In 2015, the Hillary Clinton campaign exhibited the hubris for which politicians have been associated since the dawn of civilization.
Instead of relying on a strategy of promoting Hillary herself, Clinton insiders plied what they called “Pied Piper candidates,” Republican hopefuls who, they theorized, would shift mainstream candidates further “right,” thus making the ultimate winners unpalatable to enough general election voters to win Hillary the election. There were three they identified: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Donald Trump.
We know how this worked out.
In California, Democrats are returning to
The serpentine Adam Schiff, who is running to fill the slot formerly occupied by Senator Diane Feinstein, has directed $11 million in the primary “to elevate a GOP candidate,” according to The Washington Post.
“The ads argue that Republican Steve Garvey — a congenial former pro baseball player for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres who voted twice for Donald Trump but won’t say if he will do so again — is too conservative for California and highlight his recent surge, in an apparent effort to consolidate support for him on the right.”
The idea is to boost Garvey with Republican primary voters in hopes that Garvey takes the second of two spots available for the November election under California’s Top Two system, becauseSchiff’s people think Garveyis easier to defeat than liberal Democrat “Rep. Katie Porter, whom Schiff and his backers would prefer to avoid facing come November in this left-leaning state.”
But can this strategy really work in California? The ads portray Garvey as more Trumpian than he probably is, and recent polling suggests that Schiff and Garvey are now neck-and-neck.
A review of the Clinton metaphor, “Pied Piper,” shows how slippery the strategy can be. The “Pied Piper of Hamelin” is a cautionary tale.
The Democrats’support may go the way of rats
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Pied Pipers, Again”
From a Machiavellian perspective, a pied-piper strategy makes considerable sense.
A pied-piper strategy had seemed to work in 2002, when Democrats acted to help William Edward (“Bill”) Simon jr defeat Richard Joseph Riordan in the pursuit of the Republican nomination for Governor of the State of California. Simon had more appeal than did Riordan to Republicans, while Riordan had previously managed to be elected as Mayor of the City of Los Angeles in 1993 and again in 1997. Governor Joseph Graham (“Gray”) Davis then won reëlection against Simon, though Davis had a low approval rating and high disapproval rating (and was later removed by recall vote).
Clinton of course lost in 2016, but she was considerably more repugnant than was Davis, and fighting an election not confined to California; she probably would have lost by a still wider margin (and lost the popular vote) against any of the other candidates who had sought the Republican nomination, with the exception of John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush.
Even in California, Schiff may also lose, but he too is very repugnant, and he hasn’t had the option of literally running against Trump.
Why shouldn’t this strategy work in California? The state is controlled by Democrats. The unified primary system all but guarantees that, barring unforeseen circumstances, no Republican will ever win statewide office in CA. Even if Garvey manages to come in second, how many Dems who voted for Porter or Schiff will vote for him?