Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory -- How the Left might Win in November

Politics
#1

For a while now, it has looked like we were on to a winner in November. The Left overplayed its hand: weakening the police, resulting in a surge of murders and, of more importance to urban and suburban liberals, mass looting of stores where they (liberals) like to shop. Relaxing controls at the border, resulting in a surge of illegal immigrants And then there is the push to sexualize children, starting with first-graders.

But then … don’t underestimate the cunning of our enemies, and their willingness to spend big money to destroy us. They have decided to carry out their work within the patriot movement, and make us shoot ourselves in the foot.

And “Christian Nationalists” are helping them.

This essay from Intellectual Conservative spells it out:

Democrats are Successfully Pushing Unelectable Candidates in our Primaries to Stop the Red Wave This Fall

08/09/2022

Do some of these MAGA candidates seem too good to be true? That’s because they are. They violate the rule crafted by the late William F. Buckley Jr. known as the “Buckley rule.” It says to support the candidate the furthest to the right who is electable. This is why a lot of conservatives suck it up and stick with the GOP instead of defecting to an obscure third party where no one gets elected.

But the left, always one step ahead outsmarting us, has figured out how to make unelectable fringe candidates look so appealing that people forget the rule. They are pouring money — $44 million this year — into our primary races to help candidates who probably aren’t electable in the general, and are re-registering to vote in our primaries. The Washington Examiner declared in July, “Democrats have been awfully active in the 2022 Republican primaries.”

While pollsters were once confidently predicting a GOP sweep this fall, possibly taking back the U.S. Senate, this is no longer so. Democrats have figured out that they can help fringe candidates falsely label solid conservatives as RINOs. They’ve been assisted in a few races by Donald Trump, who thought he was doing the right thing in some of these races endorsing candidates, but was fed bad info by people he trusted.

In Illinois, Democrats spent millions attacking a black Republican mayor running for governor, Richard Irvin, in order to boost State Sen. Darren Bailey. Irvin’s campaign said Democrats spent over $31 million in attack ads, with at least $13 million from the Democratic Governors Association and $6 million directly from Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Once Bailey got Trump’s endorsement, it was all over and he defeated Irvin. One of the few polls in that race shows Bailey losing to Pritzker by nine points.

In Maryland, the Democratic Governors Association spent money to help Dan Cox defeat former Secretary of Commerce Kelly Schulz. Schulz worked in the administration of Gov. Larry Hogan, who surprisingly got elected in the Democratic state, so she was expected to have a good shot at keeping the GOP legacy going. Instead, Cox got Trump’s endorsement and won, and is widely expected to lose to the Democrats’ charismatic Wes Moore, who will become the state’s first black governor if elected. Hogan lamented, "Trump is trying to insert himself in races all across the country where people he’s supporting are crazy.”

In Pennsylvania, State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who is running for governor, spent $840,000 to boost his GOP challenger State Sen. Doug Mastriano over former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta. Trump endorsed Mastriano and he easily won. A Fox News poll from a little over a week ago shows Mastriano ten points behind Shapiro. [Mastriano is a self-proclaimed “Christian Nationalist”.]

Democrats were unsuccessful in Colorado, however, spending millions to bolster fringy candidates that went nowhere as all three lost their primary races. And some of their spending did attack truly awful Republican candidates, such as Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan and Rep. David Valadao of California, two of ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. Valadao won despite their efforts, but Meijer lost to former Trump official John Gibbs.

Democrats merely needed to change voter registration in Arizona to ensure one fringe candidate won. Conservatives there are so wary after years of the late Sen. John McCain that they are quick to jump on the bandwagon calling anyone a RINO. For example, Rep. David Schweikert, who has an outstanding lifetime rating of 96 from the American Conservative Union, is frequently called a RINO despite the fact he’s been able to maintain that voting record in what is now the most competitive district in the state.

Funded by four out-of-state billionaires, trainwreck U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters bashed his original main opponent, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich as a RINO and used his boss Peter Thiel to get Trump’s endorsement. After he won, betting markets flipped and started predicting Republicans would not win back the Senate this fall. Incumbent Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly has raised over $50 million and appears poised to raise $100 million just like he did in 2020.

Kelly defeated Sen. Martha McSally, a weak candidate who had been appointed to the Senate seat over the objections of conservatives by Gov. Doug Ducey, by over two points in 2020. At this point in the election cycle two years ago, polls had McSally behind by as little as two points. In contrast, polls currently show Masters performing far worse, losing in double digits, with a poll commissioned by his own supporters showing him down five points.

