Democrats took a big risk by pouring millions into ads elevating election-denying candidates in GOP primaries this year. It looks like it paid off.

• Democrats spent millions this year to boost election-denying candidates in GOP primaries.
• That spending prompted internal Democratic strife and criticism from anti-Trump Republicans.

Even as Democrats sounded the alarm about the unprecedented threat posed to democracy by Republicans who denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election, they spent millions of dollars on advertisements designed to boost those very same candidates' chances in some key GOP primaries.

On Wednesday, proponents of that strategy — which surmises that more extreme GOP nominees will be easier for Democrats to take on in the general election — had reason to feel vindicated. In competitive races in states across the country, Republicans who benefited from significant Democratic primary help were all set to go down to defeat.

It's nothing new under the sun.

Perhaps the most well-known case happened in 2012, when then-Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, ran ads highlighting the extreme positions of Rep. Todd Akin, which gave him outsize attention in the Republican primary and helped him win the party's nomination. He then lost in the general election.

While McCaskill's ads were negative on their face, they relied on a kind of reverse psychology in which GOP primary voters would hear Akin's positions and receive them positively.

But the tactic took on a new light this year, given Democratic — and sometimes even Republican — concerns about the threat posed to democracy by election deniers in the weak of January 6. If these candidates are such a danger to the system, some asked, then why spend money to elevate them?

Four key examples of those candidates include:

• Senate candidate Don Bolduc in New Hampshire, projected to lose to Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan.
• House candidate John Gibbs in Michigan, projected to lose to Democratic candidate Hillary Scholten.
• Gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, projected to lose to Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro.
• Gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox of Maryland, projected to lose to Democratic candidate Wes Moore.

Each represented a slightly different version of the same story, some a direct replay of McCaskill's strategy.

Bolduc benefited from the greatest volume of spending, with over $3 million in ads from a Democratic-aligned super PAC spent painting his opponent, state Senate President Chuck Morse, as a "sleazy politician." Democratic gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro spent nearly $900,000 highlighting Mastriano's extreme positions as Pennsylvania's Republican primary was underway in an effort to endear him to voters. In Maryland, the Democratic Governors Association spent over $1 million on ads highlighting Cox's loyalty to Trump.

Perhaps the most controversial instance was in Michigan, where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent over $400,000 on TV ads describing Gibbs as "too conservative" for his district. Gibbs' Republican opponent was Rep. Peter Meijer, one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump and a rare voice willing to break with his own party from time to time.

"As the January 6 Select Committee continues to warn about the ongoing threat to democracy, their own party dues are paying to help elect the same villains they rail against," Meijer wrote in a blistering Substack post days before he lost his primary.

The tactic was undoubtedly controversial, particularly within the Democratic Party.

"I'm not a big fan of spending money on other candidates and messing around," said Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota in a TV interview just days ago. "I will admit that, and I have said that."

And some, including DCCC Chair Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, publicly stood by the practice.

"My job is to win elections for the Democrats," Maloney said in an August interview on Meet The Press. "I understand that there are difficult moral questions, philosophical questions about tactics. That's always true in politics. You better believe it. But here's the deal. We are more likely to win that seat."

But for now, the strategy appears to have largely paid off for the party, though it's unlikely that the debate about such tactics will be settled by this election alone.