Pennsylvania Democrats Say Doug Mastriano Is a Danger to Democracy. Why Did They Help Him Win?
Democratic gubernatorial nominee Josh Shapiro ran ads that boosted Mastriano's GOP primary campaign. There's no way this strategy could ever backfire, right?

During the chaotic 2016 Republican presidential primary, it was something of an open secret that many Democrats were rooting for Donald Trump to emerge as the GOP nominee. Trump, the story went, would be a complete disaster as a general election candidate and would make Hillary Clinton's inevitable ascent to the presidency even more of a sure bet.
"Trump is so unpopular, so unpredictable, such anathema to how politics is run that he surely would be a terrible general election electorate, they argue," Dara Lind wrote for Vox in March 2016, summing up the sentiment among some Democratic activists and voters.
But, Lind presciently added, be careful what you wish for: "If you are someone who does not want Donald Trump to become president of the United States, stop rooting for him to get closer to becoming president of the United States. Much as people had to grapple with the notion that Trump can get the nomination, they must also grapple with this fact: There is a chance that he will win the presidency."
Six years later, Democrats apparently doubled down on that same shaky strategy to help nominate a vocal Trump supporter in the Pennsylvania governor's race. State Sen. Doug Mastriano (R–Fayetteville) participated in the January 6 protest in Washington D.C.—though he alleged he left prior to the violent riot, photos from the scene show Mastriano beyond police barricades (no evidence has emerged showing that he entered the building itself). Mastriano's refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania has stoked worries that he would refuse to certify a prospective Democratic win in 2024 if he wins this year's election. (In Pennsylvania, elections are overseen by the secretary of state, a position appointed by the governor).
On Tuesday, Mastriano triumphed in a three-way race to claim the Republican gubernatorial nomination, putting him one step closer to the governor's mansion. And he did it with help from his Democratic opponent in the general election.
Attorney General Josh Shapiro was running unopposed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Pennsylvania, but his campaign aired several ads during the primary season anyway. One of those ads, which hit the airwaves earlier this month, was effectively an ad for Mastriano—it called the state senator "one of Donald Trump's strongest supporters" and focused on hot-button issues for conservative voters, including Mastriano's stance on abortion, which he wants to ban, and his leading role in the GOP's attempt to reverse President Joe Biden's win in 2020.
Though it's framed as an attack ad, it was also a clever attempt to boost Mastriano's status among Pennsylvania conservatives.
"Shapiro going up on air to help Mastriano win GOP primary," wrote Mark Harris, a Republican political consultant working for a rival primary campaign, wrote on Twitter earlier this month. "Tells you pretty much everything you need to know. Dems know Mastriano is their best chance to win."
Mastriano's grassroots campaign struggled to raise enough money to advertise across all of Pennsylvania. Through the end of the first quarter of the year, his campaign had barely $1 million on hand, while Shapiro's campaign was sitting on a $16 million war chest. Why not use some of that money to help an unelectable Republican win the nomination? What could go wrong?
"I'm going to have to send him a thank you card" Mastriano said of the Shapiro-funded ad, according to LNP's Brad Bumsted.
While Shapiro was boosting Mastriano's message, some Pennsylvania Republicans were working to stop Trump's preferred candidate from winning. Over the past two weeks, other candidates dropped out and endorsed Lou Barletta, a former U.S. congressman and Trump ally who was seen as a less extreme alternative to Mastriano. Think of it as another parallel to 2016, when there was a last-ditch attempt to stop Trump by trying to convince mainstream Republicans to hold their noses and vote for Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas).
Like in 2016, that effort failed. Barletta finished a distant second to Mastriano.
As soon as Mastriano had locked up the Republican nomination on Tuesday night, Shapiro's campaign executed phase two of the plan. In a statement, Shapiro attacked Mastriano as "a dangerous extremist" who seeks to "restrict the right to vote and spread conspiracy theories." You can expect to hear a lot more of that over the next five months.
Getting Mastriano on the top of the GOP ticket in November might be exactly what Democrats in Pennsylvania need to avert a disastrous election cycle. Or it might allow a 2020 election-denier to ride a national Republican wave into the state's highest office. Trump lost Pennsylvania by a scant 80,000 votes in 2020—no one should be confident that Mastriano's chances are nil.
Voters ought to view Mastriano's opinions about the 2020 election as disqualifying. But if Democrats like Shapiro are going to position themselves as defenders of democracy standing against Republican attempts to undermine elections, they really ought to not help those same Republicans get elected.
At best, such cynical politicking makes it more difficult to take seriously their claims about the unique threat posed by Trump-endorsed Republicans. At worst, it could help bring about the very national crisis they claim to be trying to prevent.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Seems to me that claims of purported "threats to democracy" pretty much always really mean "threats to the current political establishment's hold on power".
