Why I Rarely Support Primary Challenges

Being online too much is unhealthy, and generally a bad idea if you don't know how to modulate it.  It can be addictive, both because of the constant serotonin rush of liking posts (or getting yours liked) on your social media, and the unending flush of news.  It also means we get angry faster, and as someone who spends a lot of time on sites discussing politics, there's always one thing that never fails to gain piggybacks: the primary challenge declaration.  You know what I mean.  A moderate (or even not-so-moderate) Democrat or Republican will do something that goes against the hardline party orthodoxy, and people collectively start shouting "we primary them next time" or "what a DINO/RINO!" (or an avalanche of other things that are too impolite to put on this site).  No one is immune (including me) to these proclamations.

Generally this is a declaration with minimal follow-through.  Incumbents rarely lose primary elections, particularly members of Congress.  Every cycle there's a couple, but it's not the norm, or even close to it-it in fact becomes national news when a Cori Bush or Lauren Boebert pulls it off.  The effect of these constant threats of primary challenges has largely given way to our current system where people are penalized for crossing-the-aisle even on issues that they might agree with someone else on, and has led to mountainous gridlock if you can't gain control of the White House, Senate, & House at the same time.  But it's led to something much less-discussed: primary challenges are almost always a waste of time, and certainly not the best bang for your time/investment.  And it's why I almost never support them because there are bigger focuses you should put your attention toward.

The best example for Democrats in this scenario is Joe Manchin, obviously.  Manchin is the most conservative member of the Democratic Senate caucus, and more-than-likely the most conservative Democrat in Congress, period.  Manchin is generally a populist Democrat with a moderate streak on social issues, particularly gay rights & abortion.  20 years ago he'd have been considered more left-leaning than he is now in the Congress (it's doubtful he would've made the Top 10 most conservative Democrats in Congress at that point), but in a culture where we all run to the poles, he's the middle man.  And in a 50/50 Senate, his vote matters-that's just a stone cold fact.  He is the most moderate member, he is the 50th vote in most issues...what he says is something that Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and the country needs to care about.

This means that Manchin on issues like the Senate filibuster or the minimum wage can tank progressive dreams, and I get the frustration they have with him.  What I've never understood is that the knee-jerk reaction is to punish Joe Manchin (through a primary).  Manchin is the only Democrat who can win statewide in West Virginia.  It's basically him or a Tommy Tuberville clone in that seat.  And Manchin does side with Democrats on most issues.  He's backed every Biden cabinet secretary, and will continue to do so.  He's going to back the Covid relief bill, and backed impeachment against Trump both trials.  Yes, he voted for Brett Kavanaugh, but he did it after it was clear it wouldn't matter, something to keep in mind here (and unlike his fellow senators Heitkamp, McCaskill, & Donnelly, he ended up winning after that vote).

House Speaker Sara Gideon (D-ME)

So instead of spiting a man who backs your plan 85% of the time & is a thorn in your side the other 15%...why don't you invest your energy into marginalizing him?  Looking at 2020, if Susan Collins had lost, House Speaker Sara Gideon (certainly considerably to the left of Manchin, and probably right-in-the-middle of the political spectrum for the Senate Democrats) would've become a senator.  And as a result, while Manchin would matter, he'd be the 51st seat, and he wouldn't have veto power over what was going through Congress...Kyrsten Sinema, to his left politically, would get that say.  Elect another Democrat like Cal Cunningham, and suddenly that moves to the left a little further with Jon Tester or Cunningham himself getting the veto.  It rarely makes sense to take out a Democrat in a primary when your money/efforts would be better spent on making that moderate Democrat less powerful by getting more progressives in seats currently held by Republicans.

This is almost always a better play, and I don't get why we focus so much on primaries as a solution rather than winning general elections instead.  If you look at voting records, there's little difference between even people like Cori Bush and Lacy Clay in terms of how they'll vote this session.  You could argue that they use their platform differently (this isn't a bad argument-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the best example), but in terms of actual effective, practical change...beating a Republican is worth 10x more than an elevated platform that can't pass because Congress is too moderate.  

There are only three times where I personally think a primary challenge is warranted.  One is during a scandal (where the incumbent has demeaned the office & a primary challenger could easily win the general, so we don't need to put up with the disgraced incumbent).  Second is if the incumbent is incompetent or not executing their position properly (this is one that's subjective, but I am far warmer to primary challenges to Dianne Feinstein & Andrew Cuomo who don't seem up for the challenges of their office than I am going after Manchin).  Last is if there's a tangible issue that the two differ on (the best recent example of this is Marie Newman & Dan Lipinski in 2020, where Lipinski's views on gay rights & abortion rights were too often siding with the Republicans, and Newman could easily win the seat in the general while giving us a more progressive voting slate on issues that had a chance of passing now that Lipinski was gone).  And I want to be clear it should be tangible-change.  Rhetorical change isn't enough if you're about to spend millions of dollars/volunteer hours to beat a Democrat when you'd get more mileage beating a Republican.