[[link removed]]

PRIMARY COLORS: ON PROGRESSIVE ELECTORAL STRATEGY  
[[link removed]]


 

Waleed Shahid
August 7, 2025
Waleed's Substack

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Progressives should prioritize consolidating ideological strength
in safe Democratic districts. The left needs to show—not just
argue—that its leaders and policies work, and that requires starting
from terrain where those policies can be implemented _

,

 

PROGRESSIVES KNOW SOMETHING THEY RARELY SAY ALOUD: if the left—by
which I narrowly mean the political project anchored by figures like
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zohran Mamdani, Summer Lee, Bernie Sanders,
and their allies and institutional networks—wants to meaningfully
shape national politics, it must be ruthlessly strategic about where
it invests its limited energy. For years, left-aligned groups have
poured time, talent, and money into swing districts—trying to flip
red-to-blue seats or elect populist champions in purple states. The
impulse is understandable: winning on hostile terrain promises
legitimacy, proof that left ideas can go mainstream.

Progressives have been playing away games when they should be
fortifying home field. Safe Democratic districts aren’t consolation
prizes; they’re launchpads. They’re where ideas get tested,
organizers get trained, policy gets implemented, and new leaders get
built. In an era of extreme polarization and limited institutional
support, concentrating in these strongholds isn’t retreat; it’s
sequencing. You don’t realign a party by winning over the center
first. You do it by locking down your edge and pulling the center
toward you.

Too often, these races follow a familiar script. Charismatic,
inspiring candidates--praised by progressives--struggle to break
through because their seats are structurally difficult to win, often
simply due to the high number of registered Republican voters. Or,
even if they do win, they find themselves boxed in, unable to govern
as movement leaders or shift the party’s ideological center. The
result: limited coattails, few enduring gains, and little
infrastructure left behind.

Centrist Democrats are borrowing tools from sports analytics to assess
political candidates with greater precision. In baseball, “Wins
Above Replacement” (WAR) measures how much better a player is than a
typical substitute. In basketball, Plus-Minus tracks how the team
performs when a specific player is on the court. Both metrics look
beyond raw stats to capture a player’s broader impact. By
controlling for district partisanship, incumbency, demographics, and
fundraising, analysts aim to identify candidates who consistently
outperform expectations.

This framework is valuable for the social-democratic left. But for
progressives, the "WAR" concept operates somewhat differently. While
centrists measure candidate quality primarily by the ability to secure
marginal swing districts, social democrats recognize that ideological
effectiveness matters too. Leaders elected from reliably Democratic,
strongly progressive districts--such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(NY-14, D+19) and Greg Casar (TX-35, D+19)--provide a distinct
ideological form of WAR. Their contribution isn't merely in winning
individual congressional seats; rather, it’s their ability to
fundamentally shift national policy conversations, energize previously
marginalized constituencies, and recalibrate the Democratic Party’s
center toward a governing vision of multiracial social democracy
(Medicare for All, clean energy, anti-war policies, Big Tech reform,
anti-authoritarianism, and shared economic prosperity).

Progressive lawmakers in safely blue districts face little threat from
Republican challengers and operate with more independence from the
pressures of the DCCC and its donor networks. This insulation allows
them to maintain ideological clarity and advance bold policy agendas
without constant recalibration for swing voters. While left-wing
organizations often lack the financial muscle or institutional
leverage of the party establishment, knocking out a Democratic
incumbent in a secure blue district offers a rare advantage: the
ability to project disproportionate ideological influence, shaping the
broader political conversation in ways that most legislators cannot.

Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 primary upset over Joe Crowley wasn’t just a
symbolic victory. It was a strategic inflection point that launched
the most effective left-wing political project of the decade. That
single win enabled her to become not just a legislator, but a force
multiplier: helping elect allies like Greg Casar, Summer Lee, and
Mamdani; helping build independent political infrastructure across New
York; brokering ambitious climate policy with the Biden
administration; shaping national debates on immigration and
inequality; and playing a pivotal role in electing the first socialist
mayor of New York City—a metro region with a GDP larger than
Canada’s.

Her rise—from a safe-seat primary challenger to a potential 2028
presidential contender—proves that ideological realignment doesn’t
start in the middle. It starts at the edge, with disciplined
investment in safe districts that function not as dead ends, but as
launchpads. Figures like AOC, Mamdani, Pressley, and Jayapal have used
these seats to grow new leadership pipelines, build lasting
independent political infrastructure, and redefine the horizon of
Democratic politics. This model doesn’t just win votes; it
consolidates and coheres a bench, a base, and a future.

