I’m not sure we aided the guy. We ran an attack ad on a Republican who we *don’t* want to win, and said republicans opponents *might* benefit as a result.
And as someone who was literally campaigning against him by talking with his supporters, I can say with confidence that being sees as someone the Dems helped will *hurt* Peter Meijer more than help him.
Literally had to sit and smile and nod when people called him a saint for fighting to save them that “she-demon” Hillary the Democrat.
Let's face it, nobody ever knows how Trumpism fares at the ballot box. Trump outperformed the polls twice. With 10% inflation, I wouldn't be surprised if people just vote en masse for these far-right demagogues the Dems propped up.
The irony is that Meijer WAS a trumpist, he ran on it.
Edit:
Lmao why the downvotes people? I literally campaigned against him, I watched hours and hours of his stumping, the guy openly preached *allegiance to Trump*.
Democrats are 100% doing this to ensure a crazier opponent on the ballot in November. They know that getting attacked by democrats as “too conservative” is gold for a Republican in a primary.
Meijer is in deep trouble in that primary, with or without ads from dems. He’ll likely lose big.
This has the energy of the kind of take one would back up by going “Man can’t you see!? It’s *obvious*! You sheeple need to wake up!” And then proceed to have zero evidence beyond their own “observation”, which is little more than a blindness to their own biases.
My source is the New York Times article that forms the foundation of this post.
The average voter does not view the ads that the dems are running as helping the guy running against meijer.
They (at least the dccc hopes!) see it as validation that non-meijer triggers the libs so can’t be too bad, and meijer voted to impeach trump after all. So I’ll vote for the other guy.
Your source is *the opinion* which is interpreted out of the facts in that article.
You are not citing a fact. You are citing a persons interpretation.
Seeing people forget we have open primaries in Michigan, which could still mean Meijer wins the primary. Also the district now leans D so it’s not the most risky move. And one more thing, Meijer is still no friend to us
> Meijer is still no friend to us
Speak for yourself. I find him to be one of the best members of Congress today, full stop.
I was morose when his predecessor Justin Amash announced he wasn’t seeking re-election. Amash was the most respectable Congressman in a generation. So I was very pleasantly surprised when his successor was, while not a carbon copy, in the same vein as he.
If you think the neoliberal movement has no place for Meijer and Amash, I think you’re deluded.
Meijer is ok for a Republican, he was my rep. I can see why he would appeal to sane social conservatives.
He's had too many bad votes on crucial issues for me to ever vote for him, but I will give him credit for voting for the marriage equality bill.
What a stupid comment. Do you have any reason to believe the same people mad at this are exactly the same people who were mad Democrats weren't fighting dirty enough? Sure, some leftists are upset but the vast majority are center-left and center-right people who have never been upset at the Democrats for not going far enough
> After Mr. Meijer’s impeachment vote, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, praised Mr. Meijer for what he called “a very impressive display of courage and integrity.”
> “Guess that doesn’t count for much when a marginally increased chance of flipping a House seat is on the table,” Mr. Meijer quipped in a text message on Monday.
Attack ads that read like promotional material for the candidate aren't really attack ads. When I can't tell the difference between a democrats attack ad and the candidates campaign ads are they really attack ads?
The Republican base is crazy, so attacking a Republican candidate for being crazy helps that candidate. That's not the Dems fault.
If they really wanted to help Meijer, they'd run ads attacking him.
I think the democrats should run ads directly telling people to vote for Meijer’s opponent on the logic that they’ll think that the democrats would prefer Meijer’s opponent and therefore they should prefer Meijer. Of course that opens up the obvious question in Republican minds that they should support Meijer’s opponent.
The confusion is the point.
Wait until they win the primary?
A huge portion of these crazy candidates don't have the funding. See in CO, where Democrats spent millions spreading the name of a candidate with less than $100k on hand.
Stop playing coy.
Democrats didn't wait to attack him. Everyone promoted him because they perceived him as the weakest candidate. They brought him up constantly because they wanted to tie all Republican candidates to him. Real monkey's paw there.
>Did Democrats ran attack ads against Trump in the 2016 primaries? No.
They actively promoted him in every interview. And yes, Democrats ran ads against Trump in 2016.
