After Obama ran on hope and change and won, one thing he did was shut down his very capable campaign organization without transitioning it to something else. It was maybe one tactical reason that later midterms became a mess for Democrats.
It's pretty clear the Bernie's organization, as well as the loose independent collective of progressive organizations around similar national and local causes who have also sprung up, will continue full bore to change congress as well as keep pressure on congress to make, well, progress.
> as well as the loose independent collective of progressive organizations around similar national and local causes who have also sprung up,
The problem being that none of their candidates won competitive seats. Now, some like Kara Eastman came close..but candidates closer to the Obama/Hillary mold, veterans, and pro-gun control candidates in suburbs made up the bulk of the wins in the midterms.
I doubt your data. Just one counter example, in Orange County CA, Katie Porter, a democrat, won a competitive seat in a district that has been Republican for a long time (maybe 30+ years?).
From what I understand, she wasn't endorsed by Our Revolution (I'm strictly talking about the Bernie-aligned groups). She was endorsed by lots of other progressive groups that are more effective at this sort of thing.
On the other hand, people like Kendra Horn flipped deep-red Oklahoma 5th with help of Bloomberg's Independence PAC, and Sharice Davids beat Bernie-backed Brent Welder in the primary to win the general by 10 points in a swing district.
Does it matter if it's a Bernie aligned group? In CA-25, Our revolution endorsed one candidate, Justice Democrats another candidate, and a third Democratic candidate actually won yet another historically Republican district. They were helped (but not endorsed) by also progressive, but not as closely aligned to Bernie, Indivisible, by loose Bernie inspired independents, etc. I think it's a mistake to only look at strict boundaries of support by candidate name. I would consider CA-25s win with Katie Hill another progressive win in an contentious district.
My theory is that presidents should try to make big changes only in their second term when they understand how the system works. Obama in his first term was a complete pushover with the banks after 2008 and also during the Obamacare debate. I think he would have done much better in his second term.
It's pretty clear the Bernie's organization, as well as the loose independent collective of progressive organizations around similar national and local causes who have also sprung up, will continue full bore to change congress as well as keep pressure on congress to make, well, progress.