This is a difficult one for me — totally un-democratic, but I can also see the point. The general election isn’t about picking a guy to represent the Democrats of the Sixth Congressional District of Colorado, it’s about picking a guy to represent *all* of the Sixth District. I’d generally prefer to be represented by a less progressive Democrat than a less conservative Republican.
The salient questions are *does* the candidate need to appeal to some percentage of swing voters (i.e. what is the electorate split)? And do those swing voters really care about that which the Democratic Party sees in the candidate they support? The DCCC is making what they believe is a pragmatic choice. Without proving reality bifurcates at infinite junctures and visiting alternative timelines … really no way to *know* if they are right or not.
In a district where 80% of the electorate are Democrats, the primary can figure out which guy those people want. But in a district that’s, say, 45% Democrat / 45% Republican / 10% swing voters … winning the general election requires nominating someone who appeals to that 10%. Coffman won in 2016 by 8% (30k votes). This *particular* district seems like one where the Democratic candidate needs to appeal to those who voted Republican for the last decade. Clinton won the district, so there’s some empirical evidence to support a belief that enough voters in the district *can* be swayed.
What I see wrong with it is not being up front about the pragmatic reasons for supporting the individual and allowing voters in the District to decide if *they* want to nominate a less progressive candidate.