The way to preserve democracy is by winning elections. Period. It's what they're doing. It's like critiquing the manager on a winning streak. Cmon
No. It wouldn't have gone as well for the Democrats, but it would have helped to restore a bit of sanity to the Republicans. In the long term it is better to have two reasonable parties. Also, the strategy is a gamble. The win wasn't a guarantee even against Trump election denying candidates. Potentially it could backfire and result in more election denying candidates in positions that could have real effects on elections.
No. I wouldn't agree with supporting candidates that are Nazis just because they would be easier opponents. I will never agree with supporting candidates that are against democracy and might win.
Trump is the example of hoping to run against an extremist backfiring. Also even in just the last election Boebert still won in a district that isn’t overwhelming red and Kari Lake came very close to winning in Az.
Restoring a bit of sanity assumes that these extreme MAGA candidates wouldn’t have won their primaries without Democratic help, no? I don’t believe that’s the case GOP gave up being reasonable a long time ago, and there’s not really anything the Dems can do to save them. The days of John McCain and Mitt Romney being a republican presidential nominee are long over. Liz Cheney got kicked out her party even tho she voted with Trump over 90% of the time. DeSantis who is just as bad as Trump is being labeled a RINO and corporate hack. He has no chance of beating Trump in a primary. Crazy is what the Republican base wants regardless of what the Democrats do IMO. Fox news is running election denial even tho they don’t believe it because they think they will lose massive viewership if they told their base the opposite. This is what the republican party is now. even most of the what might be deemed as reasonable republicans throw out all morals and ethics and enable or start actively participating in extremism…Lindsey Graham went from bashing Trump to crying for him on national TV like a grieving momma…Mitch McConnell does nothing to stop the extremism while actively helping republicans stack the courts and further their terrible agenda Dems just need to win
Boebert went from winning by 5.5 points in 2020 to 546 votes in 2022 speaking of Arizona, this is who Kari Lake beat in her primary
If they would have won without the support then it was tactically a waste to use resources to help these candidates. I feel like if someone is truly sincerely against an issue or concept, they shouldn't support those that advocate the that issue. I like that Democrats did well. But how can they expect others to take the issue of election denial seriously if they themselves support candidates that advocate for it.
the only ones who are using what the Dems did as a means to not take election denial seriously are republicans who were already not taking it seriously…Has it stopped u or anyone u know from taking it seriously? a lot of these ads seem like the main outcome was to attack a candidate by tying them to Trump or highlighting their extreme positions…the outcome would be to increase Dem turnout to beat that candidate, but these attacks also made that person more popular with the republican base because that extreme MAGA candidate is ultimately who they wanted…it didn’t always work Banking that these far-right candidates would fail to capture the support of moderates and independents needed to win in November, Democratic political action committees and groups such as the Democratic Governors Association bought ads during party primaries earlier this year that highlighted Republican candidates' association with former President Trump. The media buys also emphasized hard right positions from these Republicans' agendas, including stances on abortion and gun control legislation, calling several "too conservative" for their constituents as a ploy to appeal to the GOP base. Although the approach drew criticism from some within their party who object to helping Trump-backed candidates no matter the reason, the results from Tuesday ultimately worked in Democrats' favor. New Hampshire Senate: The Democrat-affiliated Senate Majority PAC spent over $3 million in the New Hampshire Republican primary targeting GOP state Senator Chuck Morse, who had the backing of popular Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. Their funded attack ads helped drive voters towards election denier Don Bolduc, who lost in the general election to Democratic incumbent Maggie Hassan. New Hampshire House: In another New Hampshire primary, the Democrats Serve PAC spent more than $500,000 on ads opposing Republican Robert Burns, who aligned himself closely with Trump. Burns lost to Democrat Ann McLane Kuster by more than ten points in the general election in a race analysts initially predicted would be a toss-up. Michigan House: John Gibbs gained attention — and Republican primary voters — after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent about $435,000 on an ad calling the Trump-backed House candidate "too conservative." Gibbs won the primary against incumbent GOP Rep. Peter Meijer but lost on Tuesday to Democrat Hillary Scholten. Illinois: Together with Democratic candidate J.B. Pritzker, the Democratic Governors Association poured around $35 million into swaying the Illinois Republican primary. Though Trump-backed Republican Darren Bailey won that June contest, the far-right nominee was defeated on Tuesday by Pritzker. Maryland: The Democratic Governors Association spent over a million on an ad during the Maryland gubernatorial primary as well, targeting Republican and "Trump's hand-picked candidate" Dan Cox. In the general election, Cox got clobbered by Democrat Wes Moore who won by around 25 points. Pennsylvania: Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro spent around $840,000 in the Republican primary for an attack ad calling state Senator Doug Mastriano "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters." After winning the Republican nomination in May, Mastriano went on to lose handily to Shapiro in the general election this week. Despite the strategy's success in general election outcomes, not all Democrats' efforts to skew primaries resulted in the desired effect: Colorado: The strategy failed Democrats in three Colorado races, after they spent a total of around $7 million to target far-right candidates in the Republican primaries for governor, Senate and the 8th district House seat. Virginia: In the Republican primary for Virginia's 2nd district, the Democrat-affiliated Super PAC Patriot Majority spent over $300,000 on an ad to highlight Jarome Bell's connection to Trump. Bell lost in June to Republican Jen Kiggans, who went on to win the seat this week, defeating Democrat and incumbent Elaine Luria. California: The House Majority PAC, a group affiliated with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spent over $110,000 on California's 22nd district trying to boost Republican Chris Mathys. The Trump supporter lost his primary race, though, to incumbent David Valadao.