According to CNN, Trump almost stopped endorsing candidates in the primary in May due to how problematic it was, holding off on endorsing Masters until June. Republicans broke records voting in the Arizona primary, due to all the crossover Democrat votes. In fact, in 2022 so many Democrats re-registered as independents in order to vote in the GOP primary that the numbers of independents not only outnumbered Democrats but even outnumbered Republicans in Maricopa County, and while Republicans and independents increased their percentages statewide, Democrats decreased theirs.

Other candidates that were able to finagle a Trump endorsement but who might lose the general election include Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio and Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania. Vance, who got Trump’s endorsement in part due to Thiel just like Masters, is trailing Rep. Tim Ryan by nine points in the latest poll. Mehmet is trailing Mayor John Fetterman by 14 points.

These candidates could cause other solid Republican candidates to lose. Independent swing voters who might not necessarily vote will have a visceral reaction to some of the worst GOP candidates, getting them out to vote anti-Republican all down the ballot.

It’s time to stop rushing to support and endorse anyone who calls themselves MAGA or America First just because they have money, an insider connection and labels their opponent a RINO. Don’t be fooled, we’re getting played.

2 Likes
#2

Yes, Democrats can be counted on to play dirty, lie and cheat. You can’t trust any candidate as a result.
Trump made some mistakes in endorsements (Oz, for instance), but others he’s endorsed seem to be trustworthy. Why does this person consider Blake Masters to be a “trainwreck”?

2 Likes
#3

“Why does this person consider Blake Masters to be a “trainwreck”?”
I don’t know. She lives in Arizona so presumably has more information about him than about the others she mentions.

I just had a look at the Wikipedia hit-piece, sorry, I mean entry, on him, and the only thing I found which I would like to know more about is this: " approvingly quoted Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering. He also endorsed conspiracy theorist. Edward Griffin’s claim that the "Houses of Morgan and Rothschild were linked to the [sinking of the Lusitania … the Left – who dominate Wikipedia now [another project I’d like to get involved in, challenging that] lie unashamedly. When you follow up the footnotes on Masters’ supposedly anti-Semitic statements, they turn out not to be anti-Semitic at all, in my view. (But, yes, he could have phrased some of the things he wrote as a 19-year-old full-on anti-war libertarian a bit more carefully.

For those who are interested here is the Wiki article: Blake Masters - Wikipedia
And here is the worst they can come up with: Blake Masters' provocations reach back to his college days

So he actually seems pretty good … but the question that Rachel Alexander is raising is can he win? Does he pass the ‘Buckley Rule’? And that I don’t now.

By the way, even the guy in Pennsylvania, the self-proclaimed ‘Christian Nationalist’, when I looked at his Wiki entry, didn’t look so bad. But the question is, can he win? (I have a friend in Pennsylvania who is all for him and she evidently is confident he can win. But then there’s those polls: RealClearPolitics - Election 2022 - Pennsylvania Governor - Mastriano vs. Shapiro

My main point: we have to be cold-blooded in our fight. We have to back candidates who can win. I don’t believe in ‘beautiful losers’.

1 Like
#4

You can’t trust wikepedia.
And I understand backing candidates who can win, but not if they’re Rino sellouts.

2 Likes
#5

Agree completely re Wikipedia. It’s actually complicated – we need more sophisticated ‘editors’ there. The Left have a lot of them. But that’s another project.

As for 'RINO’s Well … I’ve seen the word ‘RINO’ a lot over the years, but I have never asked for a definition. What makes a Republican a ‘RINO’?

Suppose a Republican had voted against invading Iraq 20 years ago? Almost all Republicans were strongly, enthusiastically for it.

Suppose a Republican had opposed Free Trade 25 years ago, when the Republicans were strongly for it, and the Democrats were not so keen?

Suppose a Republican had been campaigning against the influence of big money in politics, when the Republicans were not unhappy with it, and it was mainly a Democrat thing?

Suppose a Republican had been raising the issue of Open Borders and flooding the country with cheap labor, when Republicans were indifferent to this (because their Donor Class quite liked cheap labor)?

As you can see, I think the term ‘RINO’ is problematic. I would rather list the important issues of the day, and evaluate candidates on how they stood on those issues.

