The Republican primary campaign for governor of Illinois this past spring was brutal. I had a front seat, watching television ads, listening to radio ads and viewing social media interaction in what was an absolutely incredible display that goes way beyond the old-fashioned descriptive term of "mud-slinging" that was once used for particularly hostile campaign rhetoric.
I've never seen anything like this. Republicans are a clear political minority in Illinois, statewide, more than ten percentage points below the Democratic majority and shrinking. But the gubernatorial primary did nothing to unify those Republicans who still might want to vote in the general election. From the start, they ganged up on the front-runner, Richard Irvin, the mayor of the city of Aurora, an African-American perceived as a moderate and the only one in the field who appeared to offer any possibility at all of defeating J. B. Pritzker. The attack ads against Irvin from the other campaigns were brutal.
The Democratic Governor's Association ran an "attack" ad against Republican candidate Darren Bailey, pointing out his "extremist" record and rhetoric as a state legislator, specifically his attacks on Governor Pritzker's COVID policy. But it's purpose was to unite far-right voters, split between Bailey and Jesse Sullivan, behind Bailey, to help him get ahead of Irvin and win the GOP nomination. Bailey was perceived by Democrats as easier to beat than Irvin would have been, and more likely than Sullivan to win the GOP nomination.
It worked. Bailey edged out Irvin and Sullivan, and won the GOP nomination. And being a far-right, extremist Republican in Illinois is a decided disadvantage, as polling data is showing. Predictably, Bailey has an edge with downstate Republicans who were upset with the governor's COVID measures, even though Illinois fared far better than any of the large, Republican-controlled states during the pandemic. But Bailey's lead there is not as large as it should be, mainly because there are Republicans who were turned off by the attacks on Irvin, and by Bailey's extremism.
Since his nomination, Bailey has, as anticipated, made several major gaffes and mistakes that have confirmed the opposition's characterization of him as an "extremist." He has a past history of remarks which appear to minimize the Holocaust in a comparison to abortion in America that came off as anti-semitic. That, coupled with remarks he made after the Highland Park shooting, when he said that people should "move on" and "celebrate Independence Day", have put him on the defensive against a governor who is Jewish. And apparently, his social media accounts, which he uses for campaign purposes, have provided Democrats with a treasure trove of racially insensitive remarks and comments that support the characterization of him as an extremist.
On top of that, Bailey has a prissy voice with a slight southern accent and he has a tendency to play to his audience's reactions, and he has a tendency to go off-script and make racially or socially insensitive remarks. It appears that the Pritzker campaign did an excellent job of research in determining which candidate among the GOP field, between Bailey and Irvin, would provide political fodder that made him easier to defeat.
Governor Pritzker is comfortably ahead by double digits, running strong where he should be. Downstate Illinois only becomes a factor in statewide elections when a centrist Republican can get enough support from the five-county suburban area around Chicago to counter the vote from the city. But the kind of support Bailey will require isn't materializing, while the governor's numbers in the city and the suburbs are right about where they were the first time he was elected.
In Pennsylvania, where the state legislature is still heavily gerrymandered in the favor of the GOP, Republicans haven't won a statewide election for quite some time. When the courts forced the congressional districts to be re-drawn, the Democrats doubled their representation in one election cycle in 2018. Both Senator Bob Casey and Governor Tom Wolf coasted to re-election victories over opponents from the far right fringe of the GOP. If the Democrats did the same kind of calculations there as they did in Illinois, then it was an excellent strategy. It actually appears that Pennsylvania voters, including a clear majority of independents and even some Republicans, are running away from the Republican nominees for senator and governor this year.
Traditional Politics No More: We are in a New Era
Political campaigns have become tactical battles. The country has become so polarized, and the extremes so radicalized, especially those on the right who get their politics from talk radio alarmists who have them convinced that the world as they know it will end if a Democrat gets elected to office, that a straight up campaign to convince voters that they're the right choice is no longer enough. Fewer voters are willing to invest the time and energy in getting the facts, and become victims of ideology or a media personality's ego. Isolation inside a political bubble convinces people that there is evidence of voter fraud by the other side because "no one I know voted for that guy." Or because it appeared the attendance at his political rallies was bigger than the other guy's.
We live in the age of Citizens United. The billionaire class set out to buy this country's government and had to get rid of rules that made doing so difficult. Tactics work both ways so there's nothing unfair about it and states make the rules for their political primaries. So if a candidate thinks that his or her campaign funding will be better spent and more effective helping a candidate from the other party win their primary because of the perception that they are the weaker, easier to beat candidate, then go for it. If voters aren't happy with that, and don't like it, then elect someone who will change the rules. Otherwise, don't get upset when Democrats use the same tactics as the GOP to get their people elected to office.
The Bottom Line is to Elect Politicians Committed to Representative, Constitutional Democracy
If it is possible to use some resources to help a weak, extremist candidate to a narrow win in a primary, in order to make it easier for the Democratic candidate to win the election, then that's all part of the process. Unless a GOP nominee actually wins an election, then it's not a victory. Trumpers who won GOP nominations for the senate in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona, are slowly losing support while their Democratic opponents are gaining. The problem they are having, all of them, is that they have to make appearances and hold speaking engagements, and they expose their ineptitude or extremist views which are a turn off to a majority of voters.
Another big clue that this is a tactic that has had a positive effect on the numbers for Democratic candidates is the whining and wailing Republicans are doing about it. In Illinois, Bailey is very much on his heels, evidenced by the defensive posture of the ads he is able to run on a very tight budget and his campaign strategy. I don't think the GOP in Pennsylvania has even been able to catch its breath as Doug Mastriano continues to put his foot in his mouth. I have friends in Arizona who are jubilant over Kari Lake's nomination, not because they like her, but because her negative numbers among Arizona voters are so high.
Extremism's reliance on conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods and "alternative facts" is its demise. It collapses in on itself, and it doesn't have the power to motivate the kind of voter base it needs to win consistently. Apparently, some Democrats are able to see this and are taking advantage of what they see as a flaw in the GOP and an advantage for them. If that means helping a weaker candidate get a nomination, then it's a good strategy when it works.
There is a risk that an extremist who wins a Republican primary might get elected. I've got news for you. Some already have, mainly by hiding their extremism or by not having a well-funded Democratic opponent who could point out how extreme they really are. There's also something to be said for raising money and making sure that there's a Democrat running for every seat, just to expose the extremism. But in the long run, the Trump flag is rapidly waning, and the prospects for Democrats to pick up seats against Trumpie extremists are high, so this is proving to be a good strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment