For those who don't instantly recognize the pop culture reference inherent in that title, I would direct you to a poorly-videotaped homemade copy (starts at 1:15 in) of Rob Lowe appearing on Saturday Night Live and doing the best "Shaggy" impression ever seen, standing (of course) next to Scooby Doo. Those darn kids are always meddling....

However, what the title actually refers to is no laughing matter. Because powerful groups within the Democratic Party have indeed been meddling in Republican primaries. They have been spending money -- money ostensibly and supposedly for supporting Democrats trying to get elected to Congress or statewide offices -- on ads which are designed to boost a particular Republican's chances of winning his or her GOP primary race.

The logic is simple, based on basic games theory. If there's going to be a tight race for a congressional district or even a governorship, Democrats have been promoting the Trumpiest of candidates because they figure, "this candidate will be far easier to beat in the general election, since they are so obviously extreme." They run ads which are rather obviously meant to be backhanded compliments for such candidates -- mentioning how conservative they are, how close they are to Donald Trump, and also mentioning some of their extreme positions on things like border control. Republican voters who see the ads will then flock to the banner of the most extreme candidate. After the extremist wins their GOP primary, the Democratic candidate is then theoretically supposed to have a much easier time beating them.

This strategy can work, it must be admitted. But it can also backfire -- spectacularly. "Exhibit A" which proves this would have to be: Donald Trump. I certainly wasn't the only one who was initially delighted that Trump was running in 2016, because I was following the same logic: "He'll be pathetically easy to beat!" As it turned out, of course, he wasn't.

Some Democrats are not happy about this development, as Politico points out:

In public statements, private chats and complaints taken directly to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic members are aghast that the committee is spending nearly half a million dollars to air ads boosting Donald Trump-endorsed John Gibbs over Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), who voted to impeach Trump last year.

. . .

"No race is worth compromising your values in that way," said Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), who sits on the committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and Trump's election-subverting schemes that preceded it.

Democrats, like Murphy, fear the strategy could easily backfire, if a candidate like Gibbs were to win the general election amid a GOP wave -- and the party also risks undercutting its own core message about the dangers of MAGA Republicans taking power. It could be harder for Democrats to claim that certain GOP candidates are an existential threat to the country if they are also using party money to push them closer to winning office.

. . .

"Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing," said Murphy, who is not seeking reelection this fall.

. . .

"It's dishonorable, and it's dangerous, and it's just damn wrong," said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who said his party was at risk of accelerating the loss of the remaining "truly honorable and courageous Republicans" like Meijer, who was one of just 10 in his party to impeach Trump last year.

. . .

"Dirty games like this are part and parcel of political campaigns. But when you talk about putting money behind candidates who want to come to Washington and destroy our democracy... it's not a political, dirty trick anymore," Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) said. "It's unconscionable."

Some of the sharpest criticism, unsurprisingly, came from Meijer himself.

"I'm sick and tired of hearing the sanctimonious bullshit about the Democrats being the pro-democracy party," the Republican incumbent said.

You've got to admit, he's got a point. Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger, who sits on the House Select Committee on January 6th, called such meddling "disgusting," and added: "Don't come to me after having spent money supporting an election denier in a primary, and then come to me and say, 'Where are all the good Republicans?'"

Almost half a million dollars spent to boost an odious Republican might seem like a lot, but it is dwarfed by another GOP primary race Democrats meddled in. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker wanted to stymie the establishment Republicans in his state who were promoting Richard Irvin, so he threw an absolute fortune into promoting the extremist Darren Bailey instead:

Mr. [Darren] Bailey has been aided by an unprecedented intervention from Mr. [J.B.] Pritzker and the Pritzker-funded Democratic Governors Association, which have spent nearly $35 million combined attacking Mr. [Richard] Irvin while trying to lift Mr. Bailey. No candidate for any office is believed to have ever spent more to meddle in another party's primary.

(There's that M-word again...)

Irvin spent over $50 million in the primary, but wound up losing to Bailey by over 40 points.

When Democratic leadership is challenged on the tactic, their answer is, essentially: "the ends justify the means." Here's how the D.C.C.C. explained things (in that Politico article):

"The D.C.C.C. is laser focused on holding the House majority, which we will accomplish by fighting for every competitive seat," D.C.C.C. spokesperson Helen Kalla said in a statement. "Kevin McCarthy is an anti-choice insurrectionist coddler and conspiracy enabler, and we will do what it takes to keep the speaker's gavel out of his hands."

Whatever it takes. The stakes are high, yadda yadda yadda.

This will all most likely be forgotten or forgiven by most people, even in the political world -- but only if it works perfectly. If all the extremists do go on to lose their general elections, then few Democrats are going to complain all that loudly. But if one or two of them manage to ride a red wave into office, it's going to appear disastrously short-sighted and risky. And the stakes are indeed high.

The Washington Post examined the issue from another angle, documenting the extremist beliefs of some of the candidates Democrats have been spending money boosting. The scariest of these is Doug Mastriano, who is now the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Pennsylvania -- and has a decent shot of winning his general election.

Several of the candidates Democrats have sought to boost have cozied up to the QAnon movement, and at least three of them were in Washington on Jan. 6.

Both [Doug] Mastriano and Maryland gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox (who won his primary last week) organized buses for the protesters, and both Mastriano and Colorado Senate candidate Ron Hanks (who lost his primary) marched to the Capitol. Both have said they didn't enter the Capitol, but video apparently shows Mastriano crossing police lines and breaching barricades. (He also has said he abided by police lines and that, "When it was apparent that this was no longer a peaceful protest, my wife and I left the area.")

Mastriano led the effort to not certify, and to later decertify, President Biden's win in Pennsylvania. He would wield considerable power over future elections in the state if he were governor, including by virtue of his ability to appoint his own secretary of state. A Senate Judiciary Committee report has noted that he "raised a litany of false and debunked claims of widespread election fraud." He held hearings to promote such claims, and also contacted the Justice Department about them and coordinated with the Trump campaign.

Mastriano was also joined by Cox in speaking at an April conference in Gettysburg, Pa., which prominently featured QAnon and other conspiracy theories, including about 9/11, vaccines, John F. Kennedy and Adolf Hitler. Cox called Vice President Mike Pence a "traitor" on Jan. 6 -- even as the Capitol was under siege. He also called on Trump to seize voting machines and falsely claimed that voter fraud was "rampant."

Cox comes from a blue state and faces a steep uphill battle in the general election, rendering Democrats' strategy to elevate him sounder. But polls show Mastriano running competitively in a swing state despite national Republicans shying from his campaign.

To put it another way, Democrats are playing a very dangerous game here, one that could easily backfire on them in more than one important race. How risky the strategy is generally depends on how close the November race will likely be. At least some of the extremists Democrats have boosted are quite likely to lose in November (Cox is a good example of this). But once again, for the strategy as a whole to succeed, the Democratic candidates have to win all of these races. Even letting one QAnon sympathizer into Congress is too many. Democrats are risking an outcome (which Scoob and the gang would recognize instantly) of: "too cute by half."

At this point, all an observer can hope for is that the meddling works as intended. But this observer, for one, remembers quite clearly when "President Donald Trump" was still just the punchline to a late-night comic's joke. Meddling is tricky business, folks. And it can wind up biting you in the hindquarters -- even when you have "the occasional help of Phyllis Diller and the Harlem Globetrotters." Zoinks!

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant