August is a big primary election month for Democrats, as tonight kicks off a series of contests in multiple states, the results of which could cause a huge freakout within both the Democratic Party and the world of political commentators. Several very progressive candidates seem poised to win their primaries, not in deep-blue Democratic districts but in very purple battleground states. Will this lead to victory in November or a massive disappointment for Democrats? Nobody knows, at this point, but that is the question on a lot of minds, as we all wait to see the primary results come in.

There will doubtlessly be talk of a "Democratic Tea Party" if progressives manage to chalk up some big wins (both tonight and later in the month). The divide between the progressive left and the party's centrists will be on full display, and there will be much hand-wringing and pearl-clutching from one side or the other (depending on the results).

The big question that so far remains largely unanswered is what is the best strategy for the Democratic Party heading forward? The first possibility is that they could be guided by the question of electability, which means playing it safe and going with centrist or moderate candidates who can appeal to independents in the general election. The second possibility is that they could go for candidates who generate enormous amounts of enthusiasm, which would boost turnout in the general election and get people who normally don't vote to do so.

There are distinct issues that divide the progressive left from the party's establishment, but the electability-versus-enthusiasm question is the one that will be on most pundits' minds as the results come in. The establishment types will argue that nominating far-left candidates who espouse radical ideas will scare centrists and independents who might otherwise have voted for a Democrat, thus putting winnable races in needless jeopardy. The progressives will counter that argument with a very simple one of their own: "How's that been working out for you?" They will point to the presidential elections in 2016 and 2024, where the supposed most-electable candidate did indeed get the Democratic nomination, only to go on to lose the general election to Donald Trump. Progressives insist that actually standing for a bold and ambitious agenda is the way to go, because voters are tired of milquetoast Democrats who can't seem to stand for much of anything and haven't been doing a great job of fighting back against Trump and his Republicans.

Both arguments have some validity, and the question isn't completely generic -- what works in one district or state might not work in another. Up until now, the progressive challengers have mostly been winning in solid-blue Democratic areas (like New York City), but tonight (and later in the month) there are several big races in Midwestern states that voted for Donald Trump in the last election.

The Republican Party has gone through massive changes over the past decade or so. First it was the Tea Party revolutionaries, then they sort of morphed into the Freedom Caucus, and finally Donald Trump staged a very successful hostile takeover of the entire party. Overall, this has worked out much better than anyone initially thought (Trump did win twice), but there were also some serious stumbles along the way. Republicans nominated some very fringe candidates for some very winnable races who absolutely crashed and burned on Election Day. In particular, the GOP lost at least five or six Senate races that should have been a lot more competitive for them, due to their nominees being either woefully unfit for the job or just complete whackadoodles.

That is the fear many Democrats are now having about progressive primary victories in purple states. Will nominating far-left candidates mean Democrats lose what could have been very winnable races in November? We won't know the answer to that until November, obviously. If progressive nominees do manage to win, then it will be a big boost for the progressive movement in general -- which is likely to lead to a lot more of them running in 2028 in a lot of competitive districts and states. If progressive nominees disappoint in November, then there will be a strong pushback from the Democratic Party establishment, along the lines of: "See? We told you so!"

One thing to keep in perspective is the relative size of the progressive movement. To be blunt, there is no likelihood that the Democratic Socialists are going to take over the Democratic Party any time soon. Even widening that to include progressives who reject the Democratic Socialist label doesn't show a massive uprising among the party's rank and file that could turn into some sort of coup. This may get lost in the discussion tonight, especially if progressive candidates win.

There is indeed a struggle within the party over issues, strategy, and direction, but it may not be as revolutionary as some like to portray it. Progressives -- led by Bernie Sanders -- have indeed moved the "Overton window" within the party, to the point where many previously "radical" ideas have now been widely adopted by many Democrats who do not consider themselves progressives at all. If the progressives do manage to win in November, they will grow their ranks within the Democratic caucus in Congress, but they will not suddenly be in full control of the party's agenda, because they will still be a small faction rather than a majority. They will likely further shift the party's stances on some issues, but they won't be in charge of steering the ship quite yet. They might actually force a change in leadership within the party by preventing Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries from continuing in their leadership roles, but even if this does happen they likely won't be replaced by fire-breathing progressives (because they just won't have the votes to do so).

This may be the best year to test out the question of whether progressive candidates can win in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, because the voters are feeling so angry at the actions (and inaction) of Trump and his Republicans on many important issues. Many of these issues are ones that progressives are pretty strong on too. In the end, economic populism might be the big winner in the midterms, which is one reason progressives might wind up doing well (since their agenda contains strong proposals on this front, as opposed to weaker ideas from the establishment Democrats). Also, the anti-Trump feelings Democratic voters have are very strong right now, which might mean progressives could manage to win races they normally wouldn't be competitive in (in a more normal year). Independent voters have also soured on Trump in a big way, so the situation might not be as dire as some establishment Democrats are predicting.

That all might not prove to be true, however. The margins in Congress are so thin right now that every race is going to matter. If progressive Democrats do win their primary battles but then go on to lose in November, it could be seen as a gigantic missed opportunity to reclaim control of the Senate or even the House. If a handful of progressive candidates do manage to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," then the recriminations and infighting is all going to get very fierce within the Democratic Party afterwards.

But it is still too early for all of that, even though some of this infighting will probably begin as the results come in from Michigan. However, no matter what happens in the primaries this month, nobody now knows what is going to happen in November. At this point, all that can be said is that it could be the year when the progressive brand actually gets a chance to prove itself on a much bigger stage than New York City or Vermont. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or not remains to be seen.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant