DNC chairman aims for diversity with delegate nominations

[Jim Lane]

212. What would you do about the "anti-choice" Democrats?

A prime example: Next year, Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) will be up for re-election. He's expected to defend his seat. He's generally anti-choice (has called for overturning Roe v. Wade) but with some exceptions.

He's generally in tune with the mainstream of the Democratic Party (i.e., the issue areas where all five candidates for the 2016 nomination agreed). Because of his stance on reproductive rights, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he draws a primary challenger from the left. He's popular, though. He's won statewide elections for positions in state government and has won two Senate elections. My guess is that he'll win the primary easily and become the Democratic nominee.

You ask, "Why do we feel it necessary to nominate or endorse an anti-choice candidate?" In the scenario I envision, that's an argument that will be presented to the Democrats of Pennsylvania, but that most of them will reject. Some, of course, agree with Casey on this issue. (Not all Democrats are pro-choice.) Others will agree with one or both of the arguments you dismiss -- that he's good on most issues, and that, with his personal popularity and the advantage of incumbency, he's by far the strongest Democratic candidate for the general election. If he wins the primary, he'll be the Democratic nominee.

My point isn't to cheerlead for Bob Casey. I don't live in Pennsylvania and I don't have to decide how to vote. I certainly won't send him any campaign contributions. My point is that, as long as we choose our nominees through primaries instead of back-room designation by party bosses, we have to put up with this "big tent" situation. The same is true of Joe Manchin (D-Big Coal) about the environment.