The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.
The Dems are not helping R crazies. They are putting out attack ads on the R crazies and since everyone knows the R base loves their crazy it is being interpreted as a boost or a help to that candidate.
This is a R voter problem and not a D stategery problem.
OK, so since I'm not a 'political strategist' by any stretch of the imagination (I'm neither cunning nor devious enough), maybe you can explain why one would "attack" a primary candidate whom you're not assured of facing in the general election, and spend significant money doing it for a reason other than the one that seems to be a popular take with many pundits? I'm asking seriously, not to gainsay your position, but to try to make sense of this. It doesn't make much sense to me, either way, considering the risk involved.
You are right about R voters being a problem. By my lights they are the *biggest* problem.