Playing with fire

[dneal]

Definitely playing with fire, as a Trump presidency showed, but what does this say about Democrat candidates and the Democrat platform? You can't win unless you spend money getting a kook nominated?

And we wonder how the MTG's get in office...

Why Democrats are paying for ads supporting Republican primary candidates (https://www.mtpr.org/2022-06-20/why-democrats-are-paying-for-ads-supporting-republican-primary-candidates)


ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

In Republican primary contests this election year, some candidates are getting a boost from an unexpected place - Democrats.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: ...And Republican Chris Mathys, a true conservative, 100% pro-Trump and proud.

SHAPIRO: That ad, which ran in California, was paid for by...

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: House Majority PAC is responsible for the content of this ad.

SHAPIRO: The House Majority PAC is affiliated with Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi. The strategy playing out in many states goes like this - Democrats give a boost to Republican primary candidates with extreme views, hoping they will be less competitive in a general election than a more moderate GOP candidate. It's a risky move with potential to backfire. Former Senator Claire McCaskill is a Democrat who has talked about how she used this tactic to win her race in Missouri in 2012. Welcome back to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.

CLAIRE MCCASKILL: Thank you, Ari.

SHAPIRO: Let's go back a decade. You've said that in the last two weeks of that 2012 Republican primary, you spent more money to boost Tea Party candidate Todd Akin than he spent on his entire primary campaign. What were you thinking as you spent millions of dollars to boost a conservative Republican candidate running for Senate in Missouri?

MCCASKILL: Well, every race is different. In my situation, there were three viable candidates, and Todd Akin was kind of the weirdest one. I knew he might say some weird things if he were nominated. And so he had less money. So we took a poll, figured out what Republican voters would really like about him, and we spent millions of dollars promoting him by telling Missourians all the things that the Republican primary voters liked about him, but the general election, independent voters didn't like about him.

SHAPIRO: That strategy worked. And you say it was based on an assessment that he was, in your words, the weirdest candidate, and that he might say some weird things. Four years later, a candidate who said a lot of weird things was elected president. And I think many Democrats thought Donald Trump might have been the weakest candidate in a crowded primary field. So there are clear risks here. Do people who try a strategy like this - are they playing with fire?

MCCASKILL: Well, there certainly are risks, and it's certainly different today than it was a decade ago. And let me point out the major difference. When Todd Akin said what I expected him to say, something that was off the wall in the general election, unlike today, the Republican leadership all came together and rejected him. We have watched the leadership in the Republican Party hide under their desk at the amazing, horrible things that Donald Trump would do. So it's different today. I'm not sure you could count on Republican leaders to stand up and reject a candidate that said things that were abhorrent to most voters.

SHAPIRO: Are there candidates whose positions are so extreme - whether it's endorsing QAnon or opposing American democracy, propagating the false narrative that the election was stolen from Donald Trump - that you think just the risk of getting them one step closer to federal office is simply too dangerous?

MCCASKILL: I think it depends on the district. If there is confidence that the voters in that district are going to reject that extremism, then I think elevating them may be a smart strategy. But it is a big mistake to do it in a district where a Trump candidate has as good or better chance of getting elected than a more moderate one.

SHAPIRO: Yeah. I'm just thinking confidence is never proof, right? A person can be sure that Hillary Clinton is going to win the presidency and still be surprised the morning after the election.

MCCASKILL: Point well taken. We were all surprised by Donald Trump. But these are tough races, and I do not regret for a minute what we did a decade ago. And at the end of the day, if you look at some of the crazies that like to get attention, their voting record is not that different than the leadership of the Republican Party. So it isn't as if they're going to be able to do things a lot differently than what they're currently doing in Washington in the Republican Party.

SHAPIRO: So far this year, this tactic has had mixed results. It worked in a Pennsylvania governor's race; it didn't in a California congressional contest. Next week, there are primaries in Colorado and Illinois, where the same dynamic is playing out. So what advice besides, tailor it to your district, to your state - what advice do you have for Democrats who are trying this maneuver?

MCCASKILL: Well, first of all, I certainly would recommend that you spend some time figuring out what the Republicans voting in the primary actually support. And it would be nice if you also had a handle on what the independent voters in your area, your district or your state don't like. And if those two match up, that's what you should be talking about, because the beauty of the ad we ran against Todd Akin a decade ago was - the very things that made him attractive to many people in the Republican primary, made him unelectable with independent voters in the general.

SHAPIRO: Is this tactic always ethical? I mean, whether or not it works, is it an honest way to inform voters who are making important decisions about who gets to create laws?

MCCASKILL: Well, listen. I'm somebody who thinks dark money is evil. But I do think that it is ethical as long as the voters know - I mean, in my instance, I said, I'm Claire McCaskill, and I approve this message. And there was nothing in that ad that I didn't believe. I did believe Todd Akin was too conservative for Missouri. As it turned out, then Missouri agreed with me.