And then, I would rather have a candidate who is with us on 50% of them, and against us on 50%, than one who is against us on 100% of them. In very liberal districts, the 50%-er may be the best we can get. And remember, the other side will not like them either.

But to me, the key thing is that the Democrats are putting big money into getting certain Republicans nominated to be the GOP candidate. So if the Democrats are supporting someone – not because this person agrees with them on certain things, but because the Democrats WANT them to be the GOP candidate – shouldn’t that tell us something?

I think of politics as war. In a war, you cannot maximize on all fronts. You have to harbor your strength, concenrtrate your forces, by-pass enemy strong points, appear to retreat, and even sometimes actually retreat. It can’t be fought with our emotions.

2 Likes
#6

Yes, of course.
For example, I voted for Romney when he ran for president because at least he was better than Obama. If he’d won, things wouldn’t have gotten better, but they probably at least would have deteriorated a bit more slowly.
But when there’s a better choice, don’t vote for the Rino! Even if his chances of winning look better.
I think Trump endorsed Oz, for example, because he thought Oz would have a better chance of winning because of his name recognition.
It worked but now conservatives will be forced to vote for him (pretty sure he’s a Rino) just to beat the Democrat.

2 Likes
#7

It’s complicated. It sometimes might be better to let a Democrat win … I can see such situations, although it’s a risky maneuver.

The most important thing is that we have to be cold-blooded about it … not vote with our emotions but with our brains.

The Democrats have put a lot of money into the primary campaign of conservatives they think are so extreme, that they will repel people who would otherwise vote Republican. Risky, of course, in that if these people win, they will be much more of thorn in the Democrats’ side than the more moderate Republican. … unless they’re complete loons, and we have a few, unfortunately.

I would love to start a social media campaign to encourage Democrats to run on a “Defund the Police”, “Eliminate Bail”’, “Pull down all slave-owners’ stattues, including Washington and Jefferson” And I’d love to get a team together to push a '“Keep Biden” campaign or even better, a “Draft Kamala” campaign. All under pseudonyms of course.

They fight dirty and so must we.

1 Like
#8

Maryland is my state. First, Larry Hogan HATES Donald Trump, because of a deal that Trump beat him out of. Second, Larry Hogan HATES Donald Trump, because Hogan wants to run for president. Third, Larry Hogan was in his first term, really overpowered by the Establishment Democrats, who had run Maryland for decades, Mike Miller (Senate) and Michael Busch (Representative) and both died during Hogan’s last term. Hogan was a RINO and has played his game so that he would be acceptable as a Senator to the Western Shore city and counties, which are Blue and drives the state and national elections usually, and to the DC Establishment.

He appeared on Hugh Hewett’s radio program during the 2020 campaign and left Hewett speechless when he said that he did not support Trump and would not vote for him and that was when he was President of the Governor’s Association…and looking to the Senate with the WH next. I would guess Hogan worked heartily against Trump in whatever way he could.

That Hogan picked Shultz as his heir-apparent only meant to conservatives that she would also be acceptable to our Blue part of MD and to DC, and would continue Hogan’s RINO habits. If we conservatives in MD wanted anything to change in our state and also at the federal level and local level, we voted for Cox.

During Hogan’s first term, he was an idiot that did what Miller and Busch told him to do, but Republicans would not hear anything bad about Hogan and so-called conservative republicans said quite frankly to my husband’s face, “Oh no, we can’t say anything or challenge Hogan on his decisions.” And, so Virgil went it alone to fight for the farmers right to farm, for the poultry companies right to exist in Maryland and for the Tri-County area in general. And, he did with Martin O’Malley, as well, even though O’Malley wanted Virgil for his Secretary of Agriculture when he first was elected Governor. When “right” needed to be done, or farmers needed to have their businesses protected from over-reaching environmentalists (Phosphorus Management Tool, attacks on the poultry or fishing/crabbing industry or the Dept. of Transportation was being arrogantly stubborn or just plain economic idiocy), it did not matter to Virgil whom he took on, Democrat or Republican. Of course, the Republicans in office conveniently forgot that, as did the constituents of District 4.

Yeah, Wes Moore is a charismatic and fine looking man, but his plans and beliefs are straight out of the Left’s playbook. It has absolutely nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his politics, just as with Barrack Obama. At one time, Michael Steele had a chance. We certainly liked him. But, not after he trashed Trump during the 2020 campaign after his RINO tenure as Republican Party Chair. Republicans/Conservatives don’t trust him at all, and it has nothing to do with his skin color.

