
<p>Candidates for public office always hope to have weak competition – or none at all. ; Nothing surprising about that. ; Voters of one party have been known to cross over to vote for the weaker candidate in the opposition party – generally when their candidate is running unopposed. ; For the most part, such dirty tricks are marginal. ;</p>



<p>In recent years, the effort to influence the opposition party’s primary has taken on major proportions. ; This year all restraints appear to be off. ; Democrats are spending tens of millions of dollars to support candidates in the Republican primaries. ; That is “tens of millions of dollars,” in case you missed it. ; ; ;</p>



<p>In some races, Democrat Political Action Committees (PACs) and other party organizations – such as the Democratic Governors Association &#8212; are among the major funders. ; In a Michigan congressional race, Democrats spent more than $300,000 for independent expenditure commercials in support of former Trump administration official John Gibbs &#8212; running against incumbent Congressman Peter Meijer, who voted in favor of impeachment. ; Gibbs won. ;</p>



<p>As in the Gibbs case, the Democrat money is being used to support candidates endorsed by President Trump. ; Democrats believe that they will be easier to defeat in the general election. ; My guess is that Gibbs will win in November. ;</p>



<p>The Idea of overtly helping Republicans nominate candidates that Democrats believe are easier to beat is not entirely new. ; I recall the Chicago Democrat machine having their voters cross over to support the perceptively weaker GOP candidates. ; This was possible because Democrats ran slates of unopposed candidates in their primaries. ; They did not need the votes. ;</p>



<p>It was turned into a more established practice – including financial support – by former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. ; She had Democrat donors fund the campaign of GOP candidate Todd Akin &#8212; who had made a number of outrageous comments. ; Akin did win the Republican primary and was easily defeated by McCaskill. ; ;It was never clear, however, if the Democrat money changed the outcome.</p>



<p>Since then, the questionable (at least ethically) practice has evolved into a national strategy with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in support of GOP primary candidates over the years – tens of millions already spent in the 2022 election cycle. ;</p>



<p>Will that strategy backfire? ;</p>



<p>The first issue is whether the tens of millions of dollars being spent by Democrats have tipped the elections in favor of the candidates they perceive to be losers? ;</p>



<p>The answer to that question appears to be in the eye of the beholder. ; A good argument can be made that the winners of the various primaries would have won without the Democrat funding. ; And a deeper look suggests that in many cases the Democrat would have won in the November election no matter who the GOP candidate was. ;</p>



<p>It has been reported that democrats spent more than $1 million in Illinois to throw the GOP primary election to the most conservative candidate, Darren Bailey. ; He won the primary but was expected to win with or without the Democrat funding. ; More importantly, it is almost certain that he will be defeated by the Democrat incumbent Governor J.B. Pritzker. ; Although there is some polling evidence that Bailey will fare better against Pritzker than the losing establishment – so-called moderate – candidate. ;</p>



<p>There are two issues that have upset many Democrat leaders. ; First is the obvious waste of money. ; Those on the left believe that the money would be better spent supporting pro-abortion activities across the country. ; Many donors complain that their money is being wasted on a dubious strategy with uncertain results. ;</p>



<p>Then there is the ethical issue. ; Some Democrats, like strategist James Carville, approve of the strategy – evoking the Democrats longstanding whispered strategy that “you do anything to win.” ; Others are not in agreement. ; A number of Democrat officeholders squirm when asked what they think of the strategy. ; Many call it out as “wrong.” ;</p>



<p>Many argue that the strategy of funding the opposition creates bad publicity. ; It just seems unethical to most of the voters – while not even providing the benefits. ;</p>



<p>And what about the anticipated results to be seen in November – the defeat of all those Republican candidates the Democrats funded? ; Or … have the Democrats helped pave the way for the election of a lot of Trump supporters? ;</p>



<p>MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough issued that warning on his morning show. ; He cited 1994, when a lot of right-wing candidates, who did not have the endorsement of the GOP leadership, won both the primaries and the general election – giving the GOP control of the House. ; Scarborough was one of those candidates. ; (Yes, he was a conservative Republican congressman from Florida before the lure of New York media money led him into the darkness of his own political apostasy – and before Mika Brzezinski took him to progressive obedience school.) ;</p>



<p>Time will tell if the strategy works. ; But I lean to the belief that it will backfire. ; A lot of the candidates Democrats loath the most will be sworn in January of 2023. ; In their election night victory speeches, they would be remiss if they did not publicly thank the Democrats for all their support. ;</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis. ;</p>

Will Democrats funding Trump-backed candidates backfire?