By contrast, progressives running in swing districts and purple states
face considerable structural constraints that limit their ideological
impact. Candidates like Dan Osborn in Nebraska exemplify this
challenge. Though appealing and genuinely populist in outlook, Osborn
adopts notably more moderate positions on policing, immigration,
taxes, and health care, clearly distinguishing him from unabashed
social democrats such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Osborn
has not endorsed Medicare for All or a Green New Deal. His pragmatic
policy profile aligns more closely with the AFL-CIO oriented populism
of Senator Sherrod Brown than Sanders or Warren’s ability to make
the party reoriented toward their agitation. The moderation is perhaps
necessary to remain competitive electorally, it inevitably reduces
such candidates’ ideological influence and their ability to sustain
powerful grassroots activism or shift broader national debates. Thus,
their ideological "Wins Above Replacement"--their strategic
ideological value--is inherently limited. While his campaign deserves
support, the real question is whether left-wing progressive
organizations—with their limited resources—should shoulder the
largest burden, especially when the Democratic Party™ has
exponentially greater reserves already being invested in those races.

The question isn’t whether purple seats matter. It’s whether the
left’s limited resources and value-add in those contests actually
moves the needle _relative_ to what would happen anyway with party
and donor muscle behind the scenes. If those seats are already
prioritized institutionally, does progressive investment actually
obtain ideological leverage of any kind?

This strategic distinction clarifies a crucial insight that
progressives must internalize: not all electoral victories offer equal
ideological returns. Although swing-seat Democrats are vital for
numerical majorities, their risk-taking, ideological clarity, and
leverage within the party remain limited. By contrast, progressives
elected from safely Democratic districts deliver consistent
ideological strength and influence. Such seats serve as critical force
multipliers, establishing ideological clarity, securing key
negotiating positions within the broader Democratic coalition, and
creating conditions for transformative policies to become politically
feasible.

Political science literature frames this clearly through what is known
as the "junior partner dilemma
[[link removed]],"
frequently observed in multiparty parliamentary democracies. Junior
coalition partners, typically smaller, more ideological parties, must
constantly balance pragmatic governance with maintaining ideological
identity. Initially, junior parties gain significant policy influence
by entering governing coalitions. But over time, ideological
compromises blur their distinct political identity, confuse their
voters, and erode their electoral support. The outcome often weakens
their negotiating leverage and diminishes their long-term influence.

However, comparative politics reveals that junior partners gain
substantial negotiating power when they have clearly defined
leadership, coherent ideological platforms, and identifiable electoral
bases that can be brought to party negotiations (for example: AOC
brokering climate politics with the Biden administration as a
representative of young people). Clear ideological branding and secure
seats provide junior parties with greater leverage in negotiations
with senior coalition partners, who tend toward pragmatism and
moderation. By consolidating a coherent bloc of seats aligned with
their core ideological principles, junior partners can influence
policy without ideological dilution, maintaining strong electoral
bases and clear voter identification.

[[link removed]]

Within the Democratic Party, the progressive faction faces a similar
strategic dilemma. According to the Cook Political Report (2025), of
the 94 House members in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), 89
represent deep blue districts rated D+5 or higher. Only a handful
represent more competitive seats below that threshold, and those
representatives all vote, to no surprise, in a less progressive manner
than members of The Squad. This stark partisan and electoral math
translates directly into legislative behavior. For example, the more
red your district, the less progressive or populist votes you’re
going to take. And the more secure your district is, the more likely
you will buck the party establishment on some votes (the farther down
you are in the graph the more likely you are to challenge your own
party’s behavior, one key metric of realignment):

[[link removed]]

[[link removed]]

[[link removed]]

Historically, transformative political movements have consistently
followed a similar pattern. Abolitionists, labor unions during the New
Deal era, LGBTQ advocates, and environmentalists first built their
strength and ideological coherence within politically secure
regions--often in multiracial, working-class, and younger urban
districts. These areas served as laboratories of policy innovation,
constituency consolidation, demonstrating the voter depth, viability
and effectiveness of ambitious policy ideas and creating foundations
for broader political shifts nationally. RADICAL REPUBLICANS
CONSOLIDATED ABOLITIONIST STRENGTH IN NORTHERN CITIES BEFORE MODERATE
ABRAHAM LINCOLN EXPANDED THAT COALITION NATIONWIDE.

The Tea Party didn’t begin with broad national popularity. It built
ideological coherence from within the safest Republican districts.
Many of its most influential figures, especially those in the House
Freedom Caucus, represent the deepest red seats with Cook PVI scores
of R+18 or higher. These strongholds gave them the political freedom
to champion radical ideas without fear of general election backlash.
By focusing on primary challenges, they reshaped the Republican Party
from within. Their ideas—once marginal—eventually became
mainstream, laying the groundwork that Donald Trump would later scale
nationally in the 2016 presidential primary. The Tea Party’s biggest
leverage point was shaping the Republican primary electorate in deep
red areas.

Centrists often frame the left’s strategic focus on safe Democratic
districts as a quiet admission of failure. If progressive ideas
can’t compete in swing districts, the logic goes, why should the
Democratic Party take them seriously? It's a tidy argument–but a
misleading one. The partisan or geographic origins of an idea say
little about its long-term political viability. The reality is that
bold agendas, whether from the left or the right, almost always begin
in strongholds. Political transformation is rarely instantaneous. It
moves through stages: incubation, demonstration, and diffusion. Safe
seats offer the left not just shelter from backlash, but room to
govern, test policies, bring new constituencies from margins into
mainstream, and build infrastructural proof points. Universal
preschool, tenant protections, paid family leave, and municipal Green
New Deals didn’t gain traction by starting in purple districts. They
started where progressive majorities already existed and then moved
outward. That’s not retreat–that’s sequencing.