SHAPIRO: That's former Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Thank you for speaking with us.

MCCASKILL: You bet. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

[dneal]

More on this, from Politico. Although she didn't have to run statewide, Lauren Boebert is a representative for Colorado.

Aside from "this is how you get more Trump"... What does this say about Democrat platforms and ideas? The electorate dislikes it so much that your plan to win is to dump money on the most obnoxious Republican you can, and hope you can beat them?

Doesn't seem like a long-term strategy.

Democrats spending millions to protect 2 blue state senators (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/28/democrats-getting-the-jitters-in-washington-and-colorado-00042679?cid=apn)


The big ad buys could signal that the races in Washington and Colorado are uncomfortably close for Democrats.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, meanwhile, has spent more than $1 million on television ads in recent weeks, including two attacking her Republican opponent, Tiffany Smiley, in a state President Joe Biden won by nearly 20 points.

“She was the very first Senate incumbent in the country to run a negative campaign against her challenger,” Ed Goeas, president of The Tarrance Group, said of Murray. “That shows how deep of a problem she’s in.”

Murray’s campaign and national Democrats argue Smiley’s support for the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — no longer guaranteeing women’s access to abortion in many states — will hamper her ability to gain ground in the state.

In a new ad attacking Smiley, one of two spots Murray’s campaign released on Friday, the senator links Smiley to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his openness to a nationwide abortion ban.

“You think women’s reproductive health care is safe here in Washington?” a doctor identified as a gynecologist asks in Murray’s new ad. “Not with Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the U.S. Senate, Tiffany Smiley.”

Other recent polling in the race, conducted by Public Policy Polling in early June for the Northwest Progressive Institute, shows Murray with an 11-point lead over Smiley. And while Smiley’s new survey shows President Joe Biden underwater in the state, with 53 percent of voters disapproving of the president, Murray does a bit better: 48 percent approve of the five-term senator, and 40 percent do not.

“I think no one is taking the state for granted,” said Alex Glass, a Democratic consultant based in Washington state. “Democrats are going to have to work every single day, but that is something Sen. Murray has long been known for, and she will be out and across the state and making the case to voters.”

In her nearly 30 years in the Senate, Murray has faced tough elections before. She weathered the tea party wave of 2010, beating her Republican challenger Dino Rossi by less than 5 points. Washington state hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate since 1994.

This time around, her campaign has geared up for a fight in another midterm year where Republicans are poised to make gains. Despite inflation and disappointment with Biden looming large in voters’ minds, Murray is banking on abortion to energize her base, reminding voters that Smiley identifies as “pro-life.”

“Senator Patty Murray will be fighting tooth and nail to ensure women in Washington state and across the country can make their own reproductive health care decisions without extreme anti-abortion politicians like Tiffany Smiley and Mitch McConnell interfering,” Helen Hare, Murray’s campaign manager, said in a statement.

Smiley’s polling, though, shows the lagging economy remains Washington voters’ No. 1 concern. Goeas’ firm asked voters which one issue was the most important to them: 44 percent said inflation and cost of living, while just 10 percent ranked abortion their top issue.

“I know Patty Murray is going to try to make it about abortion,” Smiley spokeswoman Elisa Carlson said in an interview. “I think the reality is when you look at polling, it is not the top concern.”

Smiley recently hired a new general consultant for the campaign, Blaise Hazelwood of Grassroots Targeting.

One explanation for Murray’s decision to sink seven figures into a June advertising blitz, some strategists say, is to ramp up support ahead of the state’s Aug. 4 primary, effectively a first round of the general election. In Washington’s primary election, Murray and Smiley will appear on the same nonpartisan ballot, where the top two vote getters advance to the final contest in November.

National Republicans’ game plan in Colorado, however, will likely become much clearer after results come in from Tuesday’s primary election. If the far-right Senate candidate wins, the state is likely a lost cause to flip to Republicans this year and won’t warrant spending money. But if a Republican who is palatable to the state’s large swath of unaffiliated voters is on the ballot, GOP leaders believe they could ride a red wave to defeat Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who recently admitted that he could find himself in a “tough race” this fall.

The majority of Colorado voters have an unfavorable view of Biden, 56 percent, while just 42 percent approve of the job he’s doing as president, according to polling this month by Global Strategy Group for ProgressNow, a liberal advocacy group in Colorado.

In just the last few weeks, a Democratic super PAC has poured $3.9 million into television ads in the Republican primary race to help Ron Hanks, a state legislator who has declared that Donald Trump won the 2020 election and that all abortion should be outlawed.

