Meijer’s Response to Dems Boosting His Primary Opponent

[ShortKing]

https://www.commonsense.news/p/why-the-democrats-are-funding-my?s=r&utm_medium=email

Meijer gives a clear articulation of what he thinks about the financial support Democrats have given to his election denier opponent in the GOP primary, much of it I agree with but open to hearing what y’all think.

[ConservativeElector2]

That's already a common tactic among Democrats. MD, IL, PA, CO have already been chapters of this playbook, with CO being the only state so far in which the better candidate won. It's a pretty hypocritical move by them but that's nothing new. Just look at how gerrymandering is handled in blue states. No difference from Republicans, but Democrats are often claiming the moral highground on this issue as well.

I would also be cautious about this moves, even if I supported the Democrats. It could easily end up shooting themself in the foot, if those candidates they are willingly emboldened end up winning their elections.

[Hestia]

I don't disagree with him on much of it. As a Democrat, I don't think that any of our money should go to boost *any* Republicans (besides private dollars of course, people can donate as they wish). The goal should be to hold the House and Senate by spending on our own candidates. As an Iowan, it's frustrating to watch money being blown - in the millions of dollars, on a primary candidate that loses in Colorado than four million that could help sway the Iowa gubernatorial race and define our candidate in a positive light while protecting abortion access here. I particularly agreed with this passage:

"Conventional wisdom dictates that these extreme candidates are less electable than the normal Republicans Democrats targeted to defeat. But with a historically unpopular president in Joe Biden and inflation at 40-year highs, less-electable doesn’t mean un-electable. As the January 6 Select Committee continues to warn about the ongoing threat to democracy, their own party dues are paying to help elect the same villains they rail against. "

What he does ignore, though, is that there are other issues that Democrats see as deeply challenging to our democracy and rights - not on par with Jan. 6, but still important. Denying the rights for LGBT people to marry, or attacking trans rights, or for contraception, for a few to be named (not him personally that would do so, but who these people would put in power). Those things are deeply important to many in our party - if not all. So in one sense, where he is saying that "one moderate vote for McCarthy is the same as one far-right one" isn't an excuse to fund these people, but it shouldn't be tossed aside so lightly either. McCarthy in charge, regardless of who is backing him, could do real damage to the coalition of voters that the Democrats are trying to protect. 

But, in the end, I don't want to pick at the little things I disagreed with because, in the end, he does have to play to his own party as well. I think we're all a bit disappointed in how much our parties "play the game", so to speak. It's just depressing how little it seems can be done about it.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Hestia