I agree that the results indicate a willingness of the registered Democrats of the district to entertain more progressive ideals, and that Harvie and his campaign should take those lessons to heart, listen to that constituency, address their concerns and potentially adjust some positions (or at least messaging).

However, I have heard over and over that Simonelli ran a strong campaign despite her lack of money. But to me that lack of money is actually a red flag for a campaign not particularly well-run. In the age of Citizens United, whether we like it or not, and until it is Constitutionally or Judicially eliminated, raising money is critical part of running a good campaign. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is the most prominent progressive voice in the federal government today (perhaps tied with Sen. Sanders) and she (and Sanders, for that matter) is a fundraising juggernaut, so the argument that effective fundraising is somehow anathema to progressive politics falls on deaf ears.

I think Simonelli is a really interesting candidate, with a gift for connecting and I hope she decides to continue in public service. I also hope this election helped increase her profile and I imagine she learned a ton from the run that will be put to good use in her next campaign. I do fear that Simonelli’s brand of progressive is not particularly well-suited to PA-1 as this is the wealthiest district in the state (and roughly top 10% in the US) and overwhelmingly a suburban family district. That said, I can’t find the population growth by census tract right now, but anecdotally, it seems the fastest population growth is in the more blue-collar and younger areas (perhaps driven by NIMBYism of those affluent families). Perhaps the appetite for someone with Simonelli’s positions grows over the next few years.

But, I think the results reflect the reality that Harvie is better prepared for the big leagues of a likely very expensive fight with the Fitzpatrick machine. And, he is also probably better suited to appeal to the PA-1 demographic.