Disaster Democrats face blowback after boosting far-right Michigan candidate - Democrats help primary a #NeverTrumper.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Democrats faced a backlash Wednesday — including from within their own ranks — after inserting themselves into a GOP primary in western Michigan, helping a far-right candidate who has embraced false claims about the 2020 election to topple a Republican who had voted to impeach Donald Trump.

Democrats this year have tried to interfere in multiple GOP primaries, using ads that appear to be attacks on more extreme candidates as a way to subtly promote those contenders. The idea is to line up opponents who the Democrats believe to be more easily beatable in the general election.

But Tuesday’s vote was the first in which the closeness of the outcome — Trump-endorsed challenger John Gibbs won with 52 percent of the vote, according to unofficial returns — suggested that the Democrats’ meddling may have tipped the results.

Now, Democrats will see whether their high-stakes gambit to take out Rep. Peter Meijer will win them the seat in November. Regardless of what happens, critics say the attempt to boost Gibbs is reckless and undermines Democrats’ argument that they are the party upholding democracy.

“It’s cynical and dangerous,” said Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “We know that the Trumpian wing of the Republican Party is doing a lot to undermine people’s confidence in the fairness and integrity of elections. The idea that Democrats would be willing to gamble on electing more of these people because they think they’ll be easier to beat in the general election really is playing with fire.”

Some of the criticism has come from within the party.

“That type of playing the other side stuff is, I think, a very risky proposition,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Wednesday. “It’s a dangerous proposition for a campaign committee to instead of propelling Democrats, trying to propel a Republican in a primary. Because they actually may win in the end and you’ll have someone who’s even more extreme.”

The second-guessing from Democrats had been building before primary day.

“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,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) posted on Twitter last week when the ad debuted.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), a member of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, told Politico last week: “No race is worth compromising your values in that way.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $435,000 on its ad, which showed a string of images of Gibbs with Trump and called him “too conservative for west Michigan.” Those apparent criticisms may have struck many Republican primary voters as a compliment.

Meijer, who is in his first term, had earned the ire of Trump and many of his supporters by becoming one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach the him after the Capitol insurrection.

“Democrats got the matchup they wanted and in the process threw overboard one of the few members of the House Republican Conference who was willing to stand on principle and stand up for the Constitution. It’s reprehensible,” said Kevin Seifert, a campaign adviser to Meijer.

A couple of hours before conceding the race Tuesday night, Meijer told reporters it was too soon to tell what effect the ad had had. He called the effort a troubling move by a party that has repeatedly warned that Trump and his allies are trying to undermine democracy.

“I know a lot of people — my Democratic colleagues in Washington — have been outraged by just the cynicism and hypocrisy that that represented,” he said at a downtown Grand Rapids bar where his supporters had gathered.

In an essay he posted online on Monday, Meijer accused the Democrats of not just helping Gibbs but “subsidizing his entire campaign” because their ad cost more than Gibbs’s campaign has spent on the race, a figure that campaign finance filings show was $334,000. Meijer noted that he has been censured by Republican Party chapters in his district and called a traitor by some of his onetime allies.

“Watching this unraveling inside my party has been utterly bewildering,” Meijer wrote. “The only thing that has been more nauseating has been the capacity of my Democratic colleagues to sell out any pretense of principle for political expediency — at once decrying the downfall of democracy while rationalizing the use of their hard-raised dollars to prop up the supposed object of their fears.”

Hasen, the UCLA law professor, echoed that sentiment.

“Democracy cannot be sustained by just having one party believing in it and helping to purge the other party of democracy-supporting members,” he said.

As voters went to the polls Tuesday, Gibbs downplayed the role of the ad, arguing that the work of his supporters had given him momentum. He rejected the Democrats’ premise that they could more easily beat him than Meijer in a district that leans slightly Democratic.

“Meijer, first of all, has lost so much Republican support that he would never be able to win that general election in November,” Gibbs told reporters outside a community center in the Grand Rapids suburb Byron Center after casting his ballot. “Many Republicans will stay home or skip over his selection on the ballot because of the way he betrayed Republican voters. So he’s completely unelectable in a general.”

Gibbs in November will face Democrat Hillary Scholten, who was unopposed in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. Scholten lost to Meijer by six points in 2020, but since then, the district has been redrawn to favor Democrats.

Scholten issued a statement Wednesday saying that “the ad by the DCCC is exactly the kind of thing that makes me fed up with Washington and ready to fight for the people of West Michigan.”

