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.
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
What it says is “Our candidate is so lackluster and uninspiring that they can only beat the most out there fringe lunatic”.
ignoring that i don’t think this applies to Sherrod Brown: Ohio is firmly a red state at this point which has trended rightwards in the past three presidential elections (and which voted for Trump by 10 points twice–presumably it will do so again in 2024) so… yeah. the path to victory here at this point just runs through winning over some Republicans and most Independents. pretending otherwise would be malpractice–the “base” is not sufficient anymore to win Ohio. so the easiest way to win now is to run against a fringe lunatic. and it’s not like there’s a meaningful difference in voting record in the Senate between so-called “moderate Republicans” and the “fringes” anyways–Murkowski and Collins still vote with their party on any actually good legislation and refuse to gut the filibuster that would allow for things to be passed by simple majority
The real issue here is that this has been a strategy of the DNC for years. As much as they’d like to deny it, they are responsible for the rise of Trump and extremism. But we’ll be asked to pretend that didn’t happen, again.
When you endorse racist fascists to win, you’re no better than those wh osupport them.
As much as they’d like to deny it, they are responsible for the rise of Trump and extremism.
reducing voters to brainless automata who have no agency in the rise of fascism is a good way to completely neuter your ability to actually combat fascism because many Americans are active participants to the project of building fascism, not idly going along because of partisan voting. bluntly: if fascism had no base, elevating it wouldn’t work in the first place
Which is going to be impossible when those very Republicans and Independents think,
i’m sorry but, at the scale of the general electorate essentially nobody thinks this way and you might as well be making someone up accordingly. most voters–probably a minimum of half or more in almost all states–simply do not pay attention to or care about primaries (and indeed most election cycles only see majority interest in the general election beginning in August or later), and most people who show up in November will likely have not have voted in a primary at all.
additionally, it is well established that extremist candidates pay a penalty for being extremist or perceived as extremist: see for example Split Ticket’s electoral wins above replacement model
That’s funny, because that is exactly what most Centrist Dems accuse Bernie voters of thinking and doing in 2016.
most voters–probably a minimum of half or more in almost all states–simply do not pay attention to or care about primaries (and indeed most election cycles only see majority interest in the general election beginning in August or later), and most people who show up in November will likely have not have voted in a primary at all.
I think there is a tendency, especially on the Left, to downplay the political awareness of people, especially because it’s very appealing to believe that if people were aware, they would not be as apathetic as most people are. Not voting in a primary doesn’t mean you are ignorant of it. Nor does it mean you are completely politically detached until August or later. Most peoples’ political news sources are also their daily news sources, whether they be Fox, CNN, or local newspapers. They’re still seeing politics regularly. I would agree that most people are not politically active until very near to the general elections, but that shouldn’t be assumed to equate to a lack of awareness of goings-on.
additionally, it is well established that extremist candidates pay a penalty for being extremist or perceived as extremist
That is sometimes true, but certainly not always (it was, as your link notes, far more true in 2022 than in 2020). Furthermore, it’s not some sure thing that you should be betting peoples’ lives on. Trumpers have won plenty of political races. They are a growing bloc. A Trump endorsement is not by any means a death sentence for a candidate, but it very much is an assurance that candidate will be attacking vulnerable groups if they win.
There is no defensible scenario for propping up violent bigots.
A Trump endorsement is not by any means a death sentence for a candidate, but it very much is an assurance that candidate will be attacking vulnerable groups if they win.
…as opposed to all of the non-Trump endorsed candidates who don’t do this in the Republican Party. i’m sorry but this is unironically just laundering the fake idea that there are shades of difference in the Republican Party. there aren’t! this doesn’t matter! there are no moderate Republicans! the only difference between these people is how open they are about how much they want the people they don’t like to die! kill the idea that this party can be saved by trying to let the “moderates” win out–all they want is a Kinder, Gentler Fascism that is harder to fight! literally every serious Republican politician is, at their core, a violent bigot–it’s the Republican brand and if they disagreed with violent bigotry they wouldn’t be Republicans!
I can believe that the GOP is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic den of vipers that needs to die in a fire, without reducing them each as persons into cartoon villains in my mind. I know (too many) Republicans, and some of them want the US to be a White Christian Straight Nation™ (aka, the “Faith and Flag” Republicans), and others are just stuck in a Boomer mentality of “Republicans understand fiscal policy, Democrats love spending money” (aka “Ambivalent Right”).
I don’t want any Republican in office, but I need to be able to see the daylight between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, or I can’t actually strategize around persuading their respective voting blocs. If all Republicans are just Donald-Trump-in-a-mask, there’s no point even trying to strategize (and frankly, if you think this way you’re going to be led around by the nose by people who will exploit that, which it seems like the DNC is doing very well right now).
without reducing them each as persons into cartoon villains in my mind
if you “reduced them to cartoon villains” they would literally be less evil than they actually are. Republicans writ large would gladly kill billions of people if it kept the fossil fuel money going—and we know this because they are actively choosing to do that by denying climate change and making it as difficult as possible to move away from fossil fuels as we speak
And Democrats are “merely” authoritarians who 1) have colluded with fascists for decades to secure a duopolistic stranglehold on power, 2) have endorsed many of the same positions, historically, 3) place power above all else, including risking lives by boosting the cred of a literally insane psychopath fascist so they could win in 2016, 4) share many of those fascists views on privacy, personal security, freedom of expression.