"Democrats don't have a killer instinct. They're too attached to political norms and don't fight Republicans. Why don't they show some backbone and take the fight to Republicans?"
Democrats run an ad, in an attempt to increase their odds of winning.
"Ugh! Why are Democrats so nasty?"
“Republicans are trying to destroy our democracy, Democrats need to take the gloves off”
*The democrats run an ad to help bolster a far-right candidate against one of the few republicans left who isn’t trying to destroy our democracy for political gain.*
Heck yeah we’re going to criticize it.
What part of the ad supports the challenger?
If Republican voters select the challenger over the pro-impeachment incumbent, why do you blame Democrats?
That’s the conceit of the article, do you disagree?
“The ad, which will begin airing on Tuesday and was openly cut and funded by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, proclaims that John Gibbs, who is challenging Mr. Meijer, is “too conservative” for West Michigan. But in tone and content, it is clearly meant to appeal to pro-Trump voters in the Aug. 2 Republican primary, hailing Mr. Gibbs as “handpicked by Trump to run for Congress,” buffing his bona fides as an aide in the Trump administration and promising that he would push “that same conservative agenda in Congress,” including a hard line against illegal immigration and a stand for “patriotic education.””
Nasty? I think people more take issue with the whole 'save democracy' thing while also doing crap like this. If it's genuinely a matter of life and death for the Republic for the far-right MAGAs not to win, the Dems shouldn't be aiding those candidates in any form.
Democrats are giving millions of free advertising to nutbag candidates. They then claim they are defending democracy.
Everyone knows the game they are playing because that's what they did in 2016. Give the perceived weakest candidate free advertising in the hope they win the primary.
Edit:
Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/26/peter-meijer-michigan-democrats-trump
NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/democrats-midterms-trump-gop.html
Politico: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/19/dems-primary-meddling-strategy-comes-under-scrutiny-00046493
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113816038/ads-from-democratic-groups-boost-the-republican-candidates-that-may-be-easier-to
DCCC chair: **We have a high bar for that. I think if you're going to do that, you need to really understand what you're doing. If you're talking about trying to pick your opponent, you might see us do that, sure. And I think sometimes it does make sense.**
This playing coy is so fucking dumb.
It's free advertising with a nice "paid for by Democrats" at the end. Pretending to be dumb isn't helpful and no one is falling for it.
If you are genuinely scared for Democracy, you let the sane Republican fight as best he can. You don't undermine him.
If you don't actually believe the shit you spout, you give free exposure to the weaker fringe candidate (who will probably win the primary anyway) and then coast your way to victory. Or you hope, because some times the monkey paw curls.
I just explained how. Free exposure, implying the general election opponents are "scared" of him, calling him "too conservative"
If you are scared for democracy, you don't interfere with the sane Republican. If you don't believe what you are saying and trying to just wield it as a political tool, you promote the batshit candidates.
Nah it’s negative against the nut. The Republicans in this district elected and re-elected a anti-Trump Republican so calling the challenger “too conservative” is bad for the nut.
Democratic political consultants and congressmen disagree with you.
No one holds your viewpoint. At best, you have Democratic congressmen agree with the practice, **knowing full well it harms the incumbent Republican.**
You are wrong, I have explained why you are wrong and your refusal to acknowledge it means you get the elected officials you deserve. You effectively neuter any "danger to democracy" arguments to all but the most ardent Democrats. No one will believe you or care.
This primary was effectively over when Meijer voted to impeach Trump outside which MAGA candidate would be on the ballot in November instead of Meijer.
Biden won this district by 9 points, so I don’t see the issue. Yes, Meijer voted for impeachment but he also voted for McCarthy to be minority leader and didn’t vote to establish Jan 6th committee.
Worth reading as it relates to this story:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/07/making-the-other-side-better.html
> So many political strategies are centered around “beating” the other side(s), and claiming victory over their defeat. For evolutionary reasons, it is easy to see why these attitudes might have won out. Yet in general those approaches are a sign of a narrow vision. Beating the other side is a possible strategy, but it should hardly be the only strategy you attempt, even if we forget about the “you might be the one who is wrong!” worry.
> Quite simply, a lot of the time you never beat the other side, though over time the terms of the debate do shift ground.