at the end of the day, if what is considered a reasonable republican wins, they’ll just go to DC and fall in line…they’re not putting a stop to the extremism, they just further enable it and make it stronger they might not be MTG and Boebert levels of crazy, but they still will do anything to “own the libs” and further the republican agenda someone like Ted Cruz doesn’t believe for a single second that the election was actually stolen, but he still spreads election denialism
So aside from the stand on principle, it isn't guaranteed. It is a gamble and what is being gambled isn't worth the risk in my opinion. In 2016, Democrats were excited to run against Trump because he appeared to be the easier candidate to beat in a general election. It didn't turn out well. Like I said, I'm happy that the Democrats won, but I'm very troubled that Democratic groups will keep doing it until it fails. Once it fails, it's dangerous. And our democracy will be further damaged.
2016 was just a massive miscalculation all around from Dems…Democrats were too comfortable and did not take Trump seriously Hillary was damn near just as unlikable as Trump…2016 was a disaster but since then, Dems have fared very well Republican options these days are like picking between dog sh*t and 5 day old chunky vomit…if we’re not facing Trump in 2024, it will be DeSantis who in many ways would be even worse for the country than Trump with his unabashed fascism even if he’s not what you’d deem an extreme MAGA type
I agree that it was a miscalculation in 2016. That's the point. Miscalculations happen. If people who won't validate elections unless Republicans win and will toss legitimate votes, our Democracy is the real loser. I just feel like the risk isn't one worth taking. I also understand and sympthasize with those who disagree because it is important for Democrats to win for many of the reasons you mentioned such as all GOP candidates falling into line.
'Intent to defraud': Legal experts detail reasons why Alvin Bragg's Trump case 'rests on firm legal footing' Donald Trump's presidency and its aftermath have brought about many firsts. Trump was the first president in U.S. history to face two impeachments and the first to lose an election by 7 million votes only to falsely claim that he didn't and make an unsuccessful attempt to overturn the election results. Trump is also the first former U.S. president to be arrested on criminal charges while running for the presidency again. On Tuesday, April 4, Trump was arraigned on 34 felony counts in connection with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr.'s investigation of the Trump Organization's financial activities and alleged hush money payments to p*rn star Stormy Daniels. And Trump is also facing two criminal investigations from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith and one from Fulton County Georgia DA Fani Willis. "Intent to defraud," under New York State law, is a key part of Bragg's case against Trump. It remains to be seen how jurors will feel about the evidence when the case goes to trial in 2024, but in an article published by Just Security on April 3, five legal experts — Ryan Goodman, Norm L. Eisen, Joshua Kolb, Siven Watt and Joshua Stanton — analyze the "intent to defraud" factor and lay out some reasons why they believe that Bragg has a strong case. "It is accordingly proper, indeed necessary, to evaluate whether the criminal statute at issue is a close match for the alleged conduct in the case," they explain. "In that regard, an important question is whether maintaining false business records to conceal hush money payments in a political campaign meets the 'intent to defraud' element of the Falsifying Business Records statute, New York Penal Law §175.05 and 175.10…. We do not think this question will give the DA's office or (Judge) Juan Merchan much pause." The legal experts continue, "Indeed, the jurisdiction in which this case will be brought — the First Department of New York — has settled law on the issue that defines 'intent to defraud' in broad terms that cover the allegations in the Trump case." Goodman, Eisen, Kolb, Watt and Stanton go on to describe what courts in New York State have had to say about "intent to fraud" and why it is relevant to Bragg's case and allegations of "falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments." "Applying this broad concept of 'intent to defraud' in false business records cases," they note, "New York state courts have found such intent in a wide range of cases, including when a defendant: made covert contributions to a political campaign, covered up an alleged rape, misled the relatives of a patient about the individual's treatment, operated a motor vehicle without a license, obtained credit cards through false documents but with no proof of intention to miss payments, frustrated the regulatory authorities of the New York City Transit Authority, and much more….. In short, the Manhattan DA's case rests on firm legal footing."
When a criminal loses Alan Dershowitz ... Alan Dershowitz Predicts NY Outcome: 'I Think He Probably Will Be Convicted'
True Boebert’s election was close but she still won. Kari Lake still came very close. I agree the Republican Party has an unpopular message. It doesn’t mean that they lose every election. The still have a House majority. I would rather not risk given any aid to extremists candidates in the off chance that they might win.
Even though this case might it be as strong as the GA election interference case or the Federal mishandling of classified documents case doesn’t mean it’s a weak case. I think a lot on all sides of the political divide are making it seem as though this case has no chance. It has a good chance and Bragg seems cautious enough he wouldn’t have brought it if he didn’t think he had a good chance of winning.
they have a slight House majority in what was supposed to be a red wave…they thought they were gonna have control of both the Senate and House in easy fashion…they had a historical level of underperformance for a party not in power, especially with extremely important issues like the economy and inflation working in their favor…there was even a slight pathway for the Dems to keep the House, that’s how much these crazies have hurt the republican party Arizona has only had 1 Democrat elected Governor since 1991 until now…Dems are now winning Senate races in Georgia Democrats are beating these crazy candidates at an alarming rate overperforming all projections
