Interesting, guys. Yeah, the multiple variables at play in Oregon make it hard to say whether Oregon Democrats were consciously pushing back against progressives or if the big spending just overwhelmed everything else.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

Ultimately, in congressional primaries, if you are getting absolutely swamped by your opponent with advertising — both negative and positive, unlike in some other recent primaries with spending disparities — you're going to have a hard time. Susheela Jayapal was up against $5.7 million in pro-Dexter spending and could only marshal a few hundred thousand dollars of advertising. McLeod-Skinner faced $5.7 million of outside spending hitting her and boosting Bynum and only aired about $200,000 worth of advertisements. In an expensive media market, that makes it tough to get your message out, let alone respond effectively to attacks.

—Jacob Rubashkin, Inside Elections

That's interesting, Meredith, but I also think that Portland-area voters are a little frustrated with the progressive movement, particularly in the wake of the debacle with decriminalizing drugs that the legislature recently rolled back. There may be some local dynamics that really matter in Oregon, but aren't as influential elsewhere in the country, that are holding progressive candidates back — as you can see in my previous post about polling in the area regarding homelessness and crime. Both the 5th and 3rd districts are in the Portland area, so progressives there may be suffering some blowback from these issues.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538

That's a good question, Nathaniel. It could be that big spending wins primaries. Another takeaway could be that progressive candidates are losing steam. In the 3rd and the 5th, the candidates more aligned with the progressive wing ended up losing (Jayapal and McLeod-Skinner). But I don't think that's the take away. I think it's more so a consequence of progressive's effective movement. Voters had their pick of several progressive candidates in those races, and yes, the candidates who spent more prevailed.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor

Right on cue, Jacob: Oregon’s most competitive House race this fall will likely be in the 5th District, where Republican Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer is defending a seat that Biden would’ve carried by 9 percentage points. That potential prize has precipitated a highly competitive Democratic primary between state Rep. Janelle Bynum and attorney Jamie McLeod-Skinner. Bynum has led the way in fundraising, bringing in $1.1 million to McLeod-Skinner’s $726,000. But McLeod-Skinner may be better known, having defeated incumbent Rep. Kurt Schrader in the 2022 Democratic primary before losing to Chavez-DeRemer by 2 points in the general election later that year.

Perhaps with this loss in mind, many Democratic officials — including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — are backing Bynum over McLeod-Skinner as the better bet to defeat Chavez-DeRemer this fall. The DCCC has even taken the unusual step of running “hybrid ads” with Bynum that both promote her candidacy and Democrats more broadly, allowing both to save money by splitting advertising costs. Outside groups have also come in big for Bynum by spending around $1.2 million either backing her or opposing McLeod-Skinner, according to OpenSecrets — including $759,000 in ad spending from Mainstream Democrats PAC criticizing McLeod-Skinner over reports that she behaved poorly toward her campaign staff in 2022. Additionally, EMILYs List has endorsed Bynum, a change from 2022 when it endorsed McLeod-Skinner (albeit after that year’s primary).

McLeod-Skinner has countered by running ads highlighting Bynum’s 2019 vote to oppose expanding the statute of limitations for rape survivors to file civil suits in sexual assault cases. Bynum defended the vote at the time, saying “it’s not popular to protect the accused, but it is our job.” Additionally, an outside group called Health Equity Now has spent about $350,000 on ads promoting McLeod-Skinner as a progressive. However, the group appears to have Republican ties, so it may be a case of GOP meddling to boost a potentially weaker general election candidate. Regardless, the race certainly looks close: The only polling that we’ve seen of the primary this year is a late April survey by Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies on behalf of Bynum’s campaign that found her a hair ahead of McLeod-Skinner, 37 percent to 34 percent.

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538