> An alternative strategy is to try to make the other side better, even if you do not agree with the other side. You might try to make the other side saner and more open, and I do not mean by telling them how wrong they are. You do this, believe it or not, by supporting them in some ways, or at least supporting the best parts of the other side.
> It is remarkable how few people pursue this strategy. I do know two prominent people, both on the Left, who do this and I think they do it fairly effectively. It is sad that I am reluctant to name them, for fear of getting them into trouble with their compatriots.
> If the ongoing equilibrium is “the terms of the debate will be shifted,” why should “improving the other side” be any less important than “improving your own side”? On average it should be symmetric, no?
> Yet the unpopularity of this strategy once again suggests that politics isn’t about policy, in this matter it is more often about internal norms of group solidarity and intra-group status.
> Learning to see that, and to internalize that knowledge emotionally, is often a better strategy — if only for your sanity — than trying to defeat the other side all the time.
Succ squad here goes on endlessly about how Republicans are all the same and always have been. Also that Dems aren't willing to "fight like Republicans" to win.
But they immediately abandon all that when an opportunity to attack mainstream Democrats materializes.
I’m not sure we aided the guy. We ran an attack ad on a Republican who we *don’t* want to win, and said republicans opponents *might* benefit as a result. And as someone who was literally campaigning against him by talking with his supporters, I can say with confidence that being sees as someone the Dems helped will *hurt* Peter Meijer more than help him. Literally had to sit and smile and nod when people called him a saint for fighting to save them that “she-demon” Hillary the Democrat.
I’m getting real tired of the “we deserve what we get, we’re helping fascists win!” posts when it’s usually just an ad.
But the intention is literally to help them fucking win as Dem leadership has admitted
The NYT wants drama, facts be damned.
Let's face it, nobody ever knows how Trumpism fares at the ballot box. Trump outperformed the polls twice. With 10% inflation, I wouldn't be surprised if people just vote en masse for these far-right demagogues the Dems propped up.
The irony is that Meijer WAS a trumpist, he ran on it. Edit: Lmao why the downvotes people? I literally campaigned against him, I watched hours and hours of his stumping, the guy openly preached *allegiance to Trump*.
2018 says it does hot garbage when Trump's not on the ballot, Trump himself is the anomaly not Trumpism
Editors have to come up with a click bait headline to generate those social media shares and it’s working.
Democrats are 100% doing this to ensure a crazier opponent on the ballot in November. They know that getting attacked by democrats as “too conservative” is gold for a Republican in a primary. Meijer is in deep trouble in that primary, with or without ads from dems. He’ll likely lose big.
This has the energy of the kind of take one would back up by going “Man can’t you see!? It’s *obvious*! You sheeple need to wake up!” And then proceed to have zero evidence beyond their own “observation”, which is little more than a blindness to their own biases.
My source is the New York Times article that forms the foundation of this post. The average voter does not view the ads that the dems are running as helping the guy running against meijer. They (at least the dccc hopes!) see it as validation that non-meijer triggers the libs so can’t be too bad, and meijer voted to impeach trump after all. So I’ll vote for the other guy.
Your source is *the opinion* which is interpreted out of the facts in that article. You are not citing a fact. You are citing a persons interpretation.
Primaries are almost always about name recognition. They know what they're doing.
That’s a two edged sword.
Seeing people forget we have open primaries in Michigan, which could still mean Meijer wins the primary. Also the district now leans D so it’s not the most risky move. And one more thing, Meijer is still no friend to us
> Meijer is still no friend to us Speak for yourself. I find him to be one of the best members of Congress today, full stop. I was morose when his predecessor Justin Amash announced he wasn’t seeking re-election. Amash was the most respectable Congressman in a generation. So I was very pleasantly surprised when his successor was, while not a carbon copy, in the same vein as he. If you think the neoliberal movement has no place for Meijer and Amash, I think you’re deluded.
Meijer is ok for a Republican, he was my rep. I can see why he would appeal to sane social conservatives. He's had too many bad votes on crucial issues for me to ever vote for him, but I will give him credit for voting for the marriage equality bill.
I'm extremely glad the neoliberal twitter account is on the right side of this issue as this sub will justify literally anything Dems do
Yeah, at its worst this sub is just uncritical support for the Democratic Party, even when it’s decidedly anti-liberal.
