This November, Michigan is going to be the most interesting battleground state of all to watch, because it is finally going to put to the test a big political theory. Can a truly progressive candidate who has plenty of charisma win a general election in a swing state where the stakes are high and both parties will be heavily invested in the outcome? This theory has (so far) yet to be tested in a big way, much to the frustration of progressives, stretching all the way back to the 2016 nomination fight between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The theory has never been adequately tested, progressives will tell you, because the Democratic Party establishment kept putting its thumb on the scale in order to defeat Bernie and advance their chosen "more electable" candidates instead.

The establishment's track record is mixed, at best. Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Joe Biden beat him four years later. Would Democrats have beaten Trump the first time if their standard-bearer had been Bernie? Nobody knows the answer to that question, but progressives firmly believe that Sanders could have won -- because he represented true economic populism as opposed to Trump's opportunistic faux populism. But Bernie didn't win the nomination, therefore the theory was never put to the test in a general election (although Bernie did win plenty of primaries in 2016, including Michigan's).

Progressives are fed up with the whole "play it safe -- nominate someone unobjectionable who doesn't scare suburban voters" strategy from the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Sometimes this strategy works (Biden did beat Trump), but a lot of times it falls short in the end. Nominating someone who is unobjectionable usually means nominating someone who isn't seen as much of a fighter, and the political mood right now seems to favor people with some fire in the belly. Progressives firmly believe that a candidate who stands up for the working class and promises to raise taxes on the rich and corporate America to pay for their agenda would convince even disaffected Republicans to actually vote for them. They believe that someone who excites the electorate with bold plans and big ideas will prove to be a lot more electable than a safe-but-boring Democratic establishment candidate.

Michigan will be a true test of this theory. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed won the state's primary last night for an open Senate seat, defeating Representative Haley Stevens, who was heavily favored by establishment Democrats. It was a very close race, which wasn't called for El-Sayed until this morning (he won by just under one percent). The polling before the election showed a bigger lead for El-Sayed, which is already causing some worries. And he'll be facing Republican Mike Rogers, who lost a previous Senate race in Michigan by less than half a percentage point. Rogers has already proved he can be competitive in such a race, which is also causing more Democratic worries.

The stakes are high. Control of the Senate may indeed hinge on this race. Democrats will need to pick up four seats in November to wrest control of the chamber away from the Republicans, but because the Michigan seat is currently held by a Democrat, they would have to pick up five seats in other states if they lost the Michigan race. Flipping four seats is already a pretty steep hill to climb, and flipping five may be nearly impossible.

This means the Democratic Party bigwigs cannot afford to just wash their hands of the Michigan race and walk away in a fit of pique. They have to put their resources behind El-Sayed, because the race could be so critical for their hopes of regaining the majority in the Senate.

A lot of money has already been invested in this race, but most of it went to Stevens. Almost $65 million was spent in support of Stevens in the primary, compared to only $7.4 million in support of El-Sayed. Much of the Stevens money -- over $30 million -- came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), because Stevens is pro-Israel while El-Sayed is decidedly not. El-Sayed overcame this flood of campaign cash (he was outspent by a factor of almost 9-to-1) and won anyway, proving that having more money doesn't always guarantee a candidate's victory. While Stevens picked up the endorsements of many Michigan and national Democratic politicians, El-Sayed was only endorsed by very progressive Democrats (Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). But he also won the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, which is a very big deal in Michigan.

Progressives tend to reject being pigeonholed as "far-left," since they see the world on a different political axis. They see themselves as "anti-corporate, pro-little-guy" rather than just being pegged somewhere on the right-left measuring stick. Here's how El-Sayed puts it:

"We have this outdated model that everybody moves on a continuum from left to right," El-Sayed said. Establishment Democrats assume the path to victory lies in staking out an ideological middle ground.

"I have an alternative hypothesis," he said. "That people so hate the establishment on both sides of the aisle that they were willing to hold their nose and vote for Donald Trump twice, because if this really was a moderate state, Donald Trump is no moderate." That would mean that the best person to take on the Republican Senate nominee, Mike Rogers -- a multimillionaire former congressman known for his friendliness to Big Pharma -- is a populist outsider like El-Sayed.

"People are really pissing mad, really, really pissing mad," he said. "They don't trust Democrats because they don't feel like Democrats are actually going to fight for the things that Democrats say they want to fight for."

El-Sayed has his work cut out for him. After a bruising primary race, he now faces an even-more-bruising general election campaign. Republicans are already calling him (and pretty much every other Democrat running everywhere) a "communist," and they often toss in "jihadist" for El-Sayed as well. They're not going to hold back on their demonization of El-Sayed, and will try their hardest (as they usually do) to paint him as a scary choice that will somehow destroy everything good about America. But El-Sayed just beat back $65 million in negative ads run against him, so there's a good chance Michigan voters are already getting rather numb to such attacks.

Part of El-Sayed's problem will be to unify the Democratic Party behind him. The primary was pretty vicious, which has left a lot of bruised feelings. Voters who supported Stevens must have been very disappointed to see her get so close to winning before falling just short of the goal. The bad blood between the two candidates won't go away overnight, but the question is how many Stevens voters will be so angry with her loss that they decide to sit out the November election. This could be a deciding factor, as indeed it may have been in the 2024 presidential race (where many Democratic voters upset with the party's stance on Israel just didn't vote for Kamala Harris). And the primary numbers were pretty impressive too -- 1.5 million people voted in the Democratic primary, while only 930,000 did so in the GOP primary. The good news for El-Sayed is that establishment Democrats are usually more inclined to "vote blue, no matter who," rather than to sit out an election in a fit of pique. The stakes, as mentioned, are going to be sky-high in this race, so Michigan Democrats will know full well that control of the Senate might hinge on them voting for El-Sayed in November, even if they didn't do so yesterday. And even if they have to hold their noses to do so.

El-Sayed is an impressive candidate -- eager and bursting with charisma. Even people who didn't support him admit that he is smart as a whip and is a master at thinking on his feet. He may be a little too full of himself and a little too confident in his ability to win voters over, but then (when you get right down to it) what politician isn't, to some degree or another?

What it all boils down to in Michigan is the shoe being on the other foot in the Democratic Party. Instead of progressives being told: "Get over your hurt feelings and go vote for the establishment candidate because defeating Republicans is so important," now the establishment voters will face exactly the same equation with a progressive candidate. El-Sayed wasn't the only progressive to win their primary last night in Michigan -- two others won their primaries in House races. Will Lawrence beat two establishment candidates in one district, and Donavan McKinney squeaked out a win to unseat incumbent Representative Shri Thanedar in another. All eyes will be on all of these races come November.

The progressive theory of how to win races (even in battleground states) will be tested in November in a way we haven't seen before. The stakes will be sky-high -- control of the Senate may well hang in the balance. And Michigan is currently slated to become one of the early-voting states in the Democratic primary calendar for 2028, so this test will be closely watched by all progressive Democrats who are now considering running. Can an economic populist who can fire up a crowd actually win in places like Michigan? Could this be a big factor in the 2028 presidential race? Dr. El-Sayed is either going to prove the progressive theory of electability, or he is going to be a massive disappointment to Democrats everywhere. Either outcome will have at least some influence on the 2028 race. Which is why this could be the election that has the widest impact, come November.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant