Skip to main content

Chris Cillizza makes an important point about Primary Colors in his write-up that I want to amplify and elaborate on:
It's hard not to see the Primary Colors effort as a reaction -- and a smart one -- to what has happened within Republican primaries, particularly in Senate races, over the past two elections. In Delaware, Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and then in Indiana and Missouri in 2012, more conservative candidates won primaries only to lose very winnable general elections against Democrats.  In response, a number of establishment GOP types -- including Karl Rove -- formed the Conservative Victory Project in 2013, a super PAC aimed at ensuring the most electable candidates won primaries. The group has not, however, been very active -- raising just $16,000 in the entirety of 2013.

It's very much an open question whether Primary Colors will exert any impact on the Democratic House landscape. (The project is, at the moment, self-funded by Geeting and O'Donnell.) But, for ambitious Democratic candidates looking for a way into Congress or upstart progressive groups trying to make a name by taking down a sitting incumbent, it's a must-bookmark.

We actually had this idea a few weeks before we heard about CVP, and it was like "Karl Rove, get out of our brains!" because this is indeed the best right-wing analog to Primary Colors.

Some people hearing about this idea for the first time have likened it to a left wing Tea Party, and recoiled in horror. After all, the Tea Party has dragged the Republican Party way too far to the right, causing them to lose winnable Senate races as Chris says, and rendering the Party uncompetitive at the Presidential level.

The Conservative Victory Project was formed by Karl Rove as a corrective to this problem. Its mission is to weed out the Todd Akins and Christine O'Donnells in favor of Republican candidates who can actually win general elections.

You should look at CVP as operating at a different stage in the process than Primary Colors, but employing essentially the same theory of change.

CVP's goal is electing the most conservative Republican candidates who can win general elections. In a party that has run too far to the right, that necessarily means backing some more left-leaning Republicans, and that's not going over well with the base.

Progressives don't have that problem. The problem for progressive activists is that politicians systematically overestimate the conservatism of their constituents, and so we get Democrats who vote less progressive than they can safely get away with in their districts.

So part of our strategy is showing some of these Democratic politicians that they actually have permission to vote more progressive, and provide a counter to their inclination to overestimate how conservative their constituents are. They can see to what extent they're actually underperforming relative to colleagues in similar district-leans, and adjust their voting behavior accordingly.

The other part of the strategy is to direct national and local progressive activist attention toward replacement of the lowest-value incumbents in the lowest-risk districts, prioritizing primaries in seats where the risk of losing to Republicans is low.

The first reason for this is practical. We don't want to lose seats to the Republicans! And we do want to prioritize replacement of the members who are delivering the lowest value to progressive causes.

There is also an ideological reason to target the worst safe seat Democrats. We have depressingly few superstar politicians in our safe districts who are interested in pushing out the boundaries of the possible. With more competition in these districts, politicians will be quicker to embrace emerging progressive issues, because they'll have to in order to hang onto their seats. And if there's more turnover, newer ideas will cycle into our politics at a faster clip.

It's the safe seat members who lead the movement by pushing the ideological frontier outward, and pulling the rest of the party along with them. By prioritizing primary wins in safe seats, Primary Colors can push Democratic politics, and American politics, leftward one seat at a time without incurring excessive risk in general elections.


What's Your Favorite Karl Rove Jam?

0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
100%1 votes

| 1 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Now you're bumping into the real problem. (0+ / 0-)

    The Senate.
    Not that I'm criticizing what you're doing. I agree with the primary-ing of those low value/risk Dem congresspersons.

    However, the Pinot Noir caucus of the Sen. Dems (Durbin, Shumer etc. who literally do nothing while the Heehaw caucus (Manchin/Pryor) vote Republican, are a bigger problem because they have the cover of "I have to run statewide, my seat's not gerrymandered."

    Finally let's look at the third leg of the stool (pun not intended) that is the Dem party. The campaign adviser class/industry. Whose advice was it that sunk Sink? Or did she sink her own campaign? Who are these people that keep Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
    Why is turnout so low? Why did Maxey Scherr not win in Texas, and we nominated a Republican (Alameel), barely missing the embarrassment of nominating a LaRouchie?

    I agree that primary-ing Congressmen need to be done, but there's more to the problem of "overestimating the conservatism of their constituents" than that.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 06:19:19 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There are many more factors than just this and you've raised some important ones. But we think that creating some kind of anchor for what the Manchins and Pryors can get away with, rather than just giving them free reign to do whatever they say they need to do is going to be very helpful for activists to hold these people accountable.

      Joe Manchin can get away with voting with Democrats about 77.8 percent of the time, but he's actually only with us 66.1% of the time.

      John Rockefeller, on the other hand, is voting with progressives 92.3% of the time, with the same electorate.

      So Manchin is giving us a BS excuse, and we need to ask him why he doesn't vote like John Rockefeller. But even if we could get him up to 77.8%, rather than Rockefeller's 92.3%, that'd still be a significant shift to the left in the Senate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site