By Jim Geraghty
Wednesday, July 27, 2022
If you’re a right-of-center person who would like to see
the GOP break its habit of nominating the worst, least-electable figure out of
crowded fields of candidates, this week brought some welcome news. It looks like
Eric Greitens — the disgraced and nearly impeached former governor who
resigned over allegations of abusing his mistress and breaking campaign-finance
laws — is finally losing ground in the Missouri GOP Senate primary that he
briefly led. As National Review’s Dan McLaughlin lays out, three
recent polls in the race all show Greitens sinking and state attorney general
Eric Schmitt pulling ahead:
·
Trafalgar has Schmitt at 26.5 percent, congresswoman
Vicky Hartzler at 24.4 percent, Greitens at 20.2 percent, congressman Billy
Long at 6.7 percent, 6.6 percent with minor candidates (Mark McCloskey and Dave
Schatz), and 15.6 percent undecided.
·
Emerson has Schmitt at 33 percent, Hartzler at 21
percent, Greitens at 16 percent, Long at 5 percent, 8 percent for minor
candidates, and 17 percent undecided. Sixty-one percent have an unfavorable
view of Greitens, double the unfavorables for Schmitt and nearly double those
of Hartzler.
·
When undecideds are pushed to choose, Emerson
shows the race at Schmitt 39 percent, Hartzler 25 percent, Greitens 18 percent,
Long 7 percent, and 11 percent for the minor candidates. In other words, a
third of independents would pick Schmitt if they had to decide today, but
barely more than one in nine would choose Greitens.
·
Republican pollster Remington’s Missouri Scout poll has Schmitt at 32 percent,
Hartzler at 25 percent, Greitens at 18 percent, Long at 8 percent, and 7
percent with the minor candidates, with 10 percent undecided.
The Missouri primary is on August 2. The lesson of Doug
Jones beating Roy Moore should have been a vivid lesson to Republicans
that there is no state so intensely GOP-leaning that they are guaranteed to
win, even when they nominate a turkey of a candidate. Yes, the national
political and economic environment is likely going to carry a bunch of subpar
Republican candidates to victory this November. But a party would be foolish to
count on uncontrollable outside factors carrying it to victory, and a candidate
who wins because of a national wave usually loses the next cycle.
(Candidates should also remember that they can only
really run as outsider opponents against the status quo once. Once you’re in
office, you’re a relative insider and part of the status quo!)
If Missouri Republicans nominate Greitens, they’ll take a
Senate race that should be a slam dunk and hand the Democrats, at minimum, a
competitive race that will suck up GOP resources better used elsewhere. It
would also suggest that a large plurality of Republican primary voters are so
easily seduced by the candidate who takes the most over-the-top combative
stance — “We’re going RINO hunting!” — that they can’t be bothered to
take even a moment to think about a candidate’s’ competitiveness in the general
election.
Democrats are getting deservedly raked over the coals for
their extraordinarily high-risk strategy of running ads in GOP primaries that
are designed to help nominate the most extreme candidate. Many of these most
extreme candidates are little-known and underfunded compared to their more
mainstream competitors; many have declared that the 2020 presidential election
was stolen, attended the January 6 Capitol Hill riot, or demonstrated that
they’re much more interested in conspiracy theories than actual public policy
or passing laws.
A few Democrats who think they’re clever insist that the
ads aren’t really designed to promote those most extreme candidates, and that
defense would work if we didn’t have eyes and ears. We all know what a
political attack ad looks like; this hilarious Reason parody lays
out all of the instantly recognizable cliches: “Our candidate is in flattering
lighting and full bright color. Their candidate is in grainy, high-contrast
black and white, spotted through a telephoto. . . . The voiceover for our guy
is calm, measured, bright. Their guy gets the lower register, and sometimes . .
. we . . . slow . . . down.”
Check out the DCCC ad for John Gibbs, who is challenging
GOP incumbent Peter Meijer in Michigan’s third congressional district, with
that higher-pitched, almost cheerful and enthusiastic voice over:
John Gibbs is too conservative for
West Michigan. Hand-picked by Trump to run for Congress, Gibbs called Trump
‘the greatest president’ and worked in Trump’s administration with Ben Carson.
Gibbs has promised to push that same conservative agenda in Congress: a hard
line against immigrants at the border, and so-called ‘patriotic education’ in
our schools. The Gibbs-Trump agenda is too conservative for West Michigan.
Keep in mind, Gibbs has lived in the district less than a year, and he has
run no TV or radio ads.
Now, we know that when the DCCC wants to slam a guy, it
doesn’t call him “conservative.” It calls him “extreme” or “right-wing.” It
doesn’t tout his support for securing the border or “patriotic education.” (That
sounds pretty good, when you’re worried that the schools are teaching
“unpatriotic education.”) If Gibbs wins the nomination, the tone and content of
those DCCC ads are going to change really quickly.
Then again, this is a fairly Republican district (R+6 in
the Cook Partisan Voting Index) and Meijer won by six points in 2020. In this
kind of a year, with Biden’s job approval at 31 percent in Michigan, if Gibbs
wins the nomination, maybe he ends up winning the general election anyway — and
the DCCC will have helped replace a bright, reasonable Republican with a guy who thinks Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager took
part in Satanic rituals.
At least a few congressional Democrats realize that the
DCCC strategy is astonishingly risky, spectacularly stupid, and undermines all
of the party’s arguments that Donald Trump and his like-minded allies represent
a unique threat to American democracy.
Dean Phillips, a fairly centrist Democratic congressman
from Minnesota, fumed, “I’m disgusted that hard-earned money intended to
support Democrats is being used to boost Trump-endorsed candidates,
particularly the far-right opponent of one of the most honorable Republicans in
Congress.”
“Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to
tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the
very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in
danger, is just mind-blowing,” Representative Stephanie Murphy of Florida seethed to Politico.
The fact that the DCCC is helping promote a normally
longshot stolen-election candidate against Meijer, one of ten Republicans who
voted to impeach Trump, tells you everything you need to know about how most
Democrats see anti-Trump Republican officials: Suckers and chumps. Democratic
Party institutions will never, ever, ever help out a Republican official, even
if that Republican does exactly what the Democratic Party wants them to do.
There’s a hard lesson in this. A Republican should defy
the rest of his party when he thinks it’s the right thing to do — not because
he thinks the Democrats will have his back when it counts.
It is indeed terrible that Democrats and their allied
groups are running these ads, promoting the most extreme candidates. But
Republicans also have a choice, and no primary has so many crossover voters
that Democrats can single-handedly ensure the nomination of the worst choice.
As mentioned on an episode or two of The Editors,
I wonder if the chaos and circus-like atmosphere in Washington in recent years
is degrading the quality of candidates who want to run for Congress. If you’re
a smart, accomplished, scandal-free figure who wants to help your country, do
you really think running for the House or Senate is the best way to spend your
time, energy, and money? If you’re in the minority in the House, you’re just
voting against bad ideas the majority brings to the floor. If you get elected
to the Senate, you vote on nominations and a giant omnibus spending bill once a
year.
Is that how you want to spend the next decade or so of
your life? Is it worth putting your family through all that scrutiny and
aggravation?
Or would you be better off establishing some new
nonprofit organization or something?
No comments:
Post a Comment