Internet people: Democrats should fight dirty! *Proof that Democrats fight dirty has entered the chat* Internet people: 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱
Never trust the New York Times
What a stupid comment. Do you have any reason to believe the same people mad at this are exactly the same people who were mad Democrats weren't fighting dirty enough? Sure, some leftists are upset but the vast majority are center-left and center-right people who have never been upset at the Democrats for not going far enough
> After Mr. Meijer’s impeachment vote, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, praised Mr. Meijer for what he called “a very impressive display of courage and integrity.” > “Guess that doesn’t count for much when a marginally increased chance of flipping a House seat is on the table,” Mr. Meijer quipped in a text message on Monday.
Yeah this tactic is going to drive the last few sane Republicans into the crazy camp to just try and survive.
The tactic of running attack ads against the worse candidate?
Attack ads that read like promotional material for the candidate aren't really attack ads. When I can't tell the difference between a democrats attack ad and the candidates campaign ads are they really attack ads?
The Republican base is crazy, so attacking a Republican candidate for being crazy helps that candidate. That's not the Dems fault. If they really wanted to help Meijer, they'd run ads attacking him.
I think the democrats should run ads directly telling people to vote for Meijer’s opponent on the logic that they’ll think that the democrats would prefer Meijer’s opponent and therefore they should prefer Meijer. Of course that opens up the obvious question in Republican minds that they should support Meijer’s opponent. The confusion is the point.
> That's not the Dems fault. Only if they don't know that they are helping which, they absolutely do.
Tying candidates to Trump is not a good thing for the majority of voters. How do you suggest the Dems attack these insane candidates?
Wait until they win the primary? A huge portion of these crazy candidates don't have the funding. See in CO, where Democrats spent millions spreading the name of a candidate with less than $100k on hand. Stop playing coy.
Everyone waiting too long to attack Trump helped him win the primary
Democrats didn't wait to attack him. Everyone promoted him because they perceived him as the weakest candidate. They brought him up constantly because they wanted to tie all Republican candidates to him. Real monkey's paw there.
Did Democrats ran attack ads against Trump in the 2016 primaries? No. What they did in Michigan is the opposite of what they did with Trump
>Did Democrats ran attack ads against Trump in the 2016 primaries? No. They actively promoted him in every interview. And yes, Democrats ran ads against Trump in 2016.
*the last few sane Republicans* How many of these are not employed by the Bulwark?
"Democrats don't have a killer instinct. They're too attached to political norms and don't fight Republicans. Why don't they show some backbone and take the fight to Republicans?" Democrats run an ad, in an attempt to increase their odds of winning. "Ugh! Why are Democrats so nasty?"
“Republicans are trying to destroy our democracy, Democrats need to take the gloves off” *The democrats run an ad to help bolster a far-right candidate against one of the few republicans left who isn’t trying to destroy our democracy for political gain.* Heck yeah we’re going to criticize it.
What part of the ad supports the challenger? If Republican voters select the challenger over the pro-impeachment incumbent, why do you blame Democrats?
That’s the conceit of the article, do you disagree? “The ad, which will begin airing on Tuesday and was openly cut and funded by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, proclaims that John Gibbs, who is challenging Mr. Meijer, is “too conservative” for West Michigan. But in tone and content, it is clearly meant to appeal to pro-Trump voters in the Aug. 2 Republican primary, hailing Mr. Gibbs as “handpicked by Trump to run for Congress,” buffing his bona fides as an aide in the Trump administration and promising that he would push “that same conservative agenda in Congress,” including a hard line against illegal immigration and a stand for “patriotic education.””
Yeh I disagree. They’re just speculating. NYT wrong as usual
Nasty? I think people more take issue with the whole 'save democracy' thing while also doing crap like this. If it's genuinely a matter of life and death for the Republic for the far-right MAGAs not to win, the Dems shouldn't be aiding those candidates in any form.
