The Daily - Why Democrats Are Bankrolling Far-Right Candidates

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

Democrats are meddling in Republican primaries this year to an unusual degree, attempting to elevate extremist candidates who they think will be easy to defeat in midterms in the fall.Nowhere has that strategy been more divisive than in the election for a House seat in Michigan.Guest: Jonathan Weisman, a congressional correspondent for The New York Times.Want more from The Daily? For one big idea on the news each week from our team, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: The meddling in Republican primaries has prompted angry finger-pointing and a debate among Democrats over the perils and wisdom of the strategy.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. To an unprecedented degree, Democrats are meddling in Republican primaries this year in an attempt to elevate far-right candidates who they think will be easier to defeat in this fall's midterms. Nowhere is that strategy more controversial than in yesterday's election for a House seat in Michigan. My colleague Jonathan Weissman explains. It's Wednesday, August 3rd.

It's Wednesday, August 3rd. Jonathan, happy primary day to you. Well, same to you, Michael. And it's a big day. It is a big day. And there are actually several closely watched primaries across the country. One of the most closely watched is the Republican primary for Congress in Michigan. So, Jonathan, tell us about that race. Okay, so we're looking at a House seat in Western Michigan centered on the city of Grand Rapids. It is now represented by a guy named Peter Meyer. Meyer is a freshman Republican. He's pretty mainline to moderate. He comes from one of the biggest names

in Western Michigan, the Meyer family. If you've ever been there, you'll see grocery stores all over the place called Meyer. That's him. And he has a military background. He's very personable and well-liked. And he's now just completing his first term in Congress, a term that began with the impeachment of Donald Trump. Knowing that this was a vote I had to take made me heart sick. He was the only freshman Republican to vote to impeach Trump. But when it comes to a president, when it comes to a leader, maybe this is my experience in the military, but I think we should be holding folks to the highest standard. In fact, he is the first freshman ever to vote to impeach a president of his own party. Right. And Jonathan, we had Representative Meyer on the daily right after that impeachment vote and after the Capitol riot that led to that impeachment vote. And he

told us that he understood that that was a risky thing for a Republican to do, to vote against the president of his own party. But it was his principles. He had to do it. And that led Democrats to really hold him up as a kind of uncommon model of political courage. That's right. I mean, Peter Meyer didn't just stumble in. He's not some innocent who accidentally got himself into this position. He knew what he was doing. And this position is coming to roost right now. So his primary challenger is a guy named John Gibbs. First of all, thank you, President Trump. Thank you for the model you provide for every decent American to stop being afraid for a change. Now, John Gibbs

is a pure Trump-endorsed candidate, very MAGA. Let's start being a little bit more ferocious. Let's have some sharp teeth when we go. He served in the Trump administration as an aide to Dr. Ben Carson at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In fact, he was nominated to head the Office of Personal Management, which is a big job in Washington. He didn't get that job. And why he didn't get that job? Because of some of the somewhat crazy things that he had said on social media about Democrats. Such as? He called Democrats the Islam-loving, gender-bending party of you racists. He once

said that John Podesta, the former campaign chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016, was involved in satanic rituals. Right, that is not true, of course. Of course, that is not true. But obviously, if John Gibbs is talking about John Podesta and satanic rituals, he is doing the nod to the most far-fetched conspiracy theories out there on the far right. Right. So this is shaping up to be a pretty classic matchup in the Trump era of Republican

primaries, which is to say an old-line centrist-style Republican is facing off against a very new-styled MAGA Donald Trump mold. Republican, it's a movie we've seen many times before in Republican primaries. Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is the storyline of 2022, the MAGA wing versus the center of the Republican Party. But in this case, there's this remarkable twist. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,

the official political wing of the House Democratic Party, has moved in with a huge ad buy, not to back Meyer, but to back John Gibbs, the MAGA candidate. Hmm. Now, this is not an insignificant ad buy. This is $435,000. In fact, that is more money than John Gibbs has raised his entire campaign. And the Democrats are just dumping it in in the final days. Now, this ad, it ostensibly is attacking John Gibbs, but it's not. John Gibbs is too conservative for West Michigan. Handpicked by Trump to run for Congress, Gibbs called Trump the greatest president.