Joe O’Dea, a businessman and first-time candidate, is trying to run as a moderate Republican, tempering his answers on abortion to say women should have access to the procedure early on in pregnancy.

The liberal group’s staggering TV ad buy in the GOP primary is on top of other misleading mailers being sent to voters — falsely claiming Hanks was endorsed by the Colorado Republican Party — that are now the subject of lawsuits by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the state GOP and O’Dea’s campaign. The NRSC has not publicly taken a position on the primary. O’Dea’s campaign estimates Democratic spending to meddle in the primary could total as much as $10 million, given the barrage of high-quality mailers that have been sent out across the state.

Recent internal polling has shown the primary race to be close, according to multiple operatives in Colorado. The public polling from ProgressNow shows Bennet with a 13-point lead over both Hanks and O’Dea, who are not as well known around the state. A GOP candidate would likely need significant resources from national groups to remain competitive, given Bennet’s millions in cash on hand.

“It’s going to be a tough year for Democrats all around,” said Nico Delgado, an adviser with the Colorado Democratic Party. “But at least in Colorado, Michael Bennet is in good standing, and both Republican candidates are flawed.”

[Lloyd]

Do you think this is the only tactic that the democrats are using? Don't you think the Republicans might do likewise?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

No, and no.

[Chuck Naill]

In 2008 Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primaries. He called it Operation Chaos. Can't believe I remembered.

[dneal]

That's whataboutism, right?

[Chuck Naill]

That's whataboutism, right?

Didn’t mean if that way. Your thread just reminded me of his shenanigans.

[dneal]

The ease with which some vacillate between outrage and “meh…” is fascinating and amusing.

Anyway… PBS: More than 1 million voters switch to GOP, raising alarm for Democrats (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/more-than-1-million-voters-switch-to-gop-raising-alarm-for-democrats)


Ben Smith, who lives in suburban Larimer County, Colorado, north of Denver, said he reluctantly registered as a Republican earlier in the year after becoming increasingly concerned about the Democrats’ support in some localities for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, the party’s inability to quell violent crime and its frequent focus on racial justice.

“It’s more so a rejection of the left than embracing the right,” said Smith, a 37-year-old professional counselor whose transition away from the Democratic Party began five or six years ago when he registered as a libertarian.

[Lloyd]

dneal, why aren't you commenting any longer in the January 6th Hearing thread?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Why are you asking about that in this thread?

[Lloyd]

Why are you asking about that in this thread?
I'm having issues with my mailbox getting too crowded and I thought I'd get a hold of here. I'm not trying to irritate you. I was hoping you could add some of your views to the thread.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I don't see anything particularly worthwhile in that thread. I can read headlines in Apple News.

[Chuck Naill]

If you spent five years supporting someone and this occurs, it is best to stay low.

[dneal]

Chuck, are you making an implication or should I infer something from that off-topic post?

[Chuck Naill]

Lol!!

[dneal]

Back on topic, which clearly seems to be uncomfortable for some.

Newsweek 8/22: Democrats Spent $43 Million Helping Election Deniers Win Their Primaries (https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-spent-43-million-helping-election-deniers-win-their-primaries-1731068)

WashPost 9/22: Democrats spend tens of millions amplifying far-right candidates in nine states (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/)

Newsweek reported $43M in August, WashPost reported $53M in September. For election-denying, far-right candidates. Lauren Boebert and MTG were the GOP's response to AOC, Ilhan Omar, and other Dem idiots. Now the Democrat party is paying for even more far-right Republicans.

Why? Nancy gave the answer today (https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/pelosi-midterms-redwave/2022/10/25/id/1093408/).


I Cannot Believe Anybody Would Vote for These People

Yes, we know that, but that was your plan. It backfired, again. Should this "red wave" of "right wing whackos" happen as everyone seems to be projecting, remember it was brought to you by the Democrat party - the same people who ultimately gave you Trump. I'm not particularly happy about it either, but what choice is the Democrat party offering? The first 'female' Assistant of Health and Human Services that also happens to have a penis. Special-ed teachers that brag on TikTok that they help autistic children explore their gender.

Laugh at MAGA all you want, and share the worst of what you can find in your biased news outlets. But instead of drinking the blue kool-aide that reinforces your biases, perhaps you ought to see what the conservatives see. Go on Twitter and browse "Libs of TikTok"s tweets - which is simply a reposting of liberal nut-job videos found on TikTok. See what Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch are suing the government for, and winning. FOIA stuff that isn't pretty. Hard documents that don't even need any spin. Hunter's deals, CDC information that doesn't support the narrative. Read what liberal reporters like Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi and others are saying. Finding a HuffPost "fact check" or Wikipedia article and calling them racists/RWWs/whatever and belly laughing is probably not an effective strategy for winning an election.

