Skip to content

“The Democrats made me do it”

Is that really why people are voting for Trumper loons?

There’s a lot of talk right now about how the Democrats are helping the lunatic Trumpers win in various races under the logic that the crazy Trumpers are too crazy to win a statewide race so it gives Democrats an advantage if they win their primaries. But everyone is sounding the alarm that these Trumpers may just win in which case it will be all the fault of Democrats.

There are good reasons for Democrats to spend their money elsewhere and I can see both sides. I think it depends on the race and the state. But come on. Nobody’s forcing Republicans to vote for these nutcases and it is certainly Republicans who are doing it. There may be a few crossovers but it’s not significant. The GOP loves these freaks and that’s not the fault of Democrats.

JV last at the Bulwark takes this on first suggesting that it’s immoral for Democrats to ever cross over and vote for anyone but a “good” Republican but then goes on to make the case that this whole argument is bogus anyway:

Okay. With all of that out of the way: What’s with the “Democrats are making Republicans nominate dangerous candidates with all of their ads!”

We saw this with Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania:

And now we’re seeing it with Dan Cox in Maryland:

I won’t bother linking to the tweets. You’ll have to take my word that this is a line of argument that a certain species of Republican is very interested in.

But there are a few problems with it.

(1) In general, we’re seeing similar results in most R primaries, whether or not Dems have “meddled.”

In Massachusetts, Republicans pushed aside one of the most popular governors in America so that they could go ultra-MAGA. The Democrats weren’t running any boosting ads. In Wyoming, Republicans are going to kick Liz Cheney to the curb even as Democrats rally to try and support her. Look across the map and the two spots where normie Republicans have whipped MAGA are Colorado and Georgia. But those are the outliers.

In general, we’re seeing the same results in state after state, regardless of whether or not Democrats boost bad-guy candidates.


(2) In the specific cases of Pennsylvania and Maryland, the Democratic boosting does not seem to have made a significant difference.

I showed my work on the Mastriano race here. Recap: Dems spent very little money and spent it very late; Mastriano was endorsed by Trump; Mastriano had already separated himself from the pack by the time the Ds got into the race; the only real alternative was also MAGA-friendly.

Except for the MAGA-friendly alternative part, most of that holds true for Dan Cox’s victory last night in the Maryland gubernatorial primary.

-The DGA spent relatively little money boosting Cox—only about $1.2 million.

-Cox was endorsed by the most important Republican in America: Donald Trump.

-Cox already had a healthy lead in polling.

-Cox seems to have won by a significant margin.

Dan Cox didn’t win because the DGA put him over the top. He won because Maryland Republicans prefered him.


(3) Republican voters of have agency.

Ad spending does not create electoral success. Ask Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Steve Forbes, David McCormick, et al. That’s because voters have agency. They find candidates they like.

There is a certain threshold for viability that needs to be crossed in politics: You need enough money so that voters know who you are and what you’re selling. But once you cross that line, the marginal utility of each dollar declines. Making the sale is in the hands of the candidate and the voters.

What’s important to understand about the boosting Dems did for Mastriano and Cox is that they weren’t hiding the football and making the candidates out to be more acceptable than they are. They were highlighting how deplorable the candidates were.

Here’s the Shapiro ad that was “boosting” Mastriano:

This is Republican state senator Doug Mastriano. He’s the Republican who’s ahead in the polls for governor. He wants to outlaw abortion. It’s Mastriano who wrote the heartbeat bill in Pennsylvania and he’s one of Donald Trump’s strongest supporters. He wants to end vote by mail and he led the fight to audit the 2020 election. If Mastriano wins, it’s a win for what Donald Trump stands for. Is that what we want in Pennsylvania?

Now here’s the DGA ad “boosting” Cox:

Meet Dan Cox, Donald Trump’s handpicked candidate for Maryland governor. Cox worked with Trump trying to prove the last election was a fraud. 100% pro life, he’s fighting to end abortion in Maryland and Cox will protect the Second Amendment at all costs, refusing to support any federal restrictions on guns. Even pushing to put armed guards in every school. Dan Cox: Too close to Trump; too conservative for Maryland.

Let’s pretend that you make Coxonium and this product is poison.

I decide to run ads promoting Coxonium that say,

Coxonium is good for your health! Tastes great, goes down smooth, and cures whatever ails you!

If people buy Coxonium, maybe that is my fault? I have lied to them about Coxonium and what it does. Sure, maybe they should have done their own research. Not relied on a single ad. Checked the news to see if anyone had died from Coxonium. But whatever. I’ve still got some culpability. I was selling people a bill of goods.

But what if I run Coxonium ads like this:

Coxonium is poison. Real, genuine poison. If you take it, you will probably die. Do not buy Coxonium because it will kill you.

And what if people who see this ad say, “Well shit, Lurleen. I been fixin’ to git myselfs some poison and damned if that Coxonium don’t look like the finest poison there is. Let’s buy it!”

Is that really on me and the ad?

Because it seems to me like the culpability lies with the guy who loves poison and can’t wait to buy it, even after being told what it does.


Here is the real reason Republican elites and members of Conservatism Inc. are so wrapped around the axle about Democrats boosting their crazy candidates:

They need to blame someone for the outcomes they don’t like. But they can’t blame Republican voters.

Because if you acknowledge that we are living in a moment where some very large portion of Republican voters are illiberal, then you are forced into some uncomfortable choices. You can either:

-Make your own accommodation with illiberalism; or

-Start supporting Democrats, however imperfect they may be.

You can, perhaps, understand why this choice so vexes many people who have the Republican party and/or Conservatism deeply entrenched in their personal identity.

For them, it’s easier to throw their hands in the air and insist that real Republicans aren’t as bad as Mastriano and Cox—it’s just that the Democrats made them do it.

Published inUncategorized