^100%
I have actually collected $19,220 merely six weeks by easily working part-time on my laptop.~ui70~When I have lost my office post, I was troubled & eventually I obtained this best career achieving this I was able to have thousand of dollars just staying at my home.~ui70~Each individual can start this chance and obtain extra money online by visiting this web-page. https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
I take it as meaning people voting for people we don't like.
Which is ironic considering the illegal changes to elections made by the current political establishment.
^174%
1,000%
Does that include that one time Trump and his mob of cultists tried to overthrow the United States government?
God just dumb as crap. So the guy with horns assumed the desk in the senate. How come he didn’t become our new leader?
I mean it’s between you and the Rev who is the biggest idiot in here
They didn't win the coup attempt. Nobody accused Trumpers of being intelligent. Nevertheless, the attempt was made, and you're making excuses for it.
I think we need more traitors made examples of.
Remember that when the Red Guard put you up against a wall for Trotskyist Fascism and counterrevolutionary sabotage.
It definitely includes that time democrats stole the 2020 election.
#2000mules
You get dumber every time I see you post.
I’ve been radicalized. The Biden years sucking so much more than the Trump years did it.
Sounds like a *you* problem.
We’ll see. Good luck in the midterms!
Shit that didn't happen.
No Tony; That's the Nazi-Regime USA patriots were trying to "overthrow" (which really were just insisting on elections have a little integrity)...
It's quite humorous how Democrats think they're so "democracy" fans but when it comes to INTEGRITY in democracy their 'care' only shows up when Trump wins over Clinton and some crazy notion that a few ads from Russia stole the election. Yet; the massive in-person to mystery votes contradiction I guess was no concern at all.
When Gray Davis ran for governor of California he and the Democrats spent more money supporting a bad candidate that would surely lose in the Republican primary than they spent in the actual election. Davis won. Later, he was recalled, the strategy seen later as the hallmark of the sort of person Davis is.
Shapiro wants five folks in D.C. to decide to uphold abortion rather than letting all the voters in PA decide. So how can he be seen as "upholding our democracy?". Typical elitist hypocrite.
If there was such a "remarkably stable consensus" on abortion, the surely abortion will hold up at the ballot box and legislative chambers of our laboratories of Democracy, right? RIGHT? RIIIGHT?
"Everybody wants unlimited abortion, thus it's too important to leave up to a vote!"
It's funny, the reason I defend the first amendment and the second amendment, (and besides them actually being enumerated rights in the constitution) it is precisely BECAUSE I don't believe there's a "remarkable stable consensus" on the right to bear arms or the right to free speech.
Certainly not.
You really don't need to guarantee rights everyone agrees on.
According to the Constitution as written, free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms should be left up to the states as well, and states like California should be free to restrict it.
Guaranteeing these rights to all Americans in all states is the result of fanciful footwork by SCOTUS, under the incorporation doctrine. And while one might like the outcome, getting there via incorporation in the end causes more problems than it helps.
This is a strategy that Democrats have used before in open primary states.
To flood into Republican primaries to support the candidate they think will be easiest for the Democrats to beat in the general election.
They did it in Missouri with Todd Akin, and they are actually doing it now by trying to push Greitens
What about Clay Akin?
I don't believe he's eligible to run in Missouri.
Over the past two weeks, other candidates dropped out and endorsed Lou Barletta
Most of Barletta's commercials made him look like a mob enforcer.
He'd match well with Fetterman then
Fetterman looks more like a biker than a mob enforcer.
Fetterman is retarded.
>>2020 election-denier
your hate is delicious, Eric
Ask Shapiro if he thinks the 2016 election was stolen? That's pretty much held to be true by most Democrats, yet somehow it's no big deal, unlike Republicans thinking the 2020 election was fraudulent being disqualifying. Despite all the articles about how Democrats "fortified" the election by various sketchy tactics
Most Democrats don't think the '16 election was stolen. They certainly haven't made it a rallying cry after every single investigation showed there was no widespread fraud.
But to be fair, I don't think that most Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen. It is a disturbingly high number, but the GOP isn't dominated by delusional people. Sure, they are the loudest voices in the room and are amplified by the God of the MAGAphone. But they aren't the norm.
Yea most. Ha
So the 35 million Mueller farce was because most Democrats accepted the result
Ok yea sure
Nelson probably still thinks those Russian gifs had some effect; not real bright.
"Most Democrats don't think the '16 election was stolen. They certainly haven't made it a rallying cry after every single investigation showed there was no widespread fraud..."
How long were you under that rock?
Did you miss four years of Russia Hoax and numerous Democrats, including Clinton, saying the election was stolen and Trump was an illegitimate president. Fuck Hillary said that shit last week you lying fuck.
