In the final days of a notably nasty Republican Senate primary race in Ohio, a conservative candidate is receiving support from an unlikely source – the Democratic Party.
As reported last week by Michael Bender, a Democratic group is spending $2.7 million on an ad highlighting the conservative credentials of Bernie Moreno, a businessman from Cleveland backed by former President Donald Trump. The ad showcases Moreno as a “MAGA Republican” who is deemed “too conservative for Ohio,” a strategy likely to resonate with conservative Ohio primary voters. Party strategists believe Moreno would be a more manageable opponent for incumbent Democratic senator Sherrod Brown in the general election.
Interference in Republican primaries has become a common maneuver for Democrats in recent years, but the ideological complications have increased as President Biden emphasizes the need to protect democracy from Trump-aligned Republicans like Moreno.
In his Senate bid, Moreno has echoed Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election, perpetuating the former president’s unfounded accusations of a “stolen” election and referring to those charged for storming the Capitol as “political prisoners.”
The potential risk of such meddling in primaries is that Democrats could undermine Mr. Biden’s narrative about the threat to democracy and further damage trust in elections, not to mention the possibility that Moreno could emerge victorious in November.
A history of intervention
One of the early instances of Democrats involving themselves in a Republican primary occurred in 2012 when Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the Democratic incumbent, ran ads supporting Todd Akin, a conservative Republican congressman, in securing his party’s nomination. McCaskill recognized that Missouri was veering to the right, and her re-election prospects would benefit from positioning herself as the moderate choice in the race. To achieve that, she needed an extreme Republican opponent.
Her team invested $1.7 million in ads during the Republican primary race, characterizing Akin as the “most conservative congressman in Missouri” and “Missouri’s true conservative.” The strategy paid off as Akin won the Republican nomination but was ultimately defeated by McCaskill in the general election.
Boosting extreme candidates
The strategy has gained traction in recent years, particularly as Republican primary contests have shifted further to the right. In 2022, Democrats spent roughly $53 million supporting far-right Republican candidates who questioned or denied the results of the 2020 election, primarily in Democratic-leaning states.
In another example, Representative Adam Schiff, a Democrat running for Senate in California, allocated $10 million to elevate Steve Garvey, a Republican former baseball star, during the state’s “jungle” primary. Garvey secured the second position, ensuring his advancement to the general election regardless of party affiliation, while Schiff is seen as a strong contender for the Senate.
The approach has also influenced outcomes in swing states. In the 2022 Pennsylvania governor’s race, Democratic nominee Josh Shapiro aired an ad during the Republican primary emphasizing the conservative credentials of Doug Mastriano, a right-wing candidate. Mastriano won the primary but was decisively defeated by Shapiro in the general election.
Navigating risky terrain
Despite the potential benefits, some Democrats caution that this tactic poses a risk to their core message about safeguarding democracy if Trump regains power. Nearly three dozen former Democratic House and Senate lawmakers expressed concerns in 2022, stating that promoting candidates who undermine trust in elections is both risky and unethical.
The strategic meddling in Ohio, a state that has leaned Republican in recent elections, presents a unique challenge. Ohio’s conservative landscape poses a genuine threat to this meddling strategy. While assisting Moreno in securing the Republican nomination may give Brown an edge, Democrats could unwittingly contribute to electing a candidate they vehemently oppose.
Donald Trump’s financial dilemma
Donald Trump’s legal team revealed on Monday that he had been unsuccessful in obtaining a bond of approximately half a billion dollars in his civil fraud case in New York, raising the possibility that the state may seek to freeze some of his bank accounts and seize notable properties.
With the bond deadline approaching and Trump’s inability to secure the full amount, his lawyers acknowledged that a financial crisis may be imminent. Trump has requested the appeals court to pause the $454 million judgment imposed on him in the fraud case or accept a reduced bond of $100 million. Despite diligent efforts, securing the full bond has proven to be a “practical impossibility.”
Trump’s challenge lies in the fact that he lacks sufficient liquid assets to meet the bond’s requirements. Companies offering appeal bonds would demand collateral exceeding $550 million in cash, stocks, and bonds – a sum that surpasses Trump’s available resources. While he owns over $350 million in cash, his net worth is primarily tied to real estate holdings, which bond companies typically do not accept as collateral.
The impending deadline coincides with a precarious moment for Trump, as he recently finalized a $91.6 million bond following a defamation case loss to writer E. Jean Carroll.
