Regardless of its inadequacy as a means in this particular election of eliminating the most experiences candidates in favour of the least experienced -- given only one of the 11 could be eliminated -- the idea of promoting a campaign to engineer a last-minute "voting plunge" in the primaries seems an extraordinarily anti-democratic proposal. It's quite blatantly a proposal to rig the election outcome.
I'm not suggesting it's the case, but * if * a hostile or unrepresentatative clique or cabal exists, and if this group controls anything in EL&U, the solution is to engage in the democratic process by electing an alternative group of candidates who, by their activity on EL&U, have demonstrated their worthiness. It's known as factional politics.
The division of the active and passionate minority of a group's membership into alignments is generally inevitable. There's no doubt such alignments exist within EL&U, but they're mostly unplanned, amorphous, fluid, leaderless and directionless, with the only convergence being a shared view on typical faultlines such as putting answers as comments, or downvoting posts, or how to deal with SWRs or VLQ answers.
If the most experienced EL&U members seem to have cemented into a consistent view on these matters, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing, let alone a clique. But even if it has become a conscious grouping that defends a particular culture of behaviour within EL&U, this is a normal process in organisational dynamics.
Sometimes such a group may become out of touch with an evolving membership, at which point it's common for the Young Turks to lead a rebellion, which often fails because their antagonism is too overt and is offputting to the general membership (which then rallies in defence of the status quo). Eventually though, if the more experienced members don't address the issues, a second wave of activists steps up, whose focus is not on "the bad guys" but on a considered platform of improvements. The membership is open to this message and elects them to power.
If any of the above describes the situation within EL&U, then it also describes the available solution: the democratic process. Defining your enemy by blunt measures such as patterns of voting on posts, presence in chat rooms, duration of membership or simply amount of rep points completely fails to address what's wrong that needs improving. Worse, eliminating "enemy" candidates using ambush voting is a corruption of the democratic process.
Nearly 20 years as a dissident within the political arena has taught me two things above all else: (1) naked antagonism is doomed to failure, and (2) building relationships through demonstrated competence is the only path to achieving your goals.