While Democrats got a little heat last year for promoting more “extreme” Republican candidates in primaries, the results of the midterms seemed to show this strategy was successful, which likely explains why they’re still at it.
In the latest example, Wisconsin Democrats spent money promoting state senate candidate Janel Brandtjen as a “conservative pro-Trump Republican” in a mailer to GOP voters before a recent primary election. Brandtjen, who received former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, ended up losing in a three-way race to state Rep. Dan Knodl.
When the Democrats’ strategy of boosting Republican fringe candidates, like Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, came to light, they received some pushback in the press — especially when it briefly looked like Republicans had enough momentum in the fall that some of those candidates might win.
But then, they ended up winning a lot of those races, and all seemed forgiven. A Bloomberg headline even said Democrats were “vindicated” for using this strategy after it appeared to work.
The tactic of trying to sabotage the other party in their primary is not a new one, according to American Enterprise Institute senior fellow John Fortier. But he said Democrats’ willingness to use this strategy openly, and with little pushback in the media, is new.
“Traditionally, it’s been in a party’s interest to run against a candidate who is viewed as weaker or more extreme, but it’s always a little difficult to play that game publicly because it risks backlash,” he said in an interview with Deseret News. “The idea of Democrats being able to do so and getting reasonably OK news stories about it is new.”
Republicans may also be pushing more extreme candidates to Democratic voters, although there’s no evidence of that at this point.
If the GOP decides to move in that direction, voters could be left with candidates in both parties who espouse more extreme views, which doesn’t seem like an ideal outcome. But Fortier said he is less worried about parties trying to sabotage one another’s primaries, and is more worried it may lead to the parties trying to shut down their primaries and reduce the number of people who turn out.
He pointed to a Wall Street Journal report that Iowa Republicans are worried Democrats may try to meddle in their caucuses, in part because Iowa Democrats may have more time on their hands since their party stripped the state of its first-up status in the election calendar, but also because Democrats may want to help a more extreme Republican candidate win to give President Joe Biden a leg up in the general election.
“We want people to caucus, but we should also be aware of the potential for a Democratic effort to back (former President) Donald Trump or some other candidate,” Will Rogers, a former Iowa Republican chairman, told The Wall Street Journal.
Rogers and other Iowa Republicans said they were worried Democrats would switch their party registrations in order to caucus with Republicans to try to sway the vote.
But Fortier said he doesn’t think the risk is high that large numbers of Democratic voters will turn out to sway GOP elections, especially in the presidential race.
“It’s a lot harder to get people out there to vote for the other party than you think,” he said.
While it helps Democrats to try to highlight more extreme elements in the Republican Party, and vice versa, spending money to try to push voters toward more extreme candidates may not pay off, especially in a presidential primary, given how much money is spent on those races, he said.
He also said that if a party is having a hard time finding candidates who can win general elections, that may be more of a sign of a problem with the party.
There are other things Republicans can do if they’re worried about Democratic meddling, he said, such as focusing on candidate recruitment and trying to turn out as many voters as possible.
Democrats also still face the risk of a backlash among donors who don’t like how the party is spending their money, and a reputational risk among voters, especially if an extreme candidate they’ve helped ends up in office.
It’s certainly harder to take a moral stand against extremism — or, at least, it should be —when you’re spending big to amplify those you call extreme.