What the Left has up its sleeve may be what you write, and others may know more about their state’s politics. I just know Maryland and Hogan.

Later that same evening:

I have just gotten back from “tucking my chickens in” for the night. I misspoke in my frustration and…anger, I admit. Hogan is anything but an idiot. He has spoken and has acted exactly as he planned. He sought power among the Establishment of Annapolis and DC. He talked and campaigned as if he were a member of the original TEA Party groups. He promised to make Maryland friendly to businesses and to attract businesses that would bring well paying jobs to Marylanders. He talked up how important Agriculture was in Maryland and promised the state to become farmer friendly once again. He talked reform and conservatism. To some extent he has walked a thin line between what he promised and what the Establishment of Annapolis and DC expected of a man, who would be one of their own. But, the first thing he did was what Miller and Busch and other Democrats wanted. And…he did everything that Barrack Obama expected of him.

So, Larry, sorry about the idiot bit. Sorry about your cancer struggle, too. But, conservatives shouldn’t trust you as far as they can throw you, which isn’t too far…sorry about the weight problem.

3 Likes
#9

Whoa … very interesting.

Here’s the problem: we must first distinguish between, on the one hand, Republicans who are clearly just Democrats (liberals) who, for whatever reason, put on Republican/conservative clothes. Nothing is every totally clear-cut in politics, but I would also include those people who just yearn for liberal approval – who want to hear them say, “You’re not as bad as those others.”
I think John McCain, certainly in his later years, exhibited that sort of behavior. One of Trump’s evident strengths is that he almost seems to love the opposite, which is exactly right. “If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target,” as they say.

So that’s on the one hand.

On the other hand, the reality is that any real political party – not a tiny purist sect – will have a range of opinions on important issues. Few things are black-and-white. Should we have encouraged Ukraine to defy Russia and move to join NATO? Should there be a minimum wage at all? Should there be Federal aid to education of any sort? Should Medicare exist at all?

I think two people can justly be called ‘conservatives’ and disagree with each other on those issues – not to mention that in the real world,you sometimes have to vote for important legislation that has most of what you want, but includes some minor thngs you don’t want.

One complicating factor is that ‘conservatism’, in my view, is best thought of as a disposition, not an ideology. It’s not the right-wing symmetrical opposite of Marxism, with an elaborate theory of society and history and social change. It’s a recognition that society is far more complex than our ability to analyze it, so … make haste slowly, if at all. Be aware that humans are not blank slates for the benevolent state to write the code for the perfect human being on.

Conserativism is not an ideoology, but an ideology is a very handy thing to have – it simplifies your analysis of the world greately. (Ask me how I know.)

So a lot of conservatives adopt Libertrianism/minarchism – let the Free Market rule! – as their default ideology. They then proceed to override it when it proves obviously absurd, as in allowing Open Borders. That is how the GOP introduced Globalism to the US – it’s just a logical extendion of the market.

Then Trump came along, and suddenly …

Trump is the third hand: anything involving him, including candidates he chooses to endorse, or not, complicates things, because – on the one hand, he is a repulsive character. And on the other, he’s the only figure of substance to lead the charge against globalism/wokeism. This adds an extra layer of complexity to primary endorsements, who-is-a-RINO, etc. (The problem wth Liz Cheney and those liker her is that everything they belive about Trump coiuld be true, but we’re in a war. Shouild we have refused to send Jeeps and guns to Stalin during WWII?

These people exhibit a character trait often found in those who oppose them most: namely, putting their own personal purity above eveythng else, including doing what’s necessary to win.

PS: what bothers me about Trump is that a large number of people on the Right seem to have almost a supernatural faith in him. Is this just the religious impulse, or ‘the Good Father Czar has Evil Advisors’ syndrome?

It’s actually fascinating. Someone who one minute proclaims that Covid is a hoax, and that the vaccine is a plot by an Evil World Conspiracy to inject us with microchips, will the next minute say ‘Trump is the greatest President ever’, despite Trump’s endorsement of vaccination.

Oh well. You go to war with the army you’ve got.

3 Likes
#10

“Trump…complicates things” - yes, because now its no longer “business as usual”, with the Uniparty pretending to be in opposition.
Now there is a real opposition! As someone noted, Trump didn’t create the division, he just exposed it.
And the division is between the State and the People.
Both parties are so corrupt now, people have to get on one side or the other and fight, and Trump, whatever his flaws may be, is the “man of the hour”.

3 Likes
#11

Donald Trump “a repulsive character”? In what way? He is personally virtuous, a political genius, intentionally funny, enormously generous.

Thomas Klingenstein lists his virtues:

3 Likes
#12

He’s the man we’ve got, and you go to war with the army you’ve got.

History gave us a huge continent, easily taken away from the original inhabitants, who had neglected to invent gunpowder, as Che Guevara notes.

And she gave us a continent with two huge oceans on the east and west, and weak neighbors to the north and south.

She gave us the Founders, an dazzling array of talent.

She gave us Lincoln. She gave us FDR. The men of the hour.

Then she said, “Okay, you’ve had everything … now look what you’ve done with it. So here’s Trump.”

We have to do the best we can with what we have.

1 Like
#13

You are in enemy territory here after all, Doug!

I - and others here whom I am sure of because they have expressed their opinion - consider Trump to be a great president. In my opinion, he is one of the two or three greatest.

FDR would be rightly classed as one of those who did most harm to this country except for one important thing: he did take America into WW2 against the axis powers and helped decisively to defeat them. (But he then let Stalin - another Hitler - keep and oppress East Europe.)

Great presidents? Trump, Yes! FDR, No!

Why will you not say exactly what it is about Trump that you dislike?

Post Script, Further Question: Why do you, a self-declared atheist, make a goddess of History?

2 Likes
#14

I’ll look at that. I hold to Michael Anton’s brilliant “The United 93 Election”. Character flaws in someone defending civilization have to be overlooked. Torquemada, Robespierre, Mao, were not personally corrupt, at least not in their revolutionary phases. But that’s irrelevant.

We’re in a war.

1 Like
#15

What “character flaws” do you accuse Trump of possessing?

3 Likes
#16

Since Michael Anton wrote his article titled The Flight 93 Election (“Flight” not “United”) in 2016, Trump was elected and achieved great things as president. To continue to hold to Anton’s prejudices against him - insisted upon by Anton though he does recommend voting for him - at this late date is wonderfully regressive!

2 Likes
#17

Yes, I agree, Jillian. All that I have read about Trump in recent years and all that I have heard about him and what I have heard him speak on does not indicate to me that he is a “repulsive character.”

Brash, determined, loves his country, loves his family…and what a successful job done in parenting I think. Makes mistakes, is intolerant of failure, yes. Colorblind, gender blind…just looks for the best people, even when he mistakenly trusts those he was told, or he thinks, were the best people.

When the vaccine was “warped sped” there was a lot of fear about this virus and the original strain was to be feared by many people, and the president trusted his advisors at first, and they abused this trust that he had and that the people had in them.

I think he did as well as anyone could have done, who did not have a background in science, medicine, virology…and trusted his advisors.

He was the person that we got in 2016, and thank goodness. More importantly, he is NOT the person that the Left wants in 2024…and that should tell us everything that we need to know about that election.

3 Likes
#18

Oh, Jillian, we atheists have our flaws, as well. Perhaps we should tell them in a thread someday…

Yet, we must admit that modern humans have achieved great things (and terrible things) by standing on the shoulders of innovators of the past. I suppose one may refer to this as “history.”

I have often worried about a civilization that did not utilize the simple wheel.

3 Likes
#19

I’m probably missing the irony here, but it’s Trump’s character flaws, not Anton’s. Okay, surely you were teasing.

But to be serious: Anton is rather like me … a National Review type conservative throughout the 90s, drifting into the neo-con orbit with Bush and 9/11, although I always had reservations about spreading liberal democracy via the 82nd Airborne … then along came Trump, and I re-thought my positions on American world dominance, free trade, and a couple of other conservative beliefs. Now I’m more comfortable with – to use that mushy liberal term – with Chronicles of American Culture and The American Conservative … although neither of them seem to do more than just publish interesting complaints about how the country is being destroyed, but no guidance on what to do about it.

As a certain fellow said, 'Previouis philosophers have only interpreted the world … the point is to change it."

1 Like
#20

I think the Incas and Aztecs did not have the wheel, except for children’s toys. And they were on the path to civilization. Who knows how they would have evolved, given a few more thousand years and no Spanish (or other European/Asian) intervention.

As Che said, they invented a lot of things, but not gunpowder. A lesson for us all.

1 Like