Kelly Schulz is every bit a classic conservative. To her, being a Republican is “about small government, it’s about less taxes, it’s about good education, it’s about individual freedoms.” Her words hearken back to an older Republican Party, one defined by traditional conservative values. Endorsed by her mentor, Maryland’s popular outgoing Republican governor, Larry Hogan, Schulz seemed like the obvious choice to be his successor.
Schulz’s main opponent in the Republican primary race, Dan Cox, represented the pro-Trump Republican faction. A disciple of the falsehood that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, Cox holds an often conspiratorial set of views that have come to define far-right politics over the past ten years. Schulz, unafraid to criticize these beliefs publicly, went into election night with full confidence in her ability to prevail.
But as one county after another tallied their counts, Schulz’s chances changed from uncertain to fading, then to bleak. At 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 19, Schulz stepped out on stage to deliver a few remarks. With her family behind her, she vowed to her crowd of supporters not to give up until the results were certain. By that Friday, they were. Schulz had lost the nomination to Trump-endorsed Cox.
Given that Trump’s influence still looms large in the Republican Party, Cox’s victory was not especially remarkable. However, one detail was unusual: the Democratic Governors Association had spent $1.7 million to help Cox win.
***
It wasn’t just Cox. Other right-wing beneficiaries of Democratic spending included Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial election; Darren Bailey for governor in Illinois; John Gibbs of Michigan’s 3rd House district; and Donald Bolduc and Robert Burns for New Hampshire’s Senate seat and 2nd House district, respectively. Each of these six candidates won their Republican primaries with the help of Democratic spending this year — not to mention seven additional conservative candidates who benefited from ads in the primaries but did not advance to the general election.
This midterm election cycle had huge stakes for both parties. Vulnerable Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and ten contested governorships were on the ballot. If Republicans flipped either house of Congress, they could hobble the Democrats’ domestic agenda. The results of governors’ races could determine state-level action on issues ranging from gun control to abortion access.
With this in mind, Democrats employed a novel, hard-ball political strategy: running ads in favor of the most extreme, most Trump-loyal candidates. Organizations like the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) poured nearly $54 million into funding far-right candidates across the country. Spending on a candidate from another party is a counterintuitive idea that violates what seem to be the basic rules of partisan division, particularly when the resources are directed to the candidates who stand the furthest from your party ideologically. But the strategy follows a cold logic: a more extreme candidate has greater difficulty appealing to moderate and centrist voters and therefore is easier to defeat in a general election.
Tylir Fowler, a second-year Yale PhD student studying political science, recognizes the political logic of this approach. “In competitive electoral races, I can see that [strategy] as being pretty effective,” said Fowler, who focuses on populism and the electoral influence of money and interest groups. He pointed out that academic research compellingly suggests that more extreme candidates fare poorly in general elections.
The entire strategy hinges on advertisements’ influence on the opinions of the voting public. While research on the effectiveness of general election ads is mixed, Fowler said that “ads can definitely play a role” in primaries. He explained that primary candidates cannot rely on voters falling back on partisan identification when casting their vote, and instead have to focus on building their brands and name recognition.
During GOP primaries, Democratic advertisements sought both to portray Trump-backed candidates as more conservative than their opponents and boost their name recognition. Ads that linked Cox to Trump strengthened his standing with the Republican base, while potentially weakening his general election prospects, especially in a blue state like Maryland. Democratic spending elevating Cox, Schulz said, “helped increase the name recognition of one candidate over the others.” Advertisements mean name recognition, and name recognition means primary success.
The Democrats used their money as a thumb on the scales, a way to tip the balance in these primaries to make sure the most extreme candidates won. In Maryland, Cox defeated Schulz by a margin of fewer than 26,000 votes. In this race, not just every vote counted, but every ad, too.
***
Supporting extreme primary candidates comes with an inherent risk: what happens if the far-right individual wins their election? “Elevating these candidates is just not a wise strategy,” said Micah English, a first year Yale PhD student in Political Science studying race and ethnic politics. English pointed to examples of successful far-right candidates. “As we have seen, like with the election of Donald Trump and with the election of all these other anti-democratic candidates, people are still going to vote for them,” she argued. In 2016, some Democrats celebrated when Donald Trump won the Republican primary under the assumption that his extreme style of conservatism would spell defeat in a general election. It didn’t.