Prioritizing swing-seat battles without first establishing a durable
ideological base and infrastructure is a classic case of putting the
cart before the horse. Persuasion and coalition-building require proof
of concept. The left needs to show—not just argue—that its leaders
and policies work, and that requires starting from terrain where those
policies can be implemented and defended.

There’s also a matter of measurement. In a party as ideologically
sprawling as the Democratic coalition, power can be diffuse,
performative, or symbolic. But real independent political power and
influence–the kind that shapes policy and budgets–is counted in
votes, caucus blocs, and governing coalitions. The growth of the Squad
or Congressional Progressive Caucus, driven largely by primary
victories in solidly blue districts, offers a simple but important
metric: how many seats can reliably be counted in favor of a clearly
ideological vision? This number matters–not just for messaging, but
for whip counts, committee assignments, and the shape of legislative
fights.

Given extremely limited resources, progressives should reconsider
whether their best use of funds and energy involves replicating
tasks--such as candidate recruitment, voter mobilization, and
extensive fundraising--that the established Democratic Party apparatus
already performs. As strategic analyst Richard Rumelt
emphasizes, EFFECTIVE STRATEGY INVOLVES MAKING DISCIPLINED CHOICES,
CAREFULLY PRIORITIZING CERTAIN OBJECTIVES FOR MAXIMUM LEVERAGE WHILE
CLEARLY SETTING ASIDE OTHERS. Instead of replicating Democratic Party
functions with limited ideological returns, progressive resources
would yield far greater ideological influence by investing deeply in
independent political power and safe districts, creating a clear,
coherent ideological bloc that the broader party cannot easily ignore.

None of this is to say that progressives should ignore swing districts
or abandon general election coalitions. The Democratic Party needs to
win purple seats to govern nationally, and moderates will remain
essential in that effort. But strategy is also about focus, leverage,
and prioritization. Swing districts offer low ideological return on
high investment. Blue seats, by contrast, deliver durable power: clear
votes, unambiguous mandates when you defeat an incumbent, and room to
govern without apology. Progressives should treat those seats the way
any serious political faction would—with focus, discipline, and the
understanding that realignment begins at the core before it moves to
the margins.

THE 2023 GAZA CEASEFIRE RESOLUTION EXEMPLIFIES THIS DYNAMIC
VIVIDLY. Blue-seat progressives used their secure electoral positions
to advocate boldly, clearly defining progressive stances on
controversial foreign policy issues. Swing-district Democrats largely
refrained, wary of risk and political backlash. This underscores that
relying primarily on purple-district populism is unlikely to generate
the coherent ideological bloc or sustained political leverage
necessary for transformative change.

[Pro-Israel groups target US lawmakers critical of Israel's war ahead
of primaries | US politics | The Guardian]
[[link removed]]

Today, even liberal factions like the "Abundance" coalition--focusing
on supply-side housing reforms and effective governance in blue states
and cities--and the generational-change movement exemplified by Run
for Something and youth activists like David Hogg, recognize this
strategic imperative. These groups are responding to deep
dissatisfaction among Democratic voters in blue districts and states
by beginning to challenge entrenched incumbents, prioritizing
generational turnover and ideological renewal, as exemplified by
recent efforts to primary long-serving Democrats like Representative
Jerry Nadler.

[[link removed]]

Yet in Nadler’s case, the primary challenger reflects a diluted
imitation of genuine progressive insurgency, lacking serious
ideological grounding or a coherent progressive policy vision. GIVEN
THAT OTHERS ARE ACTIVELY CONTESTING THIS CRUCIAL TERRAIN--INVESTING
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IN PRIMARY CHALLENGES WITHIN SAFELY DEMOCRATIC
DISTRICTS--IT WOULD BE STRATEGICALLY UNWISE AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR
THE BROADER PROGRESSIVE LEFT TO NEGLECT IT. Only through this
disciplined and coherent ideological consolidation can ambitious
progressive ideas become the new mainstream consensus nationally.

Ultimately, history, political science, and strategy frameworks all
point in the same direction: progressives should prioritize
consolidating ideological strength in safe Democratic districts.
Success begets success. It’s a difficult case to make in an era
dominated by philanthropic incentives and media narratives focused
almost exclusively on defeating Trump and not challenging
relationships of access with the Democratic Party establishment. But
durable political power doesn’t come from chasing large donors or
the news cycle. It comes from creating the conditions under which
realignment can thrive. Throughout American history, transformative
movements have succeeded by establishing ideological clarity, policy
credibility, and negotiating leverage in politically secure territory.
For today’s social democrats, that means consolidating real
independent power.

Waleed Shahid is a progressive and Democratic strategist. Director of
The Bloc. Former Justice Democrats spokesperson. Worked with Bernie,
AOC, Jamaal Bowman, and Summer Lee. YNWA.

Waleed’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new
posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber
[[link removed]].

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]