And stop lying. They don't run progressives in Oklahoma, they ran blue dogs and lose in a landslide anyway.
Lying? It's you who is lying. The names of Fred Harris and Mike Synar are not familiar to you as i see? Both even won, and not once. Oklahoma tolerated them for considerable time. But whom Democrats ran for Senate last time in Oklahoma?
A couple of liberals (if i remember correctly - one black and one gay). And that in a very conservative Oklahoma!!! Idiocy, to say the least. Both REALLY lost in a landslide (by 38-39%), while moderate conservative Dorman lost only by about 14-15%, getting more then 41% in very conservative state in very Republican year (instead of 32-33% for your beloved Obama even with much bigger turnout). Feel the difference and REALLY stop lying, a "progressive")))))
Uh, the guy who ran against Inhofe has a wife. But regardless, how would the fact that they're black and/or gay automatically make them "progressive liberals"? And you seem to be under the impression that these people still support "the right kind of Democrat". Long time incumbent Democrats who were extremely conservative lost in West Virginia last year. The liberal wing of the Republican Party died a long time ago, and the conservative wing of the Democratic Party is following suit. It's no huge surprise.
You will be surprised, but liberal wing of Republican party is still alive - in Vermont (Scott, and substantal number of state legislators) Connecticut (in legislature), Massachusetts (Baker, for example, but not only him) and other states. May be - somewhat less liberal then, say, Jacob Javits was, but still - substantially "left of center" (on general political scale, not what "progressives" call "center" - even Javits would, probably, be to the right of it). The same is even more true for conservative Democrats: i will not mention local level (there are tons of them and not only in the South), but - there are still lot of rather conservative Democratic state legislators in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas. Even - in Alaska there are some rather very conservative ones. The higher level - the more "nationalized" elections become, and yes, it's extremely difficult for even moderate conservative to prevail statewide or for Congress - you are immediately dubbed "an Obama's enabler", and in the eyes of most Southern voters that's probably worse then "Hitler's enabler" or "Stalin's enabler" It's THAT simple.... Obama almost buried Democratic party in the South.. For now....
BTW, there are not many "economical progressives" even among, say, Democratic governors. Pragmatic moderate liberals - yes, many, but "fiery progressives" - i am at difficulty to name even 3 (even Shumlin moderated considerably in office). That's a sign that "class warfare", which was a hallmark of "economical progressives" in the past, gradually fades from being fashionable. Practical governing leaves much less space for "radical follies" then abstract legislating, where radicals of all stripes flourish. Though even in liberal California a lot of "business Democrats" (who could be Republicans under different circumstances and in different states) were elected to the legislature in 2012 and 2014... Possibly - as reaction to hyperpolarization of recent past, when most Democratic legislators were insanely liberal, and most Republican - mindbogglingly conservative..
P.S. There are ideological ratings for almost all state legislators for the last 20 years available. I checked black candidate, who was a member of legislature, and i KNOW that she was a liberal. Almost identical percentage and it's distribution by counties make very likely (almost sure) that second Senate candidate had similar ideological positions. Look on "Dorman by county" - the distribution is very different from those...
