this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
30 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10180 readers
90 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
30
Dems launch 11th-hour meddling operation in Ohio GOP Senate primary (www.politico.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Democrats are meddling in Ohio’s Senate GOP primary at the 11th hour to boost Bernie Moreno, the candidate former President Donald Trump endorsed to face vulnerable Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Duty and Country PAC, a group affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, is spending over $2.5 million to air with a TV ad that heavily touts Moreno’s support from Trump and calls him “too conservative for Ohio.” It will begin airing on Thursday and is set to run through Tuesday’s primary.

The group is funded by Senate Majority PAC, the top Democratic outside group focused on Senate races. The apparent goal of the ad is to boost Moreno with GOP voters, and their interference in the race is a sign that they believe he would be the weakest candidate in the general election.

In a statement, Moreno campaign spokesperson Reagan McCarthy invoked Democrats’ general feeling in 2016 that Trump would be the easiest candidate for Hillary Clinton to beat. “The same thing is going to happen to Sherrod Brown this year,” McCarthy said.

This is such a playing-with-fire tactic...

If y'all wonder why we're constantly seeing races between the DNC candidates and extremist Trumpers, know that it's at least in part because the DNC is boosting them. "Don't vote for white supremacists" works better as a talking point if you make sure your opponents are white supremacists, but badly if your gambit doesn't pay off.

And guess what... they got what they wanted.

Trump’s endorsee, auto-dealer magnate Bernie Moreno, beat State Senator (and Cleveland Guardians co-owner) Matt Dolan and Secretary of State Frank LaRose decisively on March 19. With over 96 percent percent of the expected vote in, Moreno is winning just over half the total votes and leading by Dolan by 18 percent. It’s a broad-based victory, since Moreno is ahead in all of Ohio’s 88 counties.

Of course Ohio has 88 counties...

"Now it's on you, Ohio Democrat voters, to vote super hard to make sure a white supremacist isn't elected in the General!" - Sincerely, the SuperPAC that helped put a white supremacist in the General

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And guess what… they got what they wanted.

even without boosting, it is exceedingly likely Moreno would have won since he was Trump's pick and got 50% of the vote in an FPTP race. it's clearly not just the DNC who wanted this guy, but the base of Ohio Republicans

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Sure, but the issue is that the DNC wants more extremist opponents at all.

They clearly care more about increasing their own election chances (as they see it), than not putting the country in greater danger of these people getting elected.

They are explicitly and intentionally trying to put people in greater danger, so they can offer themselves up as the saviours from said danger. Moreno getting elected with more GOP votes doesn't somehow increase the Democrat's chances in the General, so they clearly wanted him over the other candidates who were less extreme.

The DNC is choosing the possibility of a possibility of a more likely win in November, over the assuredly worse outcome if they lose. And make no mistake, if they lose in November, they will suddenly forget that they ever boosted Moreno, and be very offended at the suggestion of such.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Or they just work for the same bosses to give us the illusion of choice.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They are explicitly and intentionally trying to put people in greater danger,

how? again: in what ways would these people who aren't Moreno differ in voting on legislation--which is the basis upon which people are in danger?

like, do you think Frank LaRose—who has a history of infringing on the right to vote, who has made it harder for people to vote, who defended the right of Republicans to gerrymander their way into power in perpetuity, and who wants abortion rights to be restricted in the same ways Trump does (and went out of his way to try and make this possible against the will of voters)—is a moderate? do you think he'd break with the party if asked? because i don't. i think LaRose would be exactly like Moreno, just harder to beat because even people like you who are conscious of the creeping extremism incorrectly perceive him as more moderate even though he won't be in any way that will matter if he's elected.

or do you think that Matt Dolan—who, despite criticizing Trump for January 6th also said explicitly the last time he ran that he would not convict Trump if he ever had to vote on impeachment against him—is a moderate? do you think he'd break with the party if asked? because i don't. i think Dolan would also be exactly like Moreno, just harder to beat for the same reasons i just described.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, I actually do believe that many of the "moderate" Republicans are less ready and willing and downright excited to actually turn the government over to Trump, even if only because they know it doesn't actually benefit them in any way to do so.

do you think he’d break with the party if asked? because i don’t.

You could easily have said this about Mike Pence, but, much as I hate him, he did break with Trump when it actually came time to do the insurrection. Do I know for sure that Dolan or LaRose would do less harm then Moreno? No. Do I know for sure that Moreno will happily strive to be more extreme and harmful than them? Yes.

That's literally their whole wing's platform.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I actually do believe that many of the “moderate” Republicans are less ready and willing and downright excited to actually turn the government over to Trump, even if only because they know it doesn’t actually benefit them in any way to do so.

then respectfully: i think you are catastrophically naive. i do not believe this, i do not think "moderate Republicans" believe this, and i think the case for this is unimaginably weak given the history of the Republican Party and how they have governed across the board. in any just country i think we would ban the party outright and disqualify all current Republican officeholders as we briefly did with secessionists after the Civil War

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

i think the case for this is unimaginably weak

The case for this was literally proven on J6. They did break with Trump. They did certify the election. What case are you basing your argument on? Are Republicans all authoritarians? Yes, that is inherent to Conservatism. Do they all want Trump to be that authority figure? Absolutely not.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They did break with Trump. They did certify the election.

if your bar for "Republicans demonstrating their desire to overthrow democracy" cannot realistically be met until they actually do that then i think your bar is bad and hopelessly naive, because at that point neither you nor i will live in a democracy and the bar will cease to be relevant.

but even entertaining this bar for some reason: please remind me how many of these people then supported actually prosecuting Trump for extremely unambiguously committing several crimes, including attempting to overthrow the election and inciting a mob that threatened to kill all of Congress.[^1] and let's then take stock of how many Republicans who feigned shock and gall at the event subsequently act like all that never happened, openly apologize for it, or state they would refuse to hold Trump accountable for/actively support similar criminal actions in 2024. to say nothing of how many state Republican parties (Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona), even pre-Trump, had fallen completely into believing that land should vote and that the only elections which count are ones they win. or how any initiative to ban gerrymandering or to abolish the undemocratic Electoral College is Democratic-led, because Republicans benefit from their continuation?