Terri Itter, a sterilization technician in a dentist’s office, cast her ballot for Gibbs on Tuesday at a fire station in Alpine Township, north of Grand Rapids. She said she was bothered by Meijer’s impeachment vote because she didn’t think anyone had done anything wrong on Jan. 6

As for Gibbs, she said she received a mailer criticizing him for his support for Trump, but she considered that trait an asset. “I know that they think that he’s too conservative,” Itter, 59, said of Gibbs.

Other voters said Trump’s endorsement had the opposite of its intended effect.

“I’m not a Trump fan,” said Jessica Morgan, a 38-year-old stay-at-home mom who considers herself a libertarian.

Gibbs “was very heavily endorsed and very firmly believes that everything is corrupt and we have to hate our government as it is,” Morgan said. “And I like to have more faith than that, so Peter Meijer was the safer bet.”

Kris Trevino, who voted in the Democratic primary, said he didn’t agree with Meijer on many issues but respected his vote to impeach Trump. He had hoped to see Meijer beat Gibbs, and said he thought Democrats should have focused on their own contests instead of helping a candidate they view as willing to usurp democracy.

“I personally don’t want anybody who’s endorsed by Trump just because I don’t believe the whole election lie stuff,” said Trevino, 29, who works in cybersecurity. “And so anybody that has anything to do with election denial, I just want them out.”

 
Did these shitheads forget that they spent years claiming that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate?
And every GOP win prior to that so...kind of their thing. They literally tried to steal 2000 by breaking Florida state election law by recounting over and over again while trying to get SCOTUS to legalize their actions.
 
Does it really matter what Jesus was? All these Jews shrieking that Jesus was a Jew are about as retarded as people actually humoring the statement with a straight face,
The Jewish God was so sick of the Jews that he sent his son down to tell them to stop acting that way, and he got sold out to the government for $30, proving God's point.
 
Trump was never a Republican, he just looked around and saw that the biggest competition was ¡Jeb! so it would be a cakewalk. If the situation had been like it will be the next election, he'd run as a Democrat because Joe Brandon's a weak target and they have no one else, he'd clean up and say, "we were just talking about how many wonderful abortions we have here in California, the biggest, latest term abortions."
Trump and Sanders are comparable in that they aren't mainstream candidates, but they aren't comparable with respect to them being "really" a part of their party. As far as I'm aware, Trump registered as a republican and was not showing signs of not being a Republican during his term. I don't know the full extent of what that entails, but it sounds like officially binding yourself to a party gives you financial obligations to the party and it makes you vulnerable up the party whip somehow. Even if he joined the Republicans out of convenience, he actually joined the Republicans, taking the detriments along with the benefits.

Sanders on the other hand was running for POTUS in 2020 while continuing to remain registered to run as an Independent in 2024. He wasn't even willing to act like he'd join the Democrats as long as they wanted him; he openly wanted to take all the benefits of running as a Democrat while playing the Independent card the moment they asked him to pay his party dues and actually benefit the party.

Sanders shouldn't have even been allowed to run as a Democrat in 2020 unless he either withdrew his 2024 Independent filing or he changed it to a 2024 Democrat one. The Democrats changed their rules after 2016 so that a candidate would have to be a Democrat to win the Democrat's nomination. It was a rule change that was clearly vindictive and meant to fuck Sanders, but also its one that makes sense and I think they should have done it sooner. Yes I understand that if Sanders had changed his 2024 status to Democrat, it would be purely performative and he'd change it back ASAP. It's similar to the rules about campaigning where people go through the motions of not confirming their campaigns until the last minute so they can maximize fundraising, and he's not even willing to do that much to follow the rules.

I would say the whole Squad are more legitimate Democrats than Sanders, even if there's clearly a split within the party and no matter how much AOC cries about being bullied by the rest of the party. They might not like it, but they've subjected themselves to whatever chains being a Democrat entails and they're paying the price for party support.

they stole it from Bernie, why wouldn't they steal it from Trump?
I'm not saying the Democrats have any morals and wouldn't cheat. I'm saying that in the case of Sanders, the person they fucked over deserved it. Specifically, he deserved it at the time they did it to him, I'm not talking about some retroactive "He cucked so fuck him" logic.
 
Última edición:
The Jewish God was so sick of the Jews that he sent his son down to tell them to stop acting that way, and he got sold out to the government for $30, proving God's point.
Jesus was sent to save the Jews too. Not our fault they refused to grab the life preserver. Besides, it was all set up to go that way regardless, so whether Jesus was a Jew or not doesn't really matter.
 
