I have long espoused a progressive movement working within the Democratic Party. And I still do. But working within the Democratic Party is not the equivalent of being enslaved to it.

Electorally, a key component is the primary. I've long believed that every candidate needs a challenger. The reason for this is campaigns are where issues HAVE to be debated (however poorly.) It is where votes on legislation are challenged. It's where accountability can be had. Any challenge, even a long shot one, is better than no challenge.

The Democratic Party Establishment, like any entrenched group, does not like to be challenged. But progressives' interests are not those of the Establishment. Their interest is in getting the Establishment to adopt their views on the issues and then vote and fight for those views.

But primaries is not where the choices end. Deciding which Democrat to fight for in the general election is also a choice for progressives.

There are many races where progressives (at least national progressives) are basically irrelevant. Think Ben Nelson. Fighting for or against Ben Nelson is a fool's errand for national progressives. Similarly, I believe fighting for Dems like Jack Conway of Kentucky is wasted progressive resources. Many in the Dem blogs have adopted the Kentucky Senate race. There are a few reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is that making fun of Rand Paul is easy and draws viewers. But does throwing national progressive support behind Jack Conway make sense? I think not. Conway is not espousing progressive view now and will not fight for progressive issues in the future. His fight is a Kentucky fight, and statewide, Kentucky is not progressive.

By contrast, Barbara Boxer has been fighting for progressive issues her entire career and she is currently in a tough race, much tougher than expected. Losing Boxer would be disastrous for progressives. In my opinion, Boxer's race should be the number one race on the progressive radar.

The Democrats are going to lose the November elections handily. Indeed, I think they lose the House and the Senate. But for progressives, there is more to lose than the House and Senate -- they can lose the political debate in the Democratic Party.

If Jack Conway or Joe Sestak or even Harry Reid lose, that's a bad thing. I hope they all win. But none of these defeats will be a defeat for progressives in the political debate. But if Barbabra Boxer loses, that is a progressive defeat.

What I am suggesting is that progressives need to prioritize their electoral activism in the same way they prioritize their issue activism - fight hard for the issues they care about by fighting hard for the pols who have fought for those issues.

Many thought the ascension of Obama was a progressive win. Obviously it wasn't on issues. The needle moved to the Center after 8 years of incompetence. But progressives have won very little and need to concentrate on winning fights for their pols and worry less about winning fights for the Establishment Dems.

As I said, I can think of no contest where a GOP win is preferable to a Dem win. But I can think of many races where a Dem loss is much more consequential to progressives than your standard issue Blue dog race.

Heath Shuler, Travis Childers, Gene Taylor, Jim Marshall, John Barrow, Allen Boyd, etc. I hope they all win. But their losses will not effect progressivism in the political debate. The progressive movement will suffer 10 times the loss if Boxer loses than if all the people I mention above lose.

These are just examples and you can do this analysis for just about every race in the country. And that is what progressives need to do. I once wrote a post called Relativity, Uncertainty, Big Tent and Political Space Time Curvature. This was my thesis:

I want to introduce my own concept of political space time curvature to help us better understand the Politics of Contrast (or Definition, as Texeira and Halpin call it) and the need for a Big Tent Democratic Party. Earlier, I wrote:

[. . .] I would like to expand on this idea, incorporating "political space-time curvature." Let's recall T&H's 5 postulates:

(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: "What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?"

(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.

(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right's social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one's position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]

(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.

As general themes and principles, these postulates can be applied in every region of the nation. But they will not lead to uniform specific issue positions for Democrats everywhere. The political gravity or, "political space time curvature" in Nebraska or Mississippi is different from that in say, Rhode Island. But the progressive or Democratic position in each of these locations can clearly be discerned and is the position for Democrats to follow in each of them.

So how do we determine what the political gravity is in the locales and how do we determine the "progressive position?" How do we determine how far progressives can push? What is the velocity of progressivism and where does it stand across the Nation?

I want to expand this idea, which I earlier applied to the Democratic Party, to national progressives. National progressives need to keep their eye on what they care about - advancing their agenda in the political debate, electorally, legislatively and in terms of the political debate.

In terms of the upcoming election, it is clear that the Dems are going to get trounced in November. Progressives need to try and avoid their fate. How best to present the progressive brand and to forward progressive issues should be the thought process for progressives. The DNC has a different job.

The rejection of Dems in November need not be a rejection of progressivism. But in order to avoid that fate, progressives must decouple their priorities from those of the Democratic Party. They must fight for progressives (and should vote for all Dems) and make clear why they are fighting for progressives.

When the Blue Dogs get wiped out, when the Beltway Dems get rejected, progressives, if successful in helping progressive candidates win, can point to their successes and truthfully say that it was the Blue Dog/Beltway Democratic Party that was rejected, not the Progressive Dem Party. That would be an important achievement by the progressive movement.

For the political fight for progressivism does not end with the 2010 election or the 2012 election or the 2014 and 2016 elections. It is a long hard slog.

Speaking for me only