Democrats’ risky strategy: Elevate GOP election deniers

It’s something that seems backward: Democrats spending money that serves to boost far-right candidates, many endorsed by former President Donald Trump, in elections all across America.

Yet it appears to be true. Political groups and nonprofit organizations linked to the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on ads that have raised the profile of far-right candidates in Republican primaries in at least five states, according to Open Secrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks U.S. campaign spending.

It’s part of an old political strategy, actually, in which political parties meddle in the candidate-picking process of the other side. The hope is that if “weaker” opponents prevail, it will make it easier for the meddling party to win the general election.

But it can be a dangerous game, note political experts. In some instances, it’s a waste of scarce campaign funds that could be better put toward things like turnout operations. It also could backfire.

In Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial primary, for instance, Democrats spent heavily on TV ads highlighting the positions of Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano, who supported President Donald Trump’s efforts to decertify the 2020 election and continues to promote the false claim that it was stolen. Senator Mastriano won the May GOP primary, beating more moderate rivals – and is now only a few percentage points behind Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro.

In general, meddling in the other’s side primary with this so-called Pied Piper approach can come across as the kind of consultant-driven political gamesmanship that many voters say they dislike. That could be particularly true this year when Democrats say democracy is under threat from candidates denying the 2020 election results – while simultaneously appearing to boost some of those same candidates behind the scenes.

“It just seems to be playing with fire,” says Jennifer Victor, an associate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. “Putting money behind candidates who use rhetoric and take positions that are inconsistent with democratic norms and values is really problematic.” 

Sometimes putting a thumb on the scale of an opponent’s primary works. In 2012, Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri wanted conservative Todd Akin to win the GOP nomination, seeing him as the candidate she could most easily beat. She and her consultants came up with the idea of a “dog whistle” ad that would appear critical of Mr. Akin but would actually appeal to Republican primary voters, Senator McCaskill later wrote in a memoir. 

The ad quoted Mr. Akin saying highly negative things about then-President Barack Obama, and called him “too conservative” for Missouri. On the surface, it appeared as if Ms. McCaskill was attacking him, but as she noted in her book, “when you call someone ‘too conservative’ in a Republican primary, that’s giving him or her a badge of honor.”

Ms. McCaskill spent more money on Mr. Akin in the last two weeks of the primary than he spent on his entire campaign. It worked. He surged in the polls and won the primary. And then Senator McCaskill beat him handily in November, helped by some Akin gaffes dealing with abortion and women’s rights.

Fast forward to 2022, and Democratic campaign entities are employing a very similar approach in some Republican primaries.

In Maryland, the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) spent more than $1 million elevating Dan Cox, a conservative state delegate who organized buses to take Trump supporters to Washington on Jan. 6. The money went to TV ads and mailers tying Mr. Cox to former President Trump and detailing his conservative positions, including his opposition to new gun restrictions.

On Tuesday, Mr. Cox won the primary over a moderate opponent endorsed by Larry Hogan, the popular two-term GOP governor in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2-to-1.

DGA officials say they were just starting the general election campaign early against Mr. Cox, not trying to boost him in the primary.

But some analysts were quick to chalk up Mr. Cox’s win as a win for Democrats as well. In a state President Joe Biden won by 33 points, Mr. Cox’s pro-Trump positions won’t cut it, noted Jessica Taylor of the Cook Political Report following Tuesday’s primary.

“This [race] now moves completely off the board and into Solid Democrat,” Ms. Taylor wrote Wednesday morning. 

Can you really pick your opponent?

Maryland is not the only state where Democratic entities have run ads boosting the profiles of Trump-backed gubernatorial candidates. They have tried it with Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, who won his GOP primary in May, and Darren Bailey of Illinois, who cruised to a primary victory in June. They’re running ads drawing attention to the Trump ties of Kari Lake of Arizona, who faces a gubernatorial primary in early August. 

Efforts to elevate far-right GOP candidates for offices from governor to member of Congress in California and Colorado did not succeed, according to Open Secrets. 

In general, how do such ads work? Are they really effective?

“They could work. A primary race is one of the places where persuasive political advertising is likely to have an impact,” says Travis Ridout, a professor of government at Washington State University and co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.

In a general election, party affiliation is a cue that influences the choice of many voters. In a primary, without the red vs. blue choice, indications of ideology or placement in a party’s political spectrum can make a difference, Professor Ridout says.

That means that an ad noting whether a candidate is endorsed by President Trump or not could make a huge difference to GOP voters, whether the ad is critical or not.

The other reason it could make a big difference is that in a primary, voters’ knowledge of candidates is pretty low. Basics such as name recognition are important. Democratic ads that blast out a Republican name, especially when the Democrats are spending more for ads than the Republican candidate can themselves afford, could change the nature of the race.

“There’s a rule in politics: You’re not going to vote for someone you’ve never heard of before,” says Professor Ridout.

Furthermore, the man-bites-dog nature of one political party elevating another’s candidates is irresistible to the media, and leads to stories that repeat and magnify the ad effects.

That said, it is also easy to exaggerate the race-swaying power of political meddling. Not every such case is McCaskill v. Akin.

Take Pennsylvania, where Democrats have been criticized for boosting “MAGA longshot” Doug Mastriano, only to find he has at least a chance of winning. 

Democratic ads elevating Mr. Mastriano were only a very small contribution to his primary victory, says Christopher Witko, associate director of the School of Public Policy at Pennsylvania State University.

A much larger reason was structural: There were too many anti-Mastriano Republicans in the race. None stepped aside to allow mainstream opposition to Mr. Mastriano to coalesce around one candidate.

“That was the biggest thing. If you’d have had only one person running against Mastriano it would have been different,” says Professor Witko. 

What about small-d democracy?

But for small-d democrats, is the Democratic Party meddling in GOP primaries the right thing to do?

In some ways it is politics as usual – even politics as it should be. Democrats believe they are engaging in a strategic maneuver that could increase their chances of winning important elections.  

“That’s what we want political parties to do,” says Jennifer Victor of George Mason University.

On the other hand, the Democrats’ action is essentially promoting extremist candidates, she says. In the current highly polarized political environment, where about half of all Republican nominees for the Senate, House, governorships, state attorneys general, and secretaries of state have flirted with the unfounded viewpoint that the 2020 election was fraudulent, democracy with a small “d” is already on the ballot this November. Democrats with a capital “D” shouldn’t inadvertently make things worse.

“For a party to provide substantial support to extremists, even for strategic reasons – that, in itself, I think runs counter to democratic values,” says Professor Victor.