Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: Primary at Your Own Risk

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)

Being a swing district representative means that you are elevated from being a backbencher to far better-known than if you were in a safe district, and two swing district incumbents in the past couple of weeks have been making headlines for the same thing: a primary challenge.  In Washington, two-term Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is facing repeated criticisms for her recent vote in favor of the SAVE Act, which has led to a left-leaning group to petition the Democrats of Pacific County (one of seven counties that Gluesenkamp Perez represents in Congress) to not pledge support for her reelection, and to allow for primary challengers against her.  Meanwhile, across the country in Maine, State Auditor Matt Dunlap is openly talking about running for Maine's 2nd congressional district...regardless of what Rep. Jared Golden does (including if Golden seeks reelection).

We've talked recently about both Jared Golden and the movement to primary Democratic incumbents (being led by DNC Vice Chair David Hogg), but this is something different.  Hogg's movement has been focused on primarying incumbents based on age, something that I have some qualms about but am definitely open to the conversation (even if, as I pointed out in the article, I think he's an inappropriate messenger for that movement), and for Golden, I talked about how I think that he should run against Susan Collins if he doesn't pursue reelection (rather than a run for Governor).  But here...I think it's right to call this what it is: lunacy.

One of the single biggest lies that a large part of the left perpetuates is the myth that "if you run a true liberal, people will vote for them."  This has been proven false time after time after time from parts of the country as geographically diverse as West Virginia to North Carolina to Wisconsin to Oregon.  In order to win, particularly as a Democrat, you need to run moderates in purple/pink districts in order to win.  And when you do find a candidate that can break through, you stick with them even if they occasionally vote against what you believe.

Based on the 2024 elections, there are currently 13 House Democratic incumbents up in 2026 that won seats that Donald Trump won in the election.  In addition to Gluesenkamp Perez & Golden, these include Adam Gray (CA-13), Josh Harder (CA-9), Kristin McDonald Rivet (MI-8), Don Davis (NC-1), Nellie Pou (NJ-9), Gabe Vasquez (NM-2), Susie Lee (NV-3), Tom Suozzi (NY-3), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), and Vincente Gonzalez (TX-34)...they are joined by Jon Ossoff as the only Democratic senator up in 2026 who is running in a state Donald Trump won in Georgia.  It's worth remembering that these 14 incumbents exist on top of the reality that Republicans have the majority, and that in 2026, there's only four Republicans up for reelection in districts that Kamala Harris won: Susan Collins (ME) for the Senate, and Mike Lawler (NY-17), Don Bacon (NE-2), & Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) in the House.  So despite having 4x as many crossover voters, they still lost both houses, a testament to how much of an advantage Trump's support gives the Republicans as we look to the midterms.

I will acknowledge that not all of these incumbents are created equally.  Susie Lee, for example, has virtually no crossover support from Harris in her district (she won because Harris lost her district by less than any of the other districts, under a point, and so she just needed minimal incumbency advantage to get her victory).  Others, like Pou and Harder, possibly shouldn't be considered all that impressive since they represent historically blue districts that a stronger presidential nominee could've secured.  But for my money, all 14 of these members deserve a clear field for re-nomination-they've proven they can win in the worst of circumstances, and you don't throw that sort of tactical advantage out when you can't afford to do so (i.e. when you're literally already in the minority even with these incumbents).

I don't remotely support the SAVE Act.  I think Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden were cowardly for supporting it, and Gluesenkamp Perez, in particular, looks like she made a long-term mistake in backing the bill.  Her district is one of the extremely rare seats in Congress that Harris made gains on Biden's margin, and thanks to the burgeoning blue population in the Portland suburbs, this is a district I'd eye as a real potential for the 2028 Democratic nominee to win it.  At that point, it might be worth primarying Gluesenkamp Perez, because a blue district shouldn't be held by someone who backs something like the SAVE Act.

But not beforehand.  Gluesenkamp Perez is the only Democrat to win this district in recent history-Patty Murray, Bob Ferguson, Joe Biden, Maria Cantwell...they all lost it even while winning statewide by double digits.  She's more liberal than any Republican would be in her scenario, and a key vote on abortion, veterans' issues, & transportation.  I 100% think she deserves the criticism headed her way from this vote, and I support her getting criticized at town halls for it-that's how democracy works.  But to primary her from the left is idiocy, it's throwing away a hard-fought seat, one that will be crucial to the Democrats regaining a House majority next year.