There is lots of understandable rage at elements of the democratic coalition. Some broad calls to action have appeared. The current debate over Health Care has brought this into focus, but after FISA and the stim package we really shouldn't be surprised. It should be clear by now that this is and remain a long term struggle.
The last thing I want to see is for us to start imposing some Grover Nordquist style purity test. We must forcefully advocate for our positions but accept that our representatives will have differing views at times. That is fine and as diversity is one of our core principles perfectly acceptable. We are after all a diverse group. With many shades and views, what we share does however outweighs our differences. We are not some special interest group we are a broad interest group.
Having said all that as far as the conservadems go: Primary their Asses!
Primaries are probably our most effective weapon. The mere threat of a viable primary challenger has been shown to alter voting patterns. Ned Lamont proved how much of a threat they are to entrenched power. Everyconservadem out there knows the republicans wont roll over this time.
Just lets be smart about it. By smart I don't mean picking seats where the PVI is in our favor. Those deep blue districts with conservadems should be primaried as a matter of course. What I mean is bringing out the big stick of a primary challenge where that stick is pointed on both ends. To avoid perpetuating the liberals as wimps we must risk losing the seat. I also don't mean spreading our efforts too broadly. We must realize that by going for everything we most likely will end up with nothing. Finally we have to realize we will be doing this again and again as every election cycle comes around.
What I suggest is an ongoing effort of basically ostracism. Each cycle one or two targets should be selected and their opponents supported. Ideally this would occur in an open forum where the members, the potential targets and potential opponents could all make their cases in an ongoing manner. This not only informs the targets and so can alter their voting, it also leverages the effort as the process selecting a target evolves.
But we cannot beat or even threaten someone with no one. To be effective challengers must be viable. That takes money. We don't have to provide all of it but there must be the potential of a big enough pool to be enticing. We want challengers who have a shot and considering that they will be going up against the party apparatus as it exists they are taking a real risk. At the same time leverage comes into play. Given the chance for that enticing pot of gold more potential challengers will explore the possibilities. That all by itself will have an effect.
So the weakest link in creating an effective mechanism for effective primary challenges is and will remain money. How could an enticing pool of money be developed? I suggest the equivalent of achristmas club for primaries. Donations are made and the allocation is deferred. Conrad pissed you off today put $10 in your account targeted to a primary challenge for Kent. Nobody decides to run against him reallocate it to someone else when the time comes. And that is how I'd vote for the targets. Up until the time comes a reallocation of the banked funds with maybe some cool summary graphs on the main page.
I'll be interested in any thoughts.