To some, acting to push the Democratic Party further to the left is "hijacking the party"

[Jim Lane]

161. As you say, it should be up to the people in that district.

To take an example of a district more progressive than West Virginia, I've read here that Our Revolution is supporting a primary challenger to Nancy Pelosi. The tactical situation is a bit different because of California's jungle primary, but the basic point is the same. If you think that Pelosi is too conservative and that her very liberal district might well elect a more progressive representative, then you can complain about Pelosi on online message boards, or you can support a candidate who challenges her from the left.

The latter course leaves it up to the voters in that district. Nevertheless, there have been disparaging comments, right here on DU, about this candidacy. My guess is that Pelosi will be re-elected on the first round, without even a runoff against either a Republican or another Democrat. The point, however, is that people who think the district is ready for a more progressive candidate have a perfect right to run. An actual election is the best way to give the voters the choice.

In West Virginia, Joe Manchin is probably losing even less sleep over having a progressive challenger. He's likely to win the primary in a romp, partly because some voters think he'd be the stronger November candidate (as you say) and partly because, even putting aside strength versus the Republican, many of them are conservative Democrats who prefer him as the Senator. Still, there's always the chance of a stunning upset.

Longer term, a failed candidacy that's perceived as too far out there may help lay the groundwork for future success. Some people say that Barry Goldwater's 1964 run, although it ended in a landslide loss, was part of what made possible Reagan's 1980 victory.