I don't know why you consider Hillary Clinton to be someone worth listening to. I think she's untrustworthy and prone to, in the most generous description, hyper-exaggeration. But mostly she lies.
Are you effing kidding? Democrats impeached the president for "Russian collusion".
Unlike the Democratic party, which is dominated by delusional people.
You don't even try to be reasonable about what the Mueller Report said or what the impeachment was about, do you? SMH
I'm from Mastriano's home county and I used to like him very much when he'd come on the air as an Army officer and speak about world events. He's incredibly intelligent and well educated on history and foreign affairs without coming off as pedantic. I don't care for the Maga twist he's taken as a politician. Personally I suspect he's too intelligent to believe much of what he's been spouting about the 2020 election.
That said, Barletta was the classic Pennsylvania GOP mainstream candidate to fill the role of Honorable Designated Loser. Shapiro is a shrewd candidate, quite popular with the left, and it's going to take a fighter to beat him. Mastriano might be just the one to do that.
Readers will observe that the principle put forth is that one looter is intelligent enough to knowingly lie to the voters. How charmingly obsolete.
Statistical probability/plausibility is on his side regarding 2020, but you do you.
Democrats say everything that is good or decent is a threat to democracy. When they say 'democracy', they mean their neo-marxist corruption.
When they say Democracy, they mean Democratcy.
Yes, they mean "democracy" as understood in socialist countries: single party, majoritarian authoritarianism with unlimited state power.
Mastriano had the nerve to call for a forensic audit. Eric Boehm has had almost two years to state his position, pro or con, on such an audit. Until Boehm plainly states where he stands on such audits he is unqualified to write articles for a libertarian web site or print magazine.
There was an inquiry in PA. You complaint is that, like every other inquiry throughout the country (with zero exceptions), there were no unusual or widespread irregularities.
Because the election wasn't stolen.
Ha yea the folks who ran the election checked themselves. All was well. I’m stunned too.
I was planning on trying that tactic next time the IRS calls
Yes, it is a massive conspiracy involving thiusands of people, many of whom voted for Trump, and not a single one has flipped or let the truth slip. The probability of a massive, nationalized fraud involving election officials from red and blue states, law enforcement, several Secretary of States and their staffs, and the various third-party audits like CyberNinjas (who wanted to fond fraud and couldn't) is so unlikely it is indistinguishable from zero.
You can either accept reality or continue to believe something that has zero evidence for it and massive evidence against it. But when people laugh at you and think you are a zealot or a fool or an idiot, know that you brought it on yourself.
You mean the people who yet again fucked up the counting in Lancaster county, two years after they made multiple mistakes, and then investigated themselves and declared nothing is wrong last time, yet still fucked it up this year. Yeah I am totally convinced by them.
There were certainly widespread irregularities: illegal alterations of voting procedures, collusion between the press and the Democratic party, illegal ballot harvesting, etc. Those were likely sufficient to swing the election for Biden.
What we don't have much evidence for is widespread voter fraud.
And none of the things that you are pretending constitute a "stolen" election are actually stealing an election. The irregularities across the country were similar to rates in past elections. There may have been a slight uptick in Republicans voting fraudulently (since it is usually pretty even).
Moving the goalposts doesn't help you convince anyone because the evidence of the things you are talking about is also unconvincing. In order to have an election stolen you have to, at some point, prove that there were fraudulent votes. Tens of thousands of them.
Arguing that the process was wrong and a valid vote cast by a valid voter should be tossed because the signature wasn't exactly the same (which would actually be a strong indication of fraud) or that the vote was brought in by the wrong person or the legislature or executive changed a rule to allow that valid vote from a valid voter to be cast isn't theft. It's sour grapes.
More valid voters cast their vaild votes for Biden over Trump. There is no evidence that those valid votes weren't, in fact, valid. Until you can prove that a massive conspiracy exists and that valid votes are, in fact, fraudulent, you are pushing something you want to believe and ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you.
According to nationalsocialist Trumpistas, not a single reason writer is fit to so much as scribble obscenities on a bathroom wall. Yet most of the good ones are still here. Surely that says something about how much value subscribers attribute to unsolicited opinions from looter lewsers.
^this
Trumptard commenters live to whine about Reason writers.. I think it fills the void where principles and good cheer used to dwell
The tactic was a specialty of Harry Reid in Nevada. In 2010, with the Tea Party movement for the right, Reid was at risk to lose to Sue Lowden, a more centrist Republican. Angle never had a chance as even the Republican mayor of Reno endorsed Reid, along with many other Republican power brokers.
The Reid machine did the same in many lower level races in Nevada.
I was baffled by the number of people who mourned Reid when he died, at least when the cameras were running.
