Once Again, the Iron Law of Institutions
For those of you who do not recall this dictum, it states that, The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution “fail” while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution.”
In this case, I am referring to the super PACs that the Connor Lamb campaign is coordinating with in has battle to be the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Pennsylvania against Lt. Governor John Fetterman.
Lamb is a DINO and a disloyal Democrat, (he’s a part of the “Problem Solvers” caucus) so it is no surprise that they are going after Fetterman with accusations that are both false and damaging to the party.
It’s kind of what the so-called moderates do:
A super PAC backing Pennsylvania Senate candidate Conor Lamb is warning prospective donors that he is trailing frontrunner John Fetterman by 30 percentage points in the Democratic primary — and that the public’s perception of his opponent’s ideology must change for Lamb to have a shot.
“[P]rimary voters don’t yet see Fetterman as the liberal he is,” reads a memo circulated by the pro-Lamb group Penn Progress, which was obtained by POLITICO. “For Conor Lamb to have a path in the primary, this dynamic needs to change.”
Unlike the bloodbath taking place in Pennsylvania’s Republican primary, the contest on the Democratic side has been a relatively tame affair. Fetterman and Lamb haven’t laid a finger on each other on TV, and no outside Democratic groups have aired attack ads on television either.
The nine-page slide deck disseminated by Penn Progress after a recent fundraising call with donors suggests that could soon change.
The document highlights the testing of aggressive negative messaging against Fetterman, who is Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor, including that he is a “dangerous radical who proudly calls himself a socialist,” “supports far-left policies like a $34 trillion-dollar government takeover of healthcare,” and has “spoken at Defund the Police rallies and wants to release convicted felons back onto our streets.”
This is all lies (Fetterman does support M4A, but tepidly), but when all you have as an asset is big money donors, you spend it like water, enriching the consultants, and run against your own party, because you are pond scum:
Abby Nassif-Murphy, Lamb’s campaign manager, shot back: “This material did not come from our campaign. But the fact that John Fetterman thinks only Fox News Republicans oppose socialism, defunding the police, and banning all private health insurance shows how out of touch he is with reality and why the Republicans are dying to run against him in the fall.”
A recent email promoting the pro-Lamb group to potential donors said the congressman would join an upcoming call, after which a leader of the super PAC would speak. Though many Democrats bristle at the practice, it is legal for candidates to talk to super PAC donors and even attend their fundraisers, as long as they don’t personally ask for contributions in excess of their own campaign finance limits.
And here is the kicker:
The presentation also showcased a separate survey done in mid-February on a potential general election match-up. It found Fetterman initially leading celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz by 9 percentage points, while Lamb was ahead by 3.
Yeah, the “electable” moderate is doing 6 points worse.
Standing on a hillside, screaming, “Better things aren’t possible,” is not a winning electoral strategy.