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

As usual, tonight we'll be tracking candidates in Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho and Oregon House primaries whose campaign websites use the phrase "pro-life," "sanctity of life," "right to life," "protect life," "no abortion," "against abortion" or "unborn" and do not say abortion is an issue of states' rights.

In Kentucky and Idaho, abortion is completely banned with few exceptions, and in Georgia it is banned after six weeks of pregnancy. Of the six congressional seats in Kentucky, five lean Republican and three include at least one anti-abortion Republican on the ballot.

Twelve anti-abortion candidates are running in primaries in 10 of Georgia's 14 districts. Most of those districts are safe seats for one or the other party, though, so abortion is less likely to become a major deciding factor for voters in the fall.

Idaho's 2nd District is the only of its two districts with a competitive primary, and the incumbent, Rep. Mike Simpson, faces two challengers. Simpson and one of those challengers, Sean Higgins, are both on our list of anti-abortion candidates.

Oregon is one of the most protective states for abortion rights in the country, though four Republican primary candidates in the state are on this list today. Two of them are running in the state's only solid-red district, covering much of the non-coastal part of the state. The other two are in the safely Democratic 3rd District and the potentially competitive 4th District.

—Monica Potts, 538