Run viable candidates instead of running them out of the Democrat party. Your blue-haired zhe/zher people are your fringe. The blue version of the actual fascists and Nazis and whatnot on the right. Redirect your rage where it belongs - the idiocy of your own party.

Until then, enjoy the far-right. You paid for them.

[dneal]

The Fetterman / Oz debate. I can't even laugh, I feel so sorry for the guy. Why in the hell would anyone leave a stroke victim on the ballot, let alone try to assure the public that he's fine?

[Chuck Naill]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

[724Seney]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

Shocking!
But, who would have expected anything other from our resident one trick pony.

[Chuck Naill]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

Shocking!
But, who would have expected anything other from our resident one trick pony.

I agree. Oz has one trick, Trump. I am so glad we can at last agree.

[724Seney]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

Shocking!
But, who would have expected anything other from our resident one trick pony.

I agree. Oz has one trick, Trump. I am so glad we can at last agree.

Yeah, sure Chuck.
Dream on............

[Chuck Naill]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

Shocking!
But, who would have expected anything other from our resident one trick pony.

I agree. Oz has one trick, Trump. I am so glad we can at last agree.

Yeah, sure Chuck.
Dream on............

Do you realize how little substance you post?

[724Seney]

"“As a physician, I’ve been in the room when there’s some difficult conversations happening. I don’t want the federal government involved with that, at all.”

“I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves,”

The good doctor has not suffered a stroke.

My thoughts are that a Democrat, right now with a stroke history, is better than any Trumpian.

Shocking!
But, who would have expected anything other from our resident one trick pony.

I agree. Oz has one trick, Trump. I am so glad we can at last agree.

Yeah, sure Chuck.
Dream on............

Do you realize how little substance you post?

Yep.
You are not worth my time or effort.

Quite frankly, given the "substance" of your posts, I don't think you know what "substance" means when it comes to a post.

[Chuck Naill]

You’re not worth my time either, but I post for others who may still retain critical thinking skills.

[724Seney]

You’re not worth my time either, but I post for others who may still retain critical thinking skills.

In spite of the fact that you have none..........

And never did, having spent your adult life disseminating non-evidence nor data based information spoon fed to you by your employer.
Ah, life as a professional shill.

[Chuck Naill]

Try posting sober next time…lol!

[724Seney]

Try posting sober next time…lol!

:jester:

[TSherbs]

Quit sniping at people's professions, Seney. It's a real dick move.

[724Seney]

Quit sniping at people's professions, Seney. It's a real dick move.

Only began doing it after I saw you do it TSherbs.
So, I guess it takes one to know one, huh?
:wave:

[TSherbs]

Quit sniping at people's professions, Seney. It's a real dick move.

Only began doing it after I saw you do it TSherbs.


bullshit

[Chip]

So, 724. What do you do— or did— for a living?

[dneal]

You’re not worth my time either, but I post for others who may still retain critical thinking skills.

So perhaps you can address the topic?

Let me refresh your memory: Democrats have been funding right-wing candidates, thinking they are easier to beat. The current polling suggests otherwise. If the "red wave" predictions hold true, are not-Trumpian Democrats going to be responsible for the Trumpian candidates they paid for?

[Chuck Naill]

You’re not worth my time either, but I post for others who may still retain critical thinking skills.

So perhaps you can address the topic?

Let me refresh your memory: Democrats have been funding right-wing candidates, thinking they are easier to beat. The current polling suggests otherwise. If the "red wave" predictions hold true, are not-Trumpian Democrats going to be responsible for the Trumpian candidates they paid for?

I did in my first post@dneal. How about you read before posting or trolling?

[dneal]

Chick, this was your first post.


In 2008 Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primaries. He called it Operation Chaos. Can't believe I remembered.

It’s deflection, like your response above.

[Chuck Naill]

Chick, this was your first post.


In 2008 Rush Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primaries. He called it Operation Chaos. Can't believe I remembered.

It’s deflection, like your response above.

It is only a deflection because it takes the air out of your rant balloon. What the Democrats did or are doing is politics. Perhaps next time bone up on history before posting.

[dneal]

Thanks for admitting that you are deflecting, finally.

Yes, it is politics. The question of the thread is whether it is smart politics. If the midterm elections end up as many predict, perhaps not.

[Chuck Naill]

Smart or not, it is nothing new. Thanks for admitting aka showing you are not a student of political history.

[dneal]

Still deflecting, I see.

[Chuck Naill]

Not deflecting, but reflecting. Bone up and get back with us later.

Since you didn't know...
https://www.foxnews.com/story/rush-limbaugh-explains-why-hes-urging-republicans-in-texas-and-ohio-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-on-super-tuesday-2

[dneal]

More deflecting, with a little trolling sprinkled on top.

Stay tuned for the lol’s, emotions, and ultimately incoherent strings of misspelled words.