Some readers may recall a tactic of the Democrats, no doubt local in nature and used over the last couple of elections, in which during the primaries that are open the Democrats would vote in the Republican primary for the most extreme, far right candidate, and even donate to them. The working theory, at least in swing districts, is that presenting independent voters with a reasonable Democratic candidate and an extremist Republican candidate will result in more votes for the Democrat than the Republican.
And, to my fragmented knowledge, this mildly dishonest tactic worked, much to the fury of Republican pundits such as Erick Erickson, who I recall (I shan’t be looking it up) warning that this tactic could result in the election of far-right extremists. He was wrong. The targeted districts in which the more extreme candidate won the primary went Democratic.
Now, like any competition, imitation of competitors’ tactics is a common approach to improving outcomes, and there’s nothing wrong with it. I expected to hear of Republicans attempting to advance the fortunes of far-left Democrats and allied parties in their primaries, as independent voters, for the most part, are partial to centrists, not to extremists. This preference, incidentally, explains the repugnance felt by the far-right for ranked choice voting, as it gives moderates, even those who are unaffiliated, a better chance of winning as independents can select moderates, then extremists, while maintaining an ideological loyalty. This forces extremists to add to their collection of attractive attributes, a difficult proposition for most, as the voting public has a natural distrust of the extremist, thus causing experience to not be available, and they can be abrasive, arrogant personalities in any case.
So have the Republicans managed to load up the Democrats with distasteful candidates? According to Dave Weigel of Semafor, and reading between the lines as Weigel didn’t address the issue, not at all:
The image, used in ad after ad, stuck with Rhode Island Democrats: White House staffer Gabe Amo with Joe Biden, in the Oval Office. As early voting wrapped up, Democrats in the 1st Congressional District saw another potent image: Amo and Patrick Kennedy, their old congressman, who warned that Bernie Sanders-endorsed front-runner Aaron Regenburg would put the state’s defense economy at risk.
“We need someone who understands the way Washington works,” said Kennedy.
On Tuesday, Amo won his first-ever race by 3000 votes, ending this year’s Democratic primary season — and dealing the latest setback to his party’s left flank. Endorsements from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Working Families Party, and some of Rhode Island’s leading progressives couldn’t elect Regunberg, who also narrowly out-fundraised Amo. Former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who endorsed Amo early, declared victory over “pundits who dismiss Bidenism” as a Democratic Party force. …
Progressives shaped the party’s last presidential primary and pushed many of their ideas into Biden and Klain’s White House. Now they’re limping out of 2023, and into the next cycle, with smaller ambitions, more divisions, and no one figurehead to rally around. For the first time since 2016, no Democratic incumbent in Congress has a credible primary challenger on the left.
[My bold.] Now, perhaps the Republicans didn’t try. My somewhat deaf political ear heard nothing about such efforts. Given the rampant dishonesty of elected Republican officials, it wouldn’t be an ethical matter. But it could be a matter of incompetence. Many Republican state chairs and other leaders seem to be mired in such controversies as fake election results, abortion struggles, judicial controversies, taxation rates and how to funnel more money to the ultra-wealthy, IRS funding, and the like, and adding in a fealty to former President Trump, who has displayed vast incompetency when it comes to running things, really is gilding the lily: local Republican leaders from Arizona to Michigan to North Carolina seem to be struggling with internal rivalries, attacks, and outright absurdities, rather than an organized approach to elections.
It could be simply a matter of disorganization.
Whatever it was, the Democrats, by excluding candidates from their banner that have pushed unpopular positions such as defunding the police, true socialism, and the like, have increased their chances of holding an overwhelming majority, following the 2024 elections, in a House where the current Speaker is at the whim of such dubious personalities as Rep Gaetz (R-FL), Greene (R-GA), and other such extremists. Their desire to defund any part of the government that threatens their current control or the former President, including defunding the military (!), the spectre of secession, along with their lack of production, denial of climate change, and, in general, failure to be serious legislators, will continue to disenchant independents and certain blocs of voters and even usual non-voters.
The question in my mind is not whether the Democrats will lose control of states, but rather whether local Democratic entities can get their act together enough to make gains, or if some notoriously disorganization problems, such as in Florida, will continue to disappoint Democrats, and thus hurt voters who really need to select members of Congress of better competence than the aforementioned Gaetz, et al.
It’s time to discard the practice of blind loyalty and its progeny of Dobbs, etc, and begin practicing a better version of being a citizen.
