Are Democrats actually concerned about democracy being under threat...?

[West_Midlander]

Are Democrats actually concerned about democracy being under threat given that they sometimes fund hard-right Rs in primaries over moderates?

It's not a sure gamble given that Clinton helped Trump get nominated because she thought he would be easier to beat. In Maryland, it's a safe bet for Dems but it isn't always.

[Trans Rights Are Human Rights]

The leadership? Probably not, at least, not enough to keep ratf[inks]ing off the table. The rank and file? Probably.

[Beet]

No, Trump has never seriously threatened "democracy".

The ways in which the U.S. is already not democratic (despite having an electoral form of government) preceded Trump and have little to do with him, apart from his appointment of Supreme Court justices.

[TPIG]

they sometimes fund hard-right Rs in primaries over moderates?

Something which p*sses me off to no end. STOP ASSUMING ANTI-DEMOCRACY AGENTS CAN'T WIN AN ELECTION. As others have alluded to, I believe most Democratic voters do genuinely care about upholding our system, but leadership is playing with the worst kind of fire by engaging in this type of chicanery.

[Mr. Smith]

Naively so on their part, but yes.

[Ferguson97]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

[TPIG]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

[_.]

Only those who watch too much MSNBC and CNN

[Ferguson97]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent. 

[TPIG]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent. 

Oh I fully understand the thinking. That just sounds like a defense of Democratic seats, not of democracy, though. Election denalism should be wholeheartedly rejected at every single stage where it presents itself.

[OSR stands with Israel]

they sometimes fund hard-right Rs in primaries over moderates?

Something which p*sses me off to no end. STOP ASSUMING ANTI-DEMOCRACY AGENTS CAN'T WIN AN ELECTION. As others have alluded to, I believe most Democratic voters do genuinely care about upholding our system, but leadership is playing with the worst kind of fire by engaging in this type of chicanery.

It’s a strategy stuck in a very different time cause now days there may be some cases where those candidates may be more likely to win then the others .

[Pericles]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent. 

Oh I fully understand the thinking. That just sounds like a defense of Democratic seats, not of democracy, though. Election denalism should be wholeheartedly rejected at every single stage where it presents itself.

Democrats don't see a difference between the two though.

[Benjamin Frank]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent. 

Posted on politicalwire:
Ayman al-Zawahri was a violent religious fundamentalist and terrorist who hated women, homosexuals and American democracy.

He was so extreme, some even confused him for being a moderate Republican.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

The pearl-clutching over the DCCC intervening in the MI-03 primary has been completely overblown. The difference between 100 election-denying GOP representatives and 101 election-denying GOP representatives is really not that material, and Scholten's odds of winning the general have greatly increased.

It's a slightly different story in gubernatorial and presidential elections, where a terrible GOPer who slips through the cracks will be able to do much more unilateral damage.

[Schiff for Senate]

they sometimes fund hard-right Rs in primaries over moderates?

Something which p*sses me off to no end. STOP ASSUMING ANTI-DEMOCRACY AGENTS CAN'T WIN AN ELECTION. As others have alluded to, I believe most Democratic voters do genuinely care about upholding our system, but leadership is playing with the worst kind of fire by engaging in this type of chicanery.

Agreed 100%. Don't underestimate how far-right, crazy or radical the GOP base is in 2022. It's not 2012 anymore where a controversial comment on abortion will sway enough GOP voters to win an election in a red state or district. In 2022, GOP voters have unironically voted to nominate far-rightists like Doug Mastriano. YOU (as in Democrats generally) should go the straightforward path and try to recruit the strongest candidates, and then spend money on (WINNABLE - not like KY-SEN or SC-SEN in 2020) GE races.

[Schiff for Senate]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent.  

Oh I fully understand the thinking. That just sounds like a defense of Democratic seats, not of democracy, though. Election denalism should be wholeheartedly rejected at every single stage where it presents itself.

I think you and Ferguson also fundamentally see differently on which Republicans are actually a threat to democracy, and that that is an underrated factor in your debate with him.

To my understanding, you consider only certain very far-right Republicans and Big Lie proponents to be threats to democracy, and not people like Mitch McConnell or Mike Pence, whereas Ferguson, as I understand it, thinks that most Republicans (and by no means just the ones who vocally believe the Big Lie), including those that do not peddle the Big Lie (such as, say, McConnell), are fundamentally anti-democracy.

So to you, anybody who doesn't support the Big Lie or Stop the Steal or overturning 2020 or whatever, is pro-democracy, whether they be Democratic or Republican, and the goal is solely to prevent Big Lie believers from winning races (whether by defeating them in the primaries and electing anti - Big Lie Republicans, or by defeating them in the GE and electing Democrats). But to Ferguson, most Republicans are inherently anti-democracy (including many who you would absolutely NOT consider anti-democracy), so the goal is to elect Democrats, and, as often as possible, to avoid Republicans from winning.

To him, there is less of a distinction between Republicans who believe the Big Lie and Republicans who don't, than there is to you. This also makes sense given that Ferguson is a loyal liberal/Democratic partisan who hates Republicans, whereas you are for the most part fairly conservative and tend to support and agree with the vast majority of anti Big Lie Republicans (in fact, I daresay, aside from the death penalty, your only major disagreement with the GOP is on the Big Lie and Trump).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes.

Implementing a bad defense strategy doesn't mean you don't think the threat is real.

It's not even a defense strategy, though. Propping up big-lie proponents to "defend" democracy quite literally undermines democracy by allowing these people to get one step closer to power, via being in the general election.

The line of thinking is that it will increase the odds that a Democrat beats them, compared to running against a moderate R.

I'm not necessarily condoning it, but it's internally consistent.  

Oh I fully understand the thinking. That just sounds like a defense of Democratic seats, not of democracy, though. Election denalism should be wholeheartedly rejected at every single stage where it presents itself.

To him, there is less of a distinction between Republicans who believe the Big Lie and Republicans who don't, than there is to you. This also makes sense given that Ferguson is a loyal liberal/Democratic partisan who hates Republicans, whereas you are for the most part fairly conservative and tend to support and agree with the vast majority of anti Big Lie Republicans (in fact, I daresay, aside from the death penalty, your only major disagreement with the GOP is on the Big Lie and Trump).

Ehh he has mentioned before he is pretty left wing on economics now so I would say overall he is more like Christian Man when it comes to views than say someone like RFayette

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes. Of course there is more to democracy being at threat than just election denial, 1/6, and such, some of which all Republicans are a party to (including opposition to HR1 and HR51).

[Badger]

Overwhelmingly absolutely so. And with Just Cause.

Problem isn't that Democrats supposedly don't care or feign interest - citation seriously needed hyphen but that Republicans objectively and manifestly support this.