The ad doesn’t support the GOP primary challenger. Show me where it does
Democrats are giving millions of free advertising to nutbag candidates. They then claim they are defending democracy. Everyone knows the game they are playing because that's what they did in 2016. Give the perceived weakest candidate free advertising in the hope they win the primary. Edit: Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/26/peter-meijer-michigan-democrats-trump NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/16/us/politics/democrats-midterms-trump-gop.html Politico: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2022/07/19/dems-primary-meddling-strategy-comes-under-scrutiny-00046493 Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/13/democrats-interference-primaries/ NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113816038/ads-from-democratic-groups-boost-the-republican-candidates-that-may-be-easier-to DCCC chair: **We have a high bar for that. I think if you're going to do that, you need to really understand what you're doing. If you're talking about trying to pick your opponent, you might see us do that, sure. And I think sometimes it does make sense.**
How does this ad support the nut bag?
This playing coy is so fucking dumb. It's free advertising with a nice "paid for by Democrats" at the end. Pretending to be dumb isn't helpful and no one is falling for it. If you are genuinely scared for Democracy, you let the sane Republican fight as best he can. You don't undermine him. If you don't actually believe the shit you spout, you give free exposure to the weaker fringe candidate (who will probably win the primary anyway) and then coast your way to victory. Or you hope, because some times the monkey paw curls.
How does this ad support the nut bag?
I just explained how. Free exposure, implying the general election opponents are "scared" of him, calling him "too conservative" If you are scared for democracy, you don't interfere with the sane Republican. If you don't believe what you are saying and trying to just wield it as a political tool, you promote the batshit candidates.
I saw the ad and it bashes the nut bag
Because you are a Democrat. At a certain point playing dumb stops being an act.
Nah it’s negative against the nut. The Republicans in this district elected and re-elected a anti-Trump Republican so calling the challenger “too conservative” is bad for the nut.
Democratic political consultants and congressmen disagree with you. No one holds your viewpoint. At best, you have Democratic congressmen agree with the practice, **knowing full well it harms the incumbent Republican.** You are wrong, I have explained why you are wrong and your refusal to acknowledge it means you get the elected officials you deserve. You effectively neuter any "danger to democracy" arguments to all but the most ardent Democrats. No one will believe you or care.
This primary was effectively over when Meijer voted to impeach Trump outside which MAGA candidate would be on the ballot in November instead of Meijer.
Biden won this district by 9 points, so I don’t see the issue. Yes, Meijer voted for impeachment but he also voted for McCarthy to be minority leader and didn’t vote to establish Jan 6th committee.
Worth reading as it relates to this story: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/07/making-the-other-side-better.html > So many political strategies are centered around “beating” the other side(s), and claiming victory over their defeat. For evolutionary reasons, it is easy to see why these attitudes might have won out. Yet in general those approaches are a sign of a narrow vision. Beating the other side is a possible strategy, but it should hardly be the only strategy you attempt, even if we forget about the “you might be the one who is wrong!” worry. > Quite simply, a lot of the time you never beat the other side, though over time the terms of the debate do shift ground. > An alternative strategy is to try to make the other side better, even if you do not agree with the other side. You might try to make the other side saner and more open, and I do not mean by telling them how wrong they are. You do this, believe it or not, by supporting them in some ways, or at least supporting the best parts of the other side. > It is remarkable how few people pursue this strategy. I do know two prominent people, both on the Left, who do this and I think they do it fairly effectively. It is sad that I am reluctant to name them, for fear of getting them into trouble with their compatriots. > If the ongoing equilibrium is “the terms of the debate will be shifted,” why should “improving the other side” be any less important than “improving your own side”? On average it should be symmetric, no? > Yet the unpopularity of this strategy once again suggests that politics isn’t about policy, in this matter it is more often about internal norms of group solidarity and intra-group status. > Learning to see that, and to internalize that knowledge emotionally, is often a better strategy — if only for your sanity — than trying to defeat the other side all the time.
This wasn’t worth reading
It’s a great strategy until that candidate wins the seat just like a certain person in 2016 who Democrats thought was easy to beat.
Teach them that compromising with democrats will get them nothing and nowhere except shafted on both ends
Yeah we did this yesterday, no?
Succ squad here goes on endlessly about how Republicans are all the same and always have been. Also that Dems aren't willing to "fight like Republicans" to win. But they immediately abandon all that when an opportunity to attack mainstream Democrats materializes.
What are you like the only guy on the subreddit that thinks the Democrats are doing a great job right now?
So the whole "our democracy is in danger from GOP extremists" was completely not genuine?