was another instance of the "Democrats spend money on the Republican primary pushing forward the fringe candidates, then proceed to crush them in the general election" strategy that worked incredibly well. I'm not sure what the best strategy for the republican Party to beat that; they could intervene in the primaries themselves to support the less fringe candidate, but direct intervention like that can be unpopular.

This strategy only really works when one side (the side employing it) is relatively unified, has obvious nominee pre-primary, or the choices in their own party are fairly similar ideologically, AND the opposition party has one candidate that is more unpalatable to the "centrist voter" than the other and either could win the nomination.

It goes something like this:

Dem SuperPAC Ad: "Candidate A is *too* conservative for our state."

GOP primary voter: "Maybe their right about Candidate B being a RINO lib, I should vote for the true conservative -- Candidate A"

Swing/independent voter: "I would have voted for Candidate B, but the GOP selected Candidate A and he's too conservative for my tastes. I guess I'll have to vote for the Dem."

Not only does the strategy tend to select the candidate in the opposition that is more extreme and less likely to be popular with more moderate voters, but it also reinforces that notion in the voters early.

 

[JSRG]

Is that actually a thing? I found it hard to believe the first time I heard it. Not the that I think it's wrong, but it's new on me.

It was definitely a thing in this election; it's been documented how Democrats (or at least Democrat-aligned groups, but I'll say "Democrats" to keep it simpler) put money behind more fringe Republican candidates during their primaries with the strategy that they'd then lose the main election. Actually it's been discussed in a bunch of topics here; I'm a little surprised you didn't hear about it before.

Even before the general election this strategy was being noted by various sources:

Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries - OpenSecrets News

Democrats spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns to influence Republican primaries across five states.

www.opensecrets.org

Democratic meddling in GOP primaries pays off in 6 of 13 races

The six races in which Democrats spent money now look close to unwinnable for Republicans.

www.axios.com

Democrat organizations pouring money into Republican primary races – [your]NEWS

Democrats Are Running A Risky Midterm Gambit And Hoping To Heck It Doesn’t Backfire

yournews.com

And here are some post-election articles noting the success of this strategy:

Democrats spent millions boosting ultra right candidates in midterms. The strategy worked.

After Democrats poured millions into Republican primaries, their efforts paid off Tuesday, with every one of these boosted candidates losing their race.

www.usatoday.com

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked

A number of examples are given, but here's a particularly relevant excerpt for the purposes of this discussion (from the NPR link):

In Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro defeated Republican Doug Mastriano, months after Shapiro's campaign spent $840,000 on TV ads during primary season to raise the profile of Mastriano, an election denier who "took a busload of people to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, [and] has been subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol," as NPR reported.

So as was noted in my original message, Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee for governor of Pennsylvania, spent a bunch of money--close to a million dollars!--promoting his eventual opponent during primary season, under the logic that the extreme Mastriano would be easier to defeat than a more moderate Republican. And it worked! Shapiro squashed Mastriano in the general election, winning by 15% in a swing state! For comparison, while Mehmet Oz (Republican candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania) also lost, it was by a narrower margin of 5%. Note there does not appear to have been similar Democratic meddling in the Senate primary.

And it should be noted, that "close to a million dollars" was actually far less than in some other races. The article also mentions:

In Illinois, incumbent Gov. J.B. Pritzker and the Democratic Governors Association spent tens of millions of dollars to aid the bid of Republican Darren Bailey — whom Pritzker handily defeated.

But don't you have to be a member to vote in the primaries? Or, and this really messes with my head, are they actually bankrolling people they think are no hopers? So if I wanted the GOP to lose, I'd fund Trump's campaign?

Say it ain't so. Please don't tell me a political system is so messed up that it allows this.

Note: Feel free to insert any Anglo Saxon term you feel is applicable in lieu of 'mess.