Beyond concerns over the risk of defeat, Democrats have expressed worry over the long-term strategic and moral implications of this spending. Kyle Mayer ‘22, a former president of the Yale Democrats, spoke to The Politic in his personal capacity. “I find it, in a few words, grossly irresponsible,” Mayer said. “We are really at a democratic inflection point in this country.” Mayer suggested that by bringing attention to extremist candidates, Democratic leaders are boosting anti-democratic ideals that undermine the very basis of the already-fragile US democracy. Mayer does not believe “the ends justify the means.”
Alvaro Perpurly ‘22, who has worked or volunteered on over 30 Democratic campaigns, agreed that Democrats are giving right-wing extremists “a platform to speak up.” All thirteen GOP candidates supported by Democrat-backed organizations in 2022 refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election, made baseless claims about the occurrence of fraud, or supported President Trump’s actions leading up to the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
Mayer mused that the very act of “trying to manipulate” the internal processes of another party could itself undermine democracy. Similarly, Fowler said that by interfering with the outcomes of primary elections, the Democratic Party “might undermine the will” of those within the Republican Party, sabotaging the GOP’s ability to democratically choose candidates.
Schulz questioned whether Democratic voters and donors are fully on board with their strategists’ tactics. “If I were a Democrat, I don’t know if I would feel really happy about it,” she said. Schulz posited that it might be frustrating for some Democrats to have their hard-earned money spent on extreme candidates from the other party.
But to some Democrats, the high stakes might mean that an otherwise immoral strategy is now justified. Fowler, the political science PhD student, argued that from a Democrat’s perspective, the moral dilemma of uplifting far-right candidates is “not negligible.” However, “the benefits might outweigh the ethical concerns.” Perpuly similarly expressed that he understands the logic of the strategy, especially considering in light of what he sees as even more unsavory attempts by the GOP to subvert election results. “With so much at stake, it’s easy to see why they do this,” he said. “It’s my hope that we can get to a place where this does not have to happen.”
Democrats who feel this tactic was justified can point to one piece of evidence in their favor: it worked. After Cox defeated Schulz in the Maryland gubernatorial primary, he went on to lose the governor’s race to Democrat Wes Moore in November by nearly 30 percent. In fact, in all six races where Democrats intervened to elevate extreme Republican primary candidates, the Republican lost the general election. Nationally, voters in the 2022 election rebuked candidates with anti-abortion stances and patterns of election denialism – exactly the kind of candidates that the Democrats elevated with this strategy. Forty-four percent of voters cited worries over the future over democracy as a primary concern in the midterm election, according to exit polls from the Associated Press. The Democrats’ gambit to win more races paid off.
***
Publicly, top Democrats have condemned the wing of the Republican Party that has undermined elections and refused to accept election results. Many have called for a reformed GOP. “I do believe that our democracy is in danger because of what the other side is saying about undermining our election,” said Nancy Pelosi in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on November 7, the day before the general election. “I do think a great deal of the healing has to come within the Republican Party itself. And it’s not up to me to tell them how to shape themselves.”
Do Democratic expenditures supporting extremist Republican candidates actively subvert this cause? A Democratic victory in Congress does not necessarily help stamp out anti-democratic ideology. To defeat extremism within the Republican Party, Democrats may need the help of moderate Republican candidates and voters alike, but the perceived hypocrisy of Democrats may undermine bipartisan efforts to create a healthier democratic culture. Peter Meijer, a Republican representative from Michigan’s 3rd district who lost his primary to a far-right Republican supported by Democratic ads, publicly expressed anger with the Democrats over this funding. “I’m sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party,” he said in an interview with Politico. Meijer is one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the January 6th insurrection.
The influence of an ideology cannot just be measured by the number of congressional seats held or the number of governor’s mansions occupied. The Dan Coxes and the Doug Mastiranos of the political world do not have to hold office for their views to matter. Thousands of people still turned out to vote for candidates willing to deny election results and espouse social views far from those of the median voter. In 2022, Democrats’ interventions in GOP primaries helped them maximize their electoral success. However, it might be too early to evaluate the long-term consequences of turning up the volume on anti-democratic rhetoric in an already unstable political environment. There is no guarantee that the public will deem far-right extremists unelectable forever. Democrats must reckon with whether they are harming democracy in the name of saving it.