Whether they have an accurate perception of risk or not, moderate Republicans claim to be more frightened by the prospect of primary challengers than defeat at the hands of a Democrat. That perception is probably a function of the last two congressional elections which knocked off all the easy-to-beat members of the Republican caucus. It doesn’t particularly matter whether moderate Republicans in the House vote with Democrats on some bills or not. But rigid opposition in the House tends to bleed over to the Senate, where the Democrats still need the votes of a few Republicans to achieve cloture. I have two points to make about this.
First, since moderate Republicans are making the decision to err on the side of pleasing their base, it makes them less safe in their moderate districts. They’re consciously imperiling their general election prospects by working to preempt primary challengers.
Second, this means that DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen should recalibrate his estimates on which seats are vulnerable. He should expand the map of seats he is willing to invest in challenging both because that universe is expanding and because strong challengers will change the risk estimates of the moderate Republicans and lead them to compromise. The benefit might seem marginal, especially if resource allocations leave vulnerable Democrats lacking in funding, but breaking the solidity of the House opposition will bleed over to the Senate, where it will bring tangible benefits.