Why do you hate Jews? What have they done to you?
Also, you do know that jesus was a Jew as well, right?
This bait is a poor attempt to detail the discussion. I would suggest a mass debate thread, but I am not sure "Herod" deserves such distinction.

Most everyone not just on the dissident right but who has a rudimentary, baseline understanding of the dissident right knows that Kevin MacDonald. s a good starting point on why Jews collectively deserve strong criticism and rebuke. All intelligent criticism of Jews collectively has norhing to do with Christianity, and so whether Jesus was Jewish or not is completely irrelevant.
All of this is tangential to the issues of this thread of course, proving this clown has bad intentions.
 
Trump and Sanders are comparable in that they aren't mainstream candidates, but they aren't comparable with respect to them being "really" a part of their party. As far as I'm aware, Trump registered as a republican and was not showing signs of not being a Republican during his term. I don't know the full extent of what that entails, but it sounds like officially binding yourself to a party gives you financial obligations to the party and it makes you vulnerable up the party whip somehow. Even if he joined the Republicans out of convenience, he actually joined the Republicans, taking the detriments along with the benefits.

Sanders on the other hand was running for POTUS in 2020 while continuing to remain registered to run as an Independent in 2024. He wasn't even willing to act like he'd join the Democrats as long as they wanted him; he openly wanted to take all the benefits of running as a Democrat while playing the Independent card the moment they asked him to pay his party dues and actually benefit the party.

Sanders shouldn't have even been allowed to run as a Democrat in 2020 unless he either withdrew his 2024 Independent filing or he changed it to a 2024 Democrat one. The Democrats changed their rules after 2016 so that a candidate would have to be a Democrat to win the Democrat's nomination. It was a rule change that was clearly vindictive and meant to fuck Sanders, but also its one that makes sense and I think they should have done it sooner. Yes I understand that if Sanders had changed his 2024 status to Democrat, it would be purely performative and he'd change it back ASAP. It's similar to the rules about campaigning where people go through the motions of not confirming their campaigns until the last minute so they can maximize fundraising, and he's not even willing to do that much to follow the rules.

That's why the Democrats changed their own rules after 2016.

I would say the who Squad are more legitimate Democrats than Sanders, even if there's clearly a split within the party and no matter how much AOC cries about being bullied by the rest of the party. They might not like it, but they've subjected themselves to whatever chains being a Democrat entails and they're paying the price for party support.


I'm not saying the Democrats have any morals and wouldn't cheat. I'm saying that in the case of Sanders, the person they fucked over deserved it. Specifically, he deserved it at the time they did it to him, I'm not talking about some retroactive "He cucked so fuck him" logic.
That's all fair and well-stated. I think the point we agree on is that they will cheat anyone they think deserves to be cheated, like you said, even if it's someone who would have gotten them the White House. They don't care about winning, they care about being right, even after they are proven to be wrong. Bernie vs. Trump was the election we needed, a real choice about what the non-elites wanted, but they had to be right about it being Her Turn to Lose.

Edit: back on topic, they need to be right so badly that they paid to get guys like Mastriano the R nomination, and when he wins and does whatever the hell he wants with his state's electors in 2024 they will look a tad foolish.
 
This bait is a poor attempt to detail the discussion. I would suggest a mass debate thread, but I am not sure "Herod" deserves such distinction.

Most everyone not just on the dissident right but who has a rudimentary, baseline understanding of the dissident right knows that Kevin MacDonald. s a good starting point on why Jews collectively deserve strong criticism and rebuke. All intelligent criticism of Jews collectively has norhing to do with Christianity, and so whether Jesus was Jewish or not is completely irrelevant.
All of this is tangential to the issues of this thread of course, proving this clown has bad intentions.
I am almost always correct. And though I can come off as arrogant - I do it with finesse and style. You, though, appear kinda wet behind the ears, are pretty much an empty suit, and are scarcely fit to address me as you are so clearly my inferior. If we ever have a real debate about anything of substance (which seems unlikely as you are heavily on the trolling and shit stirring side of things) you will lose and lose badly. And I'll do it with half my brain tied behind my back.
 
I am almost always correct. And though I can come off as arrogant - I do it with finesse and style. You, though, appear kinda wet behind the ears, are pretty much an empty suit, and are scarcely fit to address me as you are so clearly my inferior. If we ever have a real debate about anything of substance (which seems unlikely as you are heavily on the trolling and shit stirring side of things) you will lose and lose badly. And I'll do it with half my brain tied behind my back.
Hi Moviebob!
 