And there's a chyron over the ad that says, John Gibbs and Donald Trump, same policies. Gibbs has promised to push that same conservative agenda in Congress. And then they go through those policies. 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. DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising. Now, if that doesn't sound like an attack on John Gibbs, it isn't, especially to the minds of Republican primary voters,

most of whom are strong Trump supporters. So when they see handpicked by Trump to run for Congress, they don't feel an attack. They think, oh, that's my candidate, John Gibbs. Huh. So this is a sly Democratic ad designed to make Gibbs more appealing to conservative primary voters. It might masquerade as an attack on him, but actually it's just designed to make him more popular with the Republican base. Meyer, despite the fact that Meyer was an ally in the impeachment vote and the kind of Republican the Democrats say that they favor and want in Congress. That's right, Michael. I mean, Pete Meyer has been extolled by dozens of Democrats as exactly the kind of Republican they want in Congress. A principled conservative who they can negotiate with, who can sit down at the table and actually hash out legislation with them. And that's why so many people are really angry at the Democrats. And frankly, Pete Meyer is angry. He wrote recently, you would think that the Democrats would look at John Gibbs and see the embodiment of what they say they most fear. That as patriots, they would use every tool at their disposal to defeat him and similar candidates that they've said are an existential threat. Instead, they are funding

Gibbs. So Jonathan, what is the logic behind this Democratic strategy that doesn't seem on its face to make a whole lot of sense? The logic is raw politics, and it's pretty simple. In a swing district like Grand Rapids, there's one Republican that the Democrats think they can defeat, and that is a far-right MAGA Republican. They want, in November, to have their candidate facing John Gibbs. They don't want their candidate facing a moderate incumbent Republican like Pete Meyer. Pete Meyer, hard to beat. John Gibbs, easier to beat. That's what they hope. So Jonathan, is this a proven strategy,

elevating the far-right candidate in order to, in theory, have an easier Democratic victory in a general election? This is a strategy that goes back a decade to the original effort that was at that time hailed as a remarkable gutsy move. And that was done by then-Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. then-Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill was a moderate Democrat representing a state that was definitely trending Republican Missouri. And she was facing re-election at a time when Barack Obama was back on the ballot running for his own re-election, and he was not a very popular person in Missouri. So she did something that really was unheard of at that time. She looked at the three Republican candidates running against her in the primary and decided she was going to pick her opponent for that November. And she picked the most conservative, most bombastic candidate of the three. And his name was Todd Akin.

And when you say picked him, Jonathan, how did she pick him? Akin was a very underfunded candidate. He was a House member, but without huge name recognition. And she cut an advertisement. I'm Claire McCaskill, and I approve this message. With a bunch of things that would really appeal to Missouri Republicans. The most conservative congressman in Missouri, as our senator, Todd Aiken. A crusader.

Todd Aiken is a crusader against bigger government. Akin would completely eliminate the departments of education and energy and privatize Social Security. I don't think that most conservatives in Missouri would think that was a bad thing. Todd's pro-family agenda would outlaw many forms of contraception. You know, a pro-family agenda is a pretty positive thing among Republicans. And then she had this coup de grace. And Akin alone says President Obama is a complete menace to our civilization. Akin alone says President Obama is a complete menace to our civilization.

Now, obviously, to some people, that would be an outlandish thing to say. But to a whole lot of Republicans, Barack Obama at that time was seen as a complete menace to our civilization. Todd Akin, Missouri's true conservative, is just too conservative. It was an amazing ad for the moment. And it elevated him at a time when he didn't have any money to run his own ads. So in effect, Claire McCaskill was setting the tone and the tenor of the final weeks of the primary, the Republican primary. And guess what? Todd Akin won that primary. You know, she had hoped that he would be a terrible general election candidate, not just because of his ideology, but because she felt like he had no filter. He didn't understand politics well.

He just wasn't very smart, to be honest. And guess what? That proved also to be very true, because in the general election, Todd Akin made one of those gaffes that become legendary. Akin, a social conservative, was asked about his opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape. To me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that it was a moment that made everybody gasp, including Republicans. Fellow Republicans couldn't run away fast enough from Congressman Todd Akin's

remarks. Republican leaders are trying to force Todd Akin to quit the race, but so far he is standing firm. And thank you. He ended up absolutely getting crushed by Claire McCaskill in a year when Barack Obama lost Missouri really big. And they all said, it's over. It's done. It's too red. It's just too red. There is no way that Claire McCaskill can survive. Well, you know what happened? So this was about as big a success as you can imagine

from this Democratic strategy, extremely new back in 2012, to elevate the far-right Republican in the hopes, in the minds of Democrats, that they could then beat them in general election. That's right. I mean, a Democrat meddling in a Republican primary was just something that no one had ever heard of. And no one could believe how successful it was. I mean, really elevated Claire McCaskill in Democrats' minds as a political genius. And the kind of Democrat that so many Democrats say are too far and few in the party, the kind of Democrat willing to do what it takes to win an election.

And she won that election. So I have to imagine that Democrats are thinking to themselves, well, this strategy has a huge future in our political playbook. Democrats kind of tucked this away as one of their proudest moments in showing that they knew politics ain't beanbag. But, you know, over the years between 2012 and now, the chance to do this kind of thing just didn't crop up very much. chance to do this kind of thing just didn't crop up very much. It was not something that you saw routinely deployed by either party. But then when 22 came around, all of a sudden they saw the opportunities to play this game over and over and over again. Basically, wherever they saw a moderate Republican vying with a pro-Trump MAGA Republican in a district that they thought

they could win, they deployed it. And they've deployed it probably in a dozen races, large and small, this campaign cycle. We'll be right back. So Jonathan, tell us about some of these Republican primary races where Democrats are, once again, meddling ahead of the midterms. Well, I think the one that most parallels what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is doing against Pete Meyer was in California. California. That's where an incumbent Republican named David Valadao was facing a MAGA Trump person named Chris Matisse. The House Majority Pack, which is the official super PAC of the House Democrats, went in with an ad that had two soup cans, one labeled Chris Matisse and one labeled David Valadao. Republicans got to check and one labeled David Valadao.

Republicans got to check the ingredients. David Valadao claims he's Republican. Yet David Valadao voted to impeach President Trump. Yeah, Valadao voted to impeach Trump. And then they said, And Republican Chris Matisse, a true conservative. Chris Matisse is a wonderful guy, nice music, whatever. Pro-Trump Republican Chris Matisse, military veteran, local businessman,

or politician David Valadao, who voted to impeach Trump. Republicans, it's time to decide. So they totally backed Matisse, but that's just one example. Republican Darren Bailey, an agenda too conservative for Illinois. The Democratic Governors Association

also boosted a very conservative right-wing Republican named Darren Bailey, who is running for governor in Illinois. And this kind of went on and on and on. Greg Lopez is too conservative for Colorado. Dan Cox, too close to Trump, too conservative for Maryland. Ron Hanks, too conservative for Colorado. And I could name probably a half dozen more cases. So, Jonathan, has this Democratic strategy worked so far in these primaries?

And I guess we have to define what working means. has it succeeded in electing the far-right Republican as the Republican nominee who would face the Democratic nominee in the general election? Well, it's a mixed bag. I mean, in some cases, like that race in California with David Valadao, it absolutely did not work. David Valadao won that race. He's going to be a tough candidate to beat in November. In other cases, it absolutely did work. In Illinois, for instance, the far-right candidate that Democrats were backing, Darren Bailey, he won. And it's going to be very hard for Darren Bailey to win the governor's race in November. And in other cases, I'd say it worked too well. And for that one, I'd point to Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the Democrat running Josh Shapiro

for governor, he chose his opponent, a guy named Doug Mastriano. Mastriano is a very far-right Republican, MAGA backer, absolute election denier. And the Democrats thought, okay, Mastriano can't win, can he? This is Republican State Senator Doug Mastriano. So they started boosting Mastriano's campaign for governor. And he's one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters. He wants to end vote by mail. And he led the fight to audit the 2020 election. If Mastriano wins, it's a win for what Donald Trump stands for. Is that what we want in Pennsylvania?

Well, I would say that a lot of Republicans did want that, and Mastriano did win the Republican primary for governor. And now we're looking at polling and showing that Mastriano has a real chance of winning in November. It's very close. So they picked a candidate, but they didn't necessarily pick a losing candidate. And if a far-right Republican election denier is elected governor in Pennsylvania, the ramifications for democracy and for the Democratic Party are very severe. Right. So this is kind of the nightmare scenario in which Democrats may have miscalculated.

But how unique, though, is that scenario this year when you look at the grand scheme of all the races that Democrats are trying to meddle in? I don't think it's that unique at all, to be honest, because the fact of the matter is, with inflation at 40-year highs, with President Biden, with stubbornly poor approval ratings, you know, this is one of those years where a lot of Republicans could be elected

who in an ordinary year would not be elected. So, I mean, honestly, everywhere that the Democrats choose a far-right candidate and that candidate wins the primary, Democrats are rolling the dice. This is a dangerous strategy. So, Jonathan, this inevitably raises the question of why Democrats would be willing to take this level of risk.

And I think the risk is kind of twofold, right? The first risk is electing far-right, anti-democratic candidates like Mastriano in Pennsylvania. And the second is the risk of driving out the quote-unquote good Republicans from places like Congress, the Pete Myers. And so I wonder how Democratic strategists and Democratic Party leaders who have decided that they're going to use this strategy across this midterm are thinking about that and how you think about it. Well, think about the Democratic Party as the party in power. This is the party that controls

the House, controls the Senate, and controls the White House. In a year when Republicans seem to be coming on strong, the Democrats are just looking out at the landscape, and they only see a few areas where they feel like they can play offense and really take it to the Republicans. So the Democrats are just saying, look, the places where we can play offense are few and far between, and we are not going to be dissuaded from doing it based on some principle of the future of democracy. So the reason why Democrats can rationalize

doing what they're doing here and taking out moderates like Valadao or Meyer is that it's not personal. There's just a political reality that while it kind of looks cruel to do that to your ally, that Valadao and Meyer, they occupy exactly the kind of seats that Democrats can and must win in these midterms

if they want to control Congress. And so they don't have a whole lot of compunction about knocking them out. That's right. I mean, look, if you look at wave election years when Congress has flipped, sadly, it's usually the moderates, the left of center or right of center members of Congress that lose. Because by definition, those people are moderate because their districts are moderate. They are swing votes in a swing district. And so, you know, if you got to take out an ally, got to take out an old friend, so be it. got to take out an ally, got to take out an old friend, so be it. Well, Jonathan, thank you very much. We appreciate your time.

Well, thank you for having me, Michael. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Representative Peter Meyer was narrowly defeated by John Gibbs, the candidate promoted by Democrats. Gibbs will now move on to a general election in which his Democratic rival is heavily favored to prevail. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. After weeks of speculation and secrecy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Taiwan on Tuesday, defying warnings against going there from both the White House and the Chinese government.

Pelosi's decision is highly fraught because China claims control over Taiwan, wants to diplomatically isolate it, and views visits there from high-profile leaders as support for Taiwanese independence. In response to her arrival, China said it would hold military drills off the coast of Taiwan in coming days. The U.S. should give up any attempt to play the Taiwan card. And a spokeswoman for the Chinese government said that the United States would, quote, pay the price for Pelosi's actions. If the U.S. pursues any wrong course of action,

and it will assume responsibility for all serious consequences. But Pelosi received support for her trip from an unexpected quarter, congressional Republicans. In a statement on Tuesday, two dozen Republican senators praised Pelosi for making the trip. And in the first statewide referendum on abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned, voters in Kansas overwhelmingly chose to protect the right to an abortion in their state's constitution. The result will block Kansas' Republican-controlled legislature from banning the procedure

and represents a rare victory for the abortion rights movement in a deeply conservative state. Today's episode was produced by Rob Zipko, Asta Chaturvedi, and Nina Feldman. It was edited by Rachel Quester, with help from Michael Benoit, contains original music by Dan Powell, Marion Lozano, and Alisha Ba'itub, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Bilboro. See you tomorrow.