As we celebrate our victories these days, I found it difficult at the same time not to feel a little mournful for all of the great candidates we found to contest races all over the country who lost their races.  Over the last few months, I've come to have a lot of loyalty and emotion invested in them, and it's hard not to feel a little down for all of those who lost.

Then I realized that was a ridiculous and defeatist outlook to take.  These courageous men and women, even if they are not now headed to Congress, are just as much part of the 50-state strategy team as those who won.  People like Joe Courtney or Patrick Murphy wouldn't have won their close races without their help, and unexpected victors like Nancy Boyda and Harry Mitchell probably wouldn't have had a chance if the Republican machine hadn't already been stretched to the breaking point.

The contest for progressive hero Bernie Sanders' old seat in Congress promises to be a hot one this year, and I would guess it will be closer than many contests in districts with much more even partisan indexes.

In fact, I would guess that best case, Democrat Peter Welch (current State Senate President Pro Tem) can hope to achieve a 55% victory over former VT National Guard leader Martha Rainville (R), but he will have to work hard for it. It is also possible that this will be one of the true nail-biters on Nov 7. It is even possible that Rainville could pull it off.

Why, in a state that rates the lowest approval in the nation of Bush and the current Republican crowd in Washington?

There's been little or no mention here of another March 7 election -- in Burlington, VT. Instant-Runoff Voting was used for the first time there to elect a mayor in a town with a strong -- heck, dominant! -- third party, the Progressives. Progressives have held the mayor's position ever since 1990, when Bernie Sanders pulled an upset to gain his first prominent elected position.

This use of IRV is been viewed as a test run for a system that might be tested state-wide a few years down the road. So, how did it turn out?

The following short essay evolved out of a conversation on electability over in the 'progressives' community on livejournal.com, but I thought people here might have some interesting discussion. There, people were basically saying "Clinton and Kerry lead the polls for '08," "electability will suck in the Democrats and we'll lose again," "Democrats are all DC beltway controlled and I'm leaving the party."

I stood up to call for progressives not to scatter, but unite. I also think I touched on just why "electability" has become so anathema, and more importantly, why it seems to completely backfire. Thanks for reading.

Ever since Howard Dean catapulted to the front of the Presidential primary in mid-2003, his home state of Vermont has acquired a label of being the only state more ridiculously liberal than Massachusetts.  And indeed, Kerry's margin of victory in VT last year was his largest gain over Gore (in 2000) of any state in the nation.

But consider this: VT is the only truly rural "blue" state: Burlington, its largest town, is less than 39,000 people.  Dating back to the Civil War, it has voted mostly Republican on the national level.  Until 1992, Lyndon Johnson was the only Democrat it backed for President.  VT has elected only one Democrat, Patrick Leahy (in 1974), to the Senate.  And only one Democrat, in 1958, has won a Congressional seat.  He wasn't re-elected.

Most people assume the open at-large seat in Vermont will go to a Democrat next year, no question.  But just how likely is that, really?