I am almost always correct. And though I can come off as arrogant - I do it with finesse and style. You, though, appear kinda wet behind the ears, are pretty much an empty suit, and are scarcely fit to address me as you are so clearly my inferior. If we ever have a real debate about anything of substance (which seems unlikely as you are heavily on the trolling and shit stirring side of things) you will lose and lose badly. And I'll do it with half my brain tied behind my back.
I am the Duke of Wei and the slayer of Lu Bu. Get the fuck out of here.
 
Most participants did want to do exactly that. What other reason did they have for breaking into the capital building?
If by breaking in you mean they were let into the "Capitol" "Building," then you would actually expect them to try to kill the people inside, including the Capital Police and Secret Service agents defending the members of Congress. It's also pretty interesting how the one guy actually caught on video exhorting the crowd to commit violence is the subject of puff pieces in the NYT and videos of that incident or discussing him are censored.
Also, how are the instances of police brutality "decontextualized"? Sure, Floyd wasn't a good guy but his treatment at the hands of police was still bad.
By "decontextualuzed" I mean that the victims are portrayed as innocents who were unfairly targeted by what is depicted as a disproportionate response based solely on racial animus. Aside from what was already said about Floyd, the Jacob Blake, MaKhia Bryant, and Ahmaud Arbery situations were repeatedly distorted to portray these people as completely blameless.

As to Heorge Floyd being a bad guy, that's definitely not what the Left is saying, unless you're conceding that the people on your side are worshipping a bad person
6016.jpg download (1).jpeg download (2).jpeg
 
If by breaking in you mean they were let into the "Capitol" "Building," then you would actually expect them to try to kill the people inside, including the Capital Police and Secret Service agents defending the members of Congress. It's also pretty interesting how the one guy actually caught on video exhorting the crowd to commit violence is the subject of puff pieces in the NYT and videos of that incident or discussing him are censored.

By "decontextualuzed" I mean that the victims are portrayed as innocents who were unfairly targeted by what is depicted as a disproportionate response based solely on racial animus. Aside from what was already said about Floyd, the Jacob Blake, MaKhia Bryant, and Ahmaud Arbery situations were repeatedly distorted to portray these people as completely blameless.

As to Heorge Floyd being a bad guy, that's definitely not what the Left is saying, unless you're conceding that the people on your side are worshipping a bad person
Ver archivo adjunto 3563216Ver archivo adjunto 3563218Ver archivo adjunto 3563222
They did attack the guards, which is why one of them was shot and killed.
And again, just because George Floyd was a bad person does not give the cops permission to kill him. Some might claim he was blameless, and I am not one of those people.
 
This is another one...during the trial if someone talked about it I asked if they watched the video. They'd say yes, meaning the short cell phone video, not the officer cam video that showed him screaming "I can't breathe" for 20 minutes while kicking the cops in the face when they were calmly trying to get him into the back of the car. The decontextualization is presenting what happened as "this guy was minding his own business and was just thrown on the ground where a 130 lb cop knelt on his back until he suffocated him - look, he was saying he couldn't breathe guise!"
There's also a 100% chance this Herod faggot either doesn't know who Tony Timpa was, doesn't care that Timpa died exactly the same way for less a year earlier, or both.
 
Most participants did want to do exactly that. What other reason did they have for breaking into the capital building?
Also, how are the instances of police brutality "decontextualized"? Sure, Floyd wasn't a good guy but his treatment at the hands of police was still bad.
Note to the newb:
If you're gonna mouth normie political platitudes here in the Autistic Thunderdrome, you have to do it with the flair, like that libshit that LARPs as Hulk Hogan. His ass makes me laugh.
Given your name, I would highly suggest that LARPing as the first century puppet king of Judea mouthing DNC talking points, as that would be both funny and acceptable.
 
The difference is that the Floyd protests (which were mostly peaceful)
This is how I know that you're doing a bit. The nigger riots were not "mostly peaceful", they vandalized, murdered, and torched the country just because some disgusting banjo-lipped subhuman OD'd during an arrest. Then the woke, anti-Trump shitlib system railroaded an innocent cop for it and ruined his life.

The only good thing to come out of the "Saint Geo'ge" riots was when Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a child-fucker.
 
Whose sock do you think? there's such a long list of worthy contestants.
No idea. I dislike the knee-jerk "this is bait" reaction as it swerves too close to "everyone I don't like is a russian bot" for me, but when they make it that damn obvious...

Whoever it is they certainly have a puerile taste in entertainment.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo