You are blaming the "dems" for running attack ads against a Republican candidate for the Republican nomination instead of waiting to run similar attack ads in the general election. That strikes me as an odd thing to be upset about.
In that "worst example", the "Dems" attacked a Republican for being "too conservative for our district". Those attack ads proved correct, as that particular Republican (John Gibbs) defeated the incumbent Republican (Peter Meijer) in the Republican primary (because the Republican voters of that district were crazy enough to think "too conservative for our district" is a good thing) but lost in the general election (because Gibbs really was "too crazy for our district").
We live in crazy times when attacking a Republican as "too conservative for our district" counts as promoting that candidate.
Most candidates prefer to face a weak opponent in the general election. To improve their chances of facing a weak opponent, they sometimes resort to chicanery. In that particular primary election of 2022, however, the attack ads were not dishonest chicanery. They were accurate attack ads designed to exploit the foolishness of Republican primary voters. When the opposing party is dominated by idiots, it's fair to highlight the idiocy.
In the particular election cited by ahhell and The_Animus, the Republican nominee (John Gibbs) was defeated in the general election, precisely because he was "too conservative for our district".
ahhell thinks that's the "worst example". Evidently the worst example ahhell could think of to cite consisted of truthful attack ads that, if they had any influence at all, contributed to the Republican nominee's defeat in the general election. It's hard to see how that particular example counts as evidence for the idea that those campaign tactics helped "crazies end up getting elected".
