I think it is safe to say that progressives did not cause the loss of a single seat in Congress through the use of primary challenges to incumbents or moderate candidates. But that isn’t stopping some people from whining.
Clearing primaries for members and discouraging liberal groups from spending against incumbents should be a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, [Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA)] said. “It would definitely help, I think. You need to talk to those groups.”
DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) brushed aside concerns about contested primaries limiting his party’s chances.
“I have not had to worry about that yet,” Israel said. “I haven’t had to even contemplate urging people not to run. The net is wide open. And then we’ll make decisions as we go forward.”
It’s possible to screw things up by adopting unrealistic purity tests. We all saw that happen with the Tea Party. But it didn’t happen on our side. We lost almost every single competitive contest in the country, regardless of funding, the quality of the candidate, the campaign strategy, or the quality of the opponent. We lost because our base didn’t turn out and their base did. It’s that simple. Under the circumstances, nothing in the known universe could have saved Blanche Lincoln, or countless other backstabbers. But voting progressive wouldn’t have saved them either. In the last election cycle, the only thing that could have mitigated disaster would have been something that created real fear or real excitement in our base. Individual candidates had no control over that. As for excitement, our opinion leaders were too busy nit-picking to do anything but crush what little excitement that might have existed.
Sometimes, it’s just not your cycle.
