I wish I were joking. Either the DNC is pro Trump or they are anti Trump and knowingly funneling what they consider threats to democracy, money to win elections. Either way it's an evil thing to do and unethical.
The DNC has spent 44 million dollars to elect pro Trump republicans
Posts
Total:
13
And it worked like a charm. All those losers lost in the general election
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That incorrect not all did lose.
But let's imagine the strategy did actually work. Even if that strategy was effective. Was it worth risking democracy (words from the DNC not me). They were literally increasing the chance of democracy being destroyed for temporary partisan advantage. Seems unethical.
Let me guess though, because you are a retard. Your personal policy is
"Derp I am a retard and everything the DNC does is inherently altruistic and every thing the RNC does is inherently evil?"
How old are you to still be thinking like that?
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
In all fairness, Democrats and Neocons have been funding America's enemies for decades. Most of America's enemies were once and sometimes still are on the list for billions in foreign donations at taxpayer expense.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That incorrect not all did lose.
Name one candidate the Democrats helped in the primary who went on to win the general election
DEMOCRATS SPENT MILLIONS BOOSTING ULTRA RIGHT CANDIDATES in MIDTERMS. THE STRATEGY WORKED
Savannah Kuchar
USA TODAY
Democratic groups and candidates spent millions on Republican primaries across the country to boost far-right, Trump-endorsed candidates in swing races. And the controversial strategy appears to have paid off for the party as nominees they promoted lost their races to a Democrat last week.
Banking that these far-right candidates would fail to capture the support of moderates and independents needed to win in November, Democratic political action committees and groups such as the Democratic Governors Association bought ads during party primaries earlier this year that highlighted Republican candidates' association with former President Trump.
The media buys also emphasized hard right positions from these Republicans' agendas, including stances on abortion and gun control legislation, calling several "too conservative" for their constituents as a ploy to appeal to the GOP base.
Although the approach drew criticism from some within their party who object to helping Trump-backed candidates no matter the reason, the results from Tuesday ultimately worked in Democrats' favor.
- New Hampshire Senate: The Democrat-affiliated Senate Majority PAC spent over $3 million in the New Hampshire Republican primary targeting GOP state Senator Chuck Morse, who had the backing of popular Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. Their funded attack ads helped drive voters towards election denier Don Bolduc, who lost in the general election to Democratic incumbent Maggie Hassan.
- New Hampshire House: In another New Hampshire primary, the Democrats Serve PAC spent more than $500,000 on ads opposing Republican Robert Burns, who aligned himself closely with Trump. Burns lost to Democrat Ann McLane Kuster by more than ten points in the general election in a race analysts initially predicted would be a toss-up.
- Michigan House: John Gibbs gained attention — and Republican primary voters — after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent about $435,000 on an ad calling the Trump-backed House candidate "too conservative." Gibbs won the primary against incumbent GOP Rep. Peter Meijer but lost on Tuesday to Democrat Hillary Scholten.
The strategy paid off in gubernatorial races too
- Illinois: Together with Democratic candidate J.B. Pritzker, the Democratic Governors Association poured around $35 million into swaying the Illinois Republican primary. Though Trump-backed Republican Darren Bailey won that June contest, the far-right nominee was defeated on Tuesday by Pritzker.
- Maryland: The Democratic Governors Association spent over a million on an ad during the Maryland gubernatorial primary as well, targeting Republican and "Trump's hand-picked candidate" Dan Cox. In the general election, Cox got clobbered by Democrat Wes Moore who won by around 25 points.
- Pennsylvania: Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro spent around $840,000 in the Republican primary for an attack ad calling state Senator Doug Mastriano "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters." After winning the Republican nomination in May, Mastriano went on to lose handily to Shapiro in the general election this week.
Some Dem. backed candidates never made it to Nov. 8
Despite the strategy's success in general election outcomes, not all Democrats' efforts to skew primaries resulted in the desired effect:
- Colorado: The strategy failed Democrats in three Colorado races, after they spent a total of around $7 million to target far-right candidates in the Republican primaries for governor, Senate and the 8th district House seat.
- Virginia: In the Republican primary for Virginia's 2nd district, the Democrat-affiliated Super PAC Patriot Majority spent over $300,000 on an ad to highlight Jarome Bell's connection to Trump. Bell lost in June to Republican Jen Kiggans, who went on to win the seat this week, defeating Democrat and incumbent Elaine Luria.
- California: The House Majority PAC, a group affiliated with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, spent over $110,000 on California's 22nd district trying to boost Republican Chris Mathys. The Trump supporter lost his primary race, though, to incumbent David Valadao.
(So that documents 5 GOP candidates who won anyway)
This idiot legit said that child service workers are unpaid volunteers in all red states then blocked me when I pointed out how stupid that is.
If you look at every post he makes, it is a strawman position because he knows his ideals are inferior to conservatives and he has refused to engage in a single debate for that very same reason
I should clarify on the above: None of the Trump candidates funded by Democrats won office. 5 Trump candidates with Dem backing lost primaries to moderate Republicans. Dems won all three races in Co., but GOP moderates won in VA 2nd and CA 21st.
So, about $410,000 of that $44 mil ended without the intended result- that's 99% effectiveness in spending. Seems like an smart and effective us of Dem funds. Especially when compared to the GOP who lost more than half of their expected 2022 campaign funds to Trump's personal bank account and ran out of money a couple of times.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
This idiot legit said that child service workers are unpaid volunteers in all red states then blocked me when I pointed out how stupid that is.If you look at every post he makes, it is a strawman position because he knows his ideals are inferior to conservatives and he has refused to engage in a single debate for that very same reason
You should just DM whoever it is you're talking about.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I don't think I can DM people who blocked me
-->
@oromagi
Seems like an smart and effective us of Dem funds.
Let me get this straight... Handing money to your enemy who will use it against you is a "smart and effective use of" funds?
Wouldn't it be smarter and more useful to just spend the money on your own candidates?
Clearly you know absolutely nothing about how elections work if you think giving money to your opponents is how you win elections.
-->
@Public-Choice
It's entirely possible they were trying to throw the elections so they got less blame for the predicted recession.
It's entirely possible they were trying to throw the elections so they got less blame for the predicted recession.
You think that because you’re a moron.