Rich Wilkins thinks it doesn’t matter that Allyson Schwartz is the most conservative member of the PA delegation:
I’m not looking for a partisanly pure candidate, or an ideologically ideal candidate. I want a winner. That’s it. Give me 70% of what I want, and a slam dunk win, and you’re my candidate. Beating Corbett is all that matters. I’m voting for Mr. or Mrs. Electable. Showing you can withstand the bright-lights of the primary, beating back the negative attacks, and building an organization is what matters right now. Raising money matters. Being an 83% vote instead of an 85% vote is nitpicking.
The reason this matters is because the argument the Schwartz campaign wants to make is that we should tolerate the significant electoral liabilities she’d have as the general election nominee, because she’s the more progressive candidate.
That’s how the trade-off for these things usually works. Maybe you sacrifice some partisan purity in order to get a more electable candidate, or maybe you sacrifice some electability to get somebody whose record lines up closest to the base’s policy priorities.
The growing attention to Schwartz’s conservative streak is so dangerous to her campaign because it shows you get neither of these things if she’s the nominee. You get all her Congressional voting history baggage, but you don’t even get a more progressive candidate for it. It’s not at all clear what advantage you get picking Schwartz.