Roberts seems lock a like to win our endorsement for Lt. Governor. She may even do so unanimously. Although this campaign has not caused tens of thousands of vitriolic comments online, or anywhere near it, and even though it is for Lt. Governor and not Senator, this race is more important than the Senatorial primary for the basic reason that Roberts can actually win. She is from Western Pennsylvania, where she has been elected to several different positions in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Combine this with the same reformer and progressive base that Sandals and Pennacchio have, along with potentially significant support from the African-American community, and this thing could be very close. Given this, the Roberts campaign has the potential to strike the immediate change in the operating model of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, while the local silent revolution that has been significantly aided by Chuck Pennacchio, is primarily a long-term strategy to affect positive change. While both campaigns are of great importance to the long-term goal of a more open and more progressive Pennsylvania Democratic Party, the Lt. Governor election is actually more important on May 16th.

I bring this up not just to chat about local politics for a little while. I would also tie this in to the Progressive Strategy Notes post I made back on Sunday. Right now, I can already identify quite a few primaries where I would like to help unseat Democratic incumbents in congress: CT-Sen, TX-28, CA-20, IL-12, MD-04, CA-36 and, until the incumbents left this year, HI-02 and TN-09 (there are others, but I'll keep the list short for now). There are also many primaries I where I would like to support the progressive and / or reformer Democrat against the favored party and / or conservative candidate. However, not only are there limits to the ability of the netroots to channel resources into primaries, but there is another step we must take before launching a series of primary campaigns against establishment / conservative Democrats. Before we decide to challenge a handful of Democratic incumbents (or more), we actually need to show that we can make these challenges work.

As we begin to branch out, mature, and explore the primary option more than we ever did in the past, the netroots needs to keep in mind that one memorable, successful challenge against a problematic Democratic incumbent will make a far greater impact on the Democratic ecosystem than several weak and easily forgettable challenges combined. While the progressive and reformer influence of the netroots is increasing in DC and other places, it still is not taken very seriously by many of the people we would most like to reach (such as, for example, the Democrats in the districts I listed in the paragraph above this one). So far, outside of the 2004 Presidential race, we have been credited with an assist in the TX-28, but we were neither the first nor the only stakeholders to enter that race on Ciro's behalf. Throw in the fact that Ciro was already considered a reasonably serious primary challenge, and that he ended up losing without a run-off, and there still are not many reasons for people who do not take the need for reform and a more progressive Democratic Party seriously to start doing so.

The Connecticut Senate primary is different. That primary is to the nation what the campaign of Valerie McDonald Roberts is to Pennsylvania. It is the immediate, short-term target in what must be understood as a long-term strategy. Ned Lamont's campaign in Connecticut has been overwhelmingly netroots fueled, and started form a point of seeming hopelessness. Winning, or seriously, seriously threatening, Lieberman in Connecticut would send shockwaves through the Democratic ecosystem around the country, changing the behavior of many of its constituents parts. It would demonstrate that progressives, reformers, and the netroots have emerged as serious players in primary elections outside of the Presidential race, and that a Democratic incumbent must view the threat of a netroots challenge as something to worry about. Success in the Connecticut primary will also provide us with a template to conduct other primary challenges, along with knowledge about what worked, and what did not.

I bring this up because over the past several months, many people on this blog and over email have asked me why I have not tried to direct resources toward more Democratic primaries involving progressives and / or reformers (such as the Pennsylvania Senate primary). The basic reason is that I think we need to learn how to walk in these primary challenges before we run. In 2006, I do not want the netroots to over-extend in primary challenges, and end up both looking and being ineffective in generating serious challenges. Because of this, for now, I believe we need to focus our national efforts in primaries against problematic incumbents entirely in the Connecticut Senatorial primary. Let's do one right before we decide to run a full slate. The best-case scenario is that we succeed internally in Connecticut in August and then succeed nationally against Republicans n November. If we can accomplish both of those goals, then the political world will never be the same, and 2008 will be an entirely different ballgame for problematic Democratic incumbents.

Next weekend, I will be heading up to Connecticut to check out Ned Lamont's campaign for myself. In the interim, I urge you to continue supporting this campaign, which is so crucial to the long term goal of a more progressive America. Volunteer for Ned Lamont. Contribute to Ned Lamont. Your support so far has been remarkable and invaluable. This is just the latest mile we have to run in what will inevitably be a marathon.