Debunking this idea progressives can't win because of a few losses once and for all

So, I'm tired of hearing it. It's a David Brock-esque talking point at this stage in the election. The narrative goes that progressives can't win because of what happened in a handful of races throughout the country that supports the conclusion that progressives are unelectable.

Three races in particular seem to come up regularly. The first, and most common one was Zephyr Teachout, who was a progressive who ran for congress in New York. I covered this already. To recap, while the cook partisan index and polling suggested a close race, in practice, the district looks rural, and republicans have a history of winning since redistricting in 2013 by large margins. It's a rural district, it's in upstate New York, and the analysis of it by pollsters seems to have little bearing on the results since it leans red by high margins. Teachout's 9 point loss was actually far narrower than the loss suffered there in 2014. Next.

The next race brought up is Russ Feingold's unsuccessful run in Wisconsin for senate. Establishment dems point to his loss, and the fact that he lost by a slightly larger margin than Clinton did, as evidence progressives are unelectable. What isn't said is that Feingold used to be the senator there and was voted out in 2010 when the tea party came to power. So, perhaps there was a history there that stopped him from being elected? Maybe Wisconsin was tired of him and liked Ron Johnson better?

And let's not forget the big elephant in the room: this was a bad year for democrats. Democrats got shellacked all over the country. Polls were off by several points across the board in many regions of the country, and races that were supposed to be competitive weren't. Yes, two progressives lost, so what? Didn't moderates like Katie McGinty here in Pennsylvania lose too? Does that mean centrists can't win? Or maybe the fact that both centrists and progressives lost, and the party as a whole is in a bad shape across the board suggests that maybe it was a party wide phenomena? And maybe Clinton even had an impact? I have a theory that when people turn out for candidates, they often vote down ballot the same way. While some people pick and choose from both parties, many likely support the same party all the way down. And if the presidential candidate is unpopular, maybe that translates to losses down ballot? And maybe there was a lack of funding at the down ballot level because the funds were going to Clinton?

I don't know, there are just too many factors to suggest that these candidates lost specifically because they were progressives. The biggest factors I would say influenced the race was the fact that Clinton and the DNC was just highly unpopular this year and people at all levels of government suffered as a result. Centrists lost, progressives lost. Sure, there might be variations depending on where they ran and their personal relationship with the state, etc., but the big factor seems to be that this was a bad year for democrats in general.

By the way, that third race. Establishment democrats seem to blame Colorado's single payer initiative losing as evidence against single payer. The word on the street in reddit from people in Colorado seems to be that the proposal was vague, not well designed, and and fundamentally flawed. If this is true, it might not be a repudiation of universal healthcare, but of this specific plan. Once again, the issue seems to be complicated and I don't think it's reasonable to blame progressives for losses. This seems to once again be establishment propaganda to support establishment narratives.