Democrats only look good when compared to fascists. Is that really the best we can do?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 ↩︎
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
ignoring that i don’t think this applies to Sherrod Brown: Ohio is firmly a red state at this point which has trended rightwards in the past three presidential elections (and which voted for Trump by 10 points twice–presumably it will do so again in 2024) so… yeah. the path to victory here at this point just runs through winning over some Republicans and most Independents. pretending otherwise would be malpractice–the “base” is not sufficient anymore to win Ohio. so the easiest way to win now is to run against a fringe lunatic. and it’s not like there’s a meaningful difference in voting record in the Senate between so-called “moderate Republicans” and the “fringes” anyways–Murkowski and Collins still vote with their party on any actually good legislation and refuse to gut the filibuster that would allow for things to be passed by simple majority
The real issue here is that this has been a strategy of the DNC for years. As much as they’d like to deny it, they are responsible for the rise of Trump and extremism. But we’ll be asked to pretend that didn’t happen, again.
When you endorse racist fascists to win, you’re no better than those wh osupport them.
reducing voters to brainless automata who have no agency in the rise of fascism is a good way to completely neuter your ability to actually combat fascism because many Americans are active participants to the project of building fascism, not idly going along because of partisan voting. bluntly: if fascism had no base, elevating it wouldn’t work in the first place
deleted by creator
Which is going to be impossible when those very Republicans and Independents think,
“Hey, didn’t they campaign against the more ‘moderate’ candidates like Dolan and LaRose, who I might actually have voted for?”
“Aren’t they part of the reason I don’t have a GOP candidate I support?”
“Did they force me into this position to ‘have’ to vote for them, on purpose? Well fuck that!”
i’m sorry but, at the scale of the general electorate essentially nobody thinks this way and you might as well be making someone up accordingly. most voters–probably a minimum of half or more in almost all states–simply do not pay attention to or care about primaries (and indeed most election cycles only see majority interest in the general election beginning in August or later), and most people who show up in November will likely have not have voted in a primary at all.
additionally, it is well established that extremist candidates pay a penalty for being extremist or perceived as extremist: see for example Split Ticket’s electoral wins above replacement model
That’s funny, because that is exactly what most Centrist Dems accuse Bernie voters of thinking and doing in 2016.
I think there is a tendency, especially on the Left, to downplay the political awareness of people, especially because it’s very appealing to believe that if people were aware, they would not be as apathetic as most people are. Not voting in a primary doesn’t mean you are ignorant of it. Nor does it mean you are completely politically detached until August or later. Most peoples’ political news sources are also their daily news sources, whether they be Fox, CNN, or local newspapers. They’re still seeing politics regularly. I would agree that most people are not politically active until very near to the general elections, but that shouldn’t be assumed to equate to a lack of awareness of goings-on.
That is sometimes true, but certainly not always (it was, as your link notes, far more true in 2022 than in 2020). Furthermore, it’s not some sure thing that you should be betting peoples’ lives on. Trumpers have won plenty of political races. They are a growing bloc. A Trump endorsement is not by any means a death sentence for a candidate, but it very much is an assurance that candidate will be attacking vulnerable groups if they win.
There is no defensible scenario for propping up violent bigots.
…as opposed to all of the non-Trump endorsed candidates who don’t do this in the Republican Party. i’m sorry but this is unironically just laundering the fake idea that there are shades of difference in the Republican Party. there aren’t! this doesn’t matter! there are no moderate Republicans! the only difference between these people is how open they are about how much they want the people they don’t like to die! kill the idea that this party can be saved by trying to let the “moderates” win out–all they want is a Kinder, Gentler Fascism that is harder to fight! literally every serious Republican politician is, at their core, a violent bigot–it’s the Republican brand and if they disagreed with violent bigotry they wouldn’t be Republicans!
I can believe that the GOP is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic den of vipers that needs to die in a fire, without reducing them each as persons into cartoon villains in my mind. I know (too many) Republicans, and some of them want the US to be a White Christian Straight Nation™ (aka, the “Faith and Flag” Republicans), and others are just stuck in a Boomer mentality of “Republicans understand fiscal policy, Democrats love spending money” (aka “Ambivalent Right”).
I don’t want any Republican in office, but I need to be able to see the daylight between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, or I can’t actually strategize around persuading their respective voting blocs. If all Republicans are just Donald-Trump-in-a-mask, there’s no point even trying to strategize (and frankly, if you think this way you’re going to be led around by the nose by people who will exploit that, which it seems like the DNC is doing very well right now).
if you “reduced them to cartoon villains” they would literally be less evil than they actually are. Republicans writ large would gladly kill billions of people if it kept the fossil fuel money going—and we know this because they are actively choosing to do that by denying climate change and making it as difficult as possible to move away from fossil fuels as we speak
And Democrats are “merely” authoritarians who 1) have colluded with fascists for decades to secure a duopolistic stranglehold on power, 2) have endorsed many of the same positions, historically, 3) place power above all else, including risking lives by boosting the cred of a literally insane psychopath fascist so they could win in 2016, 4) share many of those fascists views on privacy, personal security, freedom of expression.
Democrats only look good when compared to fascists. Is that really the best we can do?
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
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.
Or they just work for the same bosses to give us the illusion of choice.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 ↩︎
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Where did you get the impression from that I am absolving Pence of anything?