The way primaries work vary from state to state. Some states require you to be a formal member of the party to vote in the primary, whereas some--like mine--let you vote in either primary, but you can only vote in one (so, for example, if I vote in the Democratic primary for Senate, for the primary for governor I an limited to the Democratic primary; I cannot cannot vote in the Democratic primary for Senate and also the Republican primary for governor). As for the ones that require you to be a member of the party, the ease of party switching varies. Some have a rule saying you have to switch a certain number of months before the primary, but I think some allow you to basically switch, vote, then switch back.

That said, it's not really a matter of getting people from one party to vote in the other party's primary; that takes a lot of organization and is tricky to pull off even in a system of completely open primaries. No, what happened was that (as noted above), Democratics or Democratic-aligned groups spent a bunch of money to run ads to back a more extreme candidate in a Republican primary in the hopes they would win and it would lead to an easier Democratic victory in the general election.

It was definitely a risky strategy. I do remember back in 2016 there were definitely Democrats who wanted Trump to get the nomination in the hopes the Democrats would win as a result (not sure if any actual money was spent), but that obviously didn't work out for them. And going into this election there were people wondering if the strategy would backfire and instead result in a bunch of extreme candidates being elected. But at least this time, it seems to have worked out pretty well for the Democrats.

Not to say there weren't clear cases of wasted money. Not all of the Democrat-backed candidates actually won their primaries. For example, in the Senate election in Colorado, Democrats spent $2 million backing election denier John Hanks in the Republican primary, but Hanks lost to Joe O'Dea. But then Joe O'Dea went on to lose the general election pretty badly anyway, so that was basically a bunch of money spent to accomplish nothing.

But, still, it is definitely and clearly true that Democrats had the strategy of spending a bunch of money in primary elections to back extreme Republicans in the hopes they'd then lose really badly in the general election, and in a good number of cases it worked.

 

[Pommer]

j


This strategy only really works when one side (the side employing it) is relatively unified, has obvious nominee pre-primary, or the choices in their own party are fairly similar ideologically, AND the opposition party has one candidate that is more unpalatable to the "centrist voter" than the other and either could win the nomination.

It goes something like this:

Dem SuperPAC Ad: "Candidate A is *too* conservative for our state."

GOP primary voter: "Maybe their right about Candidate B being a RINO lib, I should vote for the true conservative -- Candidate A"

Swing/independent voter: "I would have voted for Candidate B, but the GOP selected Candidate A and he's too conservative for my tastes. I guess I'll have to vote for the Dem."

Not only does the strategy tend to select the candidate in the opposition that is more extreme and less likely to be popular with more moderate voters, but it also reinforces that notion in the voters early.

This is why I see the GOP ditching the primary system for the Presidential nominee and going back to actually picking their nominee at the Republican Nation Convention, like used to be done up to the 1960s.

 

[JSRG]

This is why I see the GOP ditching the primary system for the Presidential nominee and going back to actually picking their nominee at the Republican Nation Convention, like used to be done up to the 1960s.

Such a move would be exceedingly unpopular. I don't see it as happening.

 

[Bradskii]

So as was noted in my original message, Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee for governor of Pennsylvania, spent a bunch of money--close to a million dollars!--promoting his eventual opponent during primary season, under the logic that the extreme Mastriano would be easier to defeat than a more moderate Republican.

But when you say 'promoting' do you actually mean putting ads out that literally said 'vote for this guy'? Surely not. Or is it more reverse psychology in that they say 'don't vote for this guy because...' and then list all the positions that would really appeal to the rusted on GOP voter.

Edit: read the link, Bradskii. Then you'll see it's apparently the latter.

 

[wing2000]

I'm not sure what the best strategy for the republican Party to beat that; they could intervene in the primaries themselves to support the less fringe candidate, but direct intervention like that can be unpopular.

Trump was not alone in wanting Mastriano to represent the Republicans in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race;

Here's a thought: Ignore Trump and nominate better qualified candidates....candidates who appeal to a broader base of the Republican Party and Independents. Candidates such as Mastriano and Lake turn off non-MAGA Republicans and Independents. That's clearly what happened in Arizona. In the days leading up to the election, Lake told McCain Republicans where they could go.....