What else can Kleptocracy looters do? The only reason any non-gang-member votes for any of them is cowardly fear that the threatening predictions they struggle to believe are The Truth about the other looters. They certainly cannot point to any past successes in increasing freedom, defending rights, rebuilding an economy or shunning foreign entanglements. Libertarian candidates can do all of these things with seldom the inconvenience of having to hold office next to force-initiating looters.
On another subject is it just me or doesn't McCormick look like Dorian Tyrell from The Mask after he the mask on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUH5J-L4H4E&ab_channel=GawdDamRicky
A 1933 German communist poster whined that Hitler the soi-disant socialist in power "hadn't expropriated a single capitalist." That October his referendum to quit the League of Nations turned out 96% of voters, and 95% supported Hitler. TV's answer to Lord Haw Haw, John Oliver, offered to send Trump some money if he would run for office. Today, pregnant women are hunted in Texas like Jews in Positive Christian Germany or escaped slave girls in Uncle Tom's Cabin.
SloJoe and the Hoe did in fact steal the election from Trump...the evidence is clear and convincing.
If by "clear and convincing" you mean non-existent and delusional, sure.
The theory is sound, but I do wonder if Democrats shouldn't switch it up and start boosting milquetoast Republican hedge funders. Sometimes they can get rid of one of the crazies when they do something specifically crazy, like be a witch or fuck their cousin on camera. But nobody goes down like a Mitt Romney. General election voters are united in their hatred of guys like that.
Presumably the Chamber of Commerce and Heritage and those sorts of outfits would have liked for the country to backslide into authoritarianism and one of those guys would be the caretaker of their regime. But you can't get the real thing without some painted nutbar on top. It just doesn't work any other way.
Democrats aren’t about to get slammed in the midterms because of how well they do democracy.
Which party was in charge when they created a ministry of truth then had to backtrack because people complained? Yeah, what fucking authoritarianism occurred before 2021? You fucking liar.
Maybe you meant all the reporters Obama threw in prison?
Right... Remember Dinesh D'Souza....
The left are literally Nazi's -- It's hard to deny.
I'm sorry they backtracked. All of you people need to be deprogrammed. The things you believe aren't true. That's the whole problem with this country. You think you're smarter than all the scientists in the world because you read some shitty blog.
That’s just a story you tell yourself.
So Eric so if you disagree with an election outcome you’re disqualified from future ones? How libertarian of you.
Can we apply that standard to the 2016 election? Should Hillary and Stacey Abrams be disqualified?
So Eric, Mastriano and the PA legislature have oversight authority over the executive branch. But Shapiro stonewalled their efforts to have an independent audit.
Does that disqualify Shapiro?
Eric, PA Democrats including the partisan Supreme Court ruled that election laws didn’t need to be followed. So spare me the Democrats are concerned about Mastriano and Democracy
What a joke
It's funny Shapiro thought getting rid of the "mystery votes" and supporting Trumps LIMITED Government ideology would strike the people of PA as a bad thing....
There are WAY too many Nazi-Fans in this nation when such items become an "insult"...
So? More ratfucking, which has been going on since Hamilton tried to make Pinkney president instead of Adams or Jefferson.
This is just hilarious. It reminds me of early in 2016 when the media was putting Trump on every news show non-stop, just to show-case him for ratings. They KNEW he could never beat Hillary.
It's not about ideology or anything else other than sheer power. This is why both the Democrat and Republican parties are disgusting. Democrats gave us Trump but didn't realize how despised and weak of a candidate Hillary was. Trump was the better terrible option of the two, just like Trump was the better terrible option between Biden and Trump. None of the three ever should have been elected. I really hate voting against a candidate, but prefer to vote for a candidate instead. Of course, my candidates are always third-party and never win, but my conscious is always clean.
And what in your mind made Trump so “terrible”?
And if any of those third-party loons ever had any power, you'd find out why they're shitty people too.
Every election in the history of elections has been a choice between imperfect people. Your conscience needs not get involved at all.
Don’t worry, next Democrats are going to insult him as The Great Maga Prince and then he will surely lose!
See, here's the thing, Trump didn't lose Pennsylvania. leftist 'fortification' stole it.
And anyone who knows that and is willing to pursue the issue will get elected in the next cycle.
Because heads NEED to roll.
So the courts are now also part of the conspiracy? And the fact that those votes were, at a rate similar to every other election, legal and valid isn't a counterargument to your delusion?
And if they were actually illegal, why haven't any charges been brought? Or were they brought to court and judeged in a way that you don't like, so you just keep saying that they were illegal because you don't like the result.
If your argument is that the election was stolen and there is evidence of it but it is all being suppressed or ignored because of a multilevel conspiracy (local and state election officials and law enforcement as well as the judiciary) involving those who wanted to see the same outcome as you as well as those who didn't, you are not a credible or rational person on this issue.
No one has ever produced any evidence of a stolen 2020 election. No one ever will. Because it didn't happen.