[^1]: 17 of 261, for anyone wondering. only six are still in Congress in large part because Republicans and the Republican base have purged them from the party

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

if your bar for “Republicans demonstrating their desire to overthrow democracy” cannot realistically be met until they actually do that then i think your bar is bad and hopelessly naive, because at that point neither you nor i will live in a democracy.

The mistake you're making is not thinking that Republicans want to abolish democracy, it's thinking that they want Trump in charge afterwards. Authoritarian governments eat themselves because there are always many people chomping at the bit to become the boss. I have no doubt that many republicans would abolish democracy in a heartbeat if they themselves could, without risk, become the autarch... but as long as it doesn't threaten themselves to oppose someone else's ascension, they will. Removing or publicly attacking Trump, right after they had just certified his replacement by Biden, would have (in their eyes) gained them nothing but risk.

Pence announced Friday he could not “in good conscience” endorse his two-time running mate, citing a list of policy disagreements and Trump’s conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He said he would not vote for President Biden, either.

Nikki Haley, who served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, has yet to endorse the former president after suspending her own primary campaign earlier this month.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who as recently as 2020 was working closely with Trump on debate preparations, has also declined to back the former president after ending his own primary campaign.

Former national security adviser John Bolton has been outspoken about his concerns regarding a potential second Trump term, as has former Trump chief of staff John Kelly. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has also said he would not support Trump in 2024.

[Pence's] decision not to endorse is a sign there is a broader fight still playing out in the Republican Party, despite Trump becoming the presumptive GOP nominee by steamrolling through the primary.

There's a reason that it's right after these Republican shitbags retire that they start criticizing Trump openly; authoritarianism is the domain of cowards. Expect Pence and Haley and Christie to put it all in their memoirs.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have no doubt that many republicans would abolish democracy in a heartbeat if they themselves could, without risk, become the autarch…

but then you're making my argument even more compelling for why literally none of these people should be trusted and none of them are moderate or should be treated that way (i.e. that it doesn't matter which one you elect, so the ones who are most open and unelectable should be elevated)--they're just Fascists In Waiting too; treating them as banal when by your analysis they aren't would be akin to ignoring your HIV because it hasn't started blatantly killing you yet

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

why literally none of these people should be trusted

I don't advocate for trusting them, I advocate for understanding what their interests and motivations are. Trump is a narcissist, who cares more about flattery and image and power than anything else. It's why he is much more dangerous than others who are just in love with money, and don't want to risk their positions actually trying to seize power.

I also believe many Democrats would end democracy if given the chance, whether out of a belief that it's too dangerous to allow voters to potentially elect people like Trump, or even just to make sure voters can't replace them with progressives. The important thing is that neither of those groups has the opportunity, normally (we'll leave aside SuperPACs, unbalanced primary qualification rules, etc).

Trump will (as he did) create the opportunity. He put himself under a great deal of risk in the process, because in his narcissistic mind he is always correct, and should always get what he wants, and that overrules the danger. It's the reason that despite many of our politicians wanting to be totalitarian rulers, only one of them truly attempted it.

so the ones who are most open and unelectable should be elevated

This is a very dangerous misunderstanding of how populism works. Populist leaders are the ones who seem most relatable to the average person. As where 'career' politicians are circumspect, populists are very much open and 'honest', which makes them feel very relatable. They can afford to be unattractive and crass, because that feels very relatable. They can afford to be 'unpresidential'.

Elevating a populist just makes them more popular.

Not one person on Earth would raid the capital building for Jeb Bush.

Not one person in a million years, not even if you paid them. But Trump? 3,000 dumbasses will do it and post it on their Tinder profiles.

treating them as banal when by your analysis they aren’t

They (antidemocratic politicians) are banal. No government that allows people to choose to run for positions of power will ever not be primarily populated by people who, ipso facto, desire that power (and no one who desires power is actually totally okay with losing it at the whim of voters). True "public servants" are few and far between, and often get corrupted by the system after taking office.

In regards to political violence against the government, it only took 85 years for the US to have a Civil War, and another 155 for a coup. In between, we had four successful presidential assassinations (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy). That means that in just 248 years, we've had 6 attempts to violently remove the President. That's averaging one every 41.3 years. And that's not even counting failed assassination attempts; that would drop it closer to1-in-20 years. That's not to excuse that violence, it is to say that it's not abnormal for our system.

We're not living under a stable (or least, peaceful) system of government.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not one person on Earth would raid the capital building for Jeb Bush.

people literally did this to disrupt the 2000 recount in Florida on behalf of George W. Bush, Jeb's careerist failbrother. you cannot seriously think this is only a populist thing

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Treating the Brooks Brothers Riot as equivalent to J6 is a HELL OF A STRETCH.

Equating a group of political staffers swarming an office room in Florida, with a group of several thousand voters rising up to kill congresspersons and the vice president at the federal capital building, complete with guns and nooses?

And I did not draw the delineation based on populism, I am making the point that it is ridiculous to claim that all GOP presidential candidates are equivalent to Trump in terms of likelihood or ability to inspire violent insurrection.