Northam's election in Virginia illustrated a very important thing.

[MineralMan]

In every election, a candidate needs to be able to win enough votes to gain office or he or she is just another loser. Every congressional district has its own political center point. Stray too far from that point and you will lose if you run. It's that simple. Every election other than the presidential election is a LOCAL election. To win, you have to be a candidate who can get a majority of people where you are running to go to the polls and vote for you. If you're not that candidate, you will lose.

That's true in cities, counties, state legislative districts and congressional districts. Each has its own political leanings, based on whatever factors are present in that place. In statewide races, the balance point is even more difficult to find. Northam isn't the most progressive governor out of the 50 governors who will be in office next year. Not by a long shot. However, Virginia, as a state, has its overall center somewhere to the right of most of our opinions.

Perriello was supported by some people a little farther left of center. He lost in the primary election. He would have lost in the general election, too. Northam straddles the political line and got elected. And that is what is being illustrated by his victory. He won. Therefore, he was the better fit for that particular state. He is a Democrat, not a Republican, which is the only thing those of us who live elsewhere need to know, really.

Bottom line: If you do not get elected, you do not get to participate in governance. We need people who can be elected where they are running. Northam is one such person in his state of Virginia. I don't live in Virginia, so I don't get to decide. Unless you live in Virginia, your opinion about who should run in that state is irrelevant. Northam won in Virginia. Who can win where you live? That's the question, and the only question that matters. Look toward 2018 and choose the candidates you support wisely. If they don't win, you lost your chance to make a difference.

[still_one]

1. elections have consequences

[MineralMan]

2. That simple statement is always true.

Someone wins every election. The trick is getting someone to win who is also mostly on your side. If you insist that the candidate you vote for agrees with you on everything, you will end up with a winner who agrees with you on almost nothing.

We need to learn that lesson very well and put it into practice where each of us lives. Focus on your own area and let people in other areas figure out what will work there.

[still_one]

17. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Phoenix61]

3. Yep!

I'm in a very red area where Dems rarely even run. Center reads pretty darn liberal around hear. Left of center just gets laughed at.

[lagomorph777]

4. Virginia's election was hyper-local; Northam was boosted by numerous new delegate challengers.

Personally, I find it odious that we have a governeor who voted twice for Bush Jr. But at least he's not an explicit KKK-Nazi like Gillespie.

[LexVegas]

5. Perriello is anti-woman. He is not "farther left of center". nt

[MineralMan]

6. What I said was that he was SUPPORTED by people

farther left of center, I believe. He lost in the primary and so is inconsequential.

[lapucelle]

7. You're a voice of reason here.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

8. Thank you. I try to be.

[jalan48]

9. So, if in 2020 a self-avowed white male Trump voter gets chosen to be the Democratic candidate

in an election (local politics)-that's OK? Should we still call him a "Deplorable" or will we soften up on that?

[MineralMan]

13. The probability of that happening approaches zero.

[jalan48]

14. Got it.

[keithbvadu2]

10. Some folks say their vote does not matter

[spicysista]

11. All politics are local!

Simply spot on, sir. Cheers, MineralMan !

[IronLionZion]

12. Socialists and lots of unlikely first time candidates won this election

I get what you're saying about every election is local. But there were some very liberal Dems who won local elections in places that are not very liberal. Our side was energized with high turnout, the other side was not.

[Nitram]

15. Some of us on DU understand exactly what you are saying and we agree with you.

I'm afraid there are other Democrats who insist that all Democrats pass a number of bogus litmus tests to be considered a true Democrat.

[MineralMan]

16. Thanks. You're right about that, too.

It could be a problem in 2018 and 2020. I hope not.

[mamas]

18. Thank you for your wise words.

I hope they are accepted and used.

[ProudLib72]

19. Here is a site that lists groups affiliated with progressive electoral politics

http://www.startguide.org/orgs/orgs01.html

Yesterday, I was looking through the list and saw "Our Revolution" and "DFA", two groups that pull support of any candidate that doesn't meet their standards (DFA pulled support of Northam). I have to ask, Why are these groups even considered "progressive" if all their policies achieve is getting rethugs elected?

Until a group embraces the sentiment expressed in your OP, then they should not be called "progressive". In fact, I would really love for someone (who has the time) to start compiling a list of candidates for various elections along with the "progressive" groups that support him or her. Then we can sit back and watch what purity tests count for in the real world.

[MineralMan]

20. Bless their hearts, I'm sure they mean well...

Spoken with the deeply sarcastic tone I learned from my Texas-born grandmother, who was a master of using "bless their hearts" in that way.