The center-left offers an alternative to both the left and the Democratic “establishment.” But it’s losing influence — and struggling to define itself.
It just increasingly feels like the Democrats learned absolutely zero lessons from the 2020 Presidential primary. The new “should we have open borders” will be “do you want Israel to exist?” And then 70% of the country will be sitting there wondering what this has to do with them.
Hyperbole aside, the real problem for the center is that they will expect this answer to be 'No' when the answer will be some variation of, and I'm calling my shot now:
"Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war your paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer."
That answer is one that will spark a lot of outrage on the right,
but on the left and even in libertarian circles will have people silently nodding.
It's also the type of gish-gallop that's a mine field to argue through. You dismantle one point of contention, it just opens up the next line of attack.
That answer will not satisfy those on the far far left, nor the right, but that’s fine. Keep it on between the 50 yard lines and keep it short is the best strategy.
They don't need to. To be blunt, as much as the DSA and I are enemies I learned to respect them a decade ago and I do count friends in their numbers. They don't want the kooky left, they instead what to (and a quote here), "remind the centrists what they gave up for nothing in return."
Which, honestly, I trust the DSA more than a trust the GOP right now.
*AND I'M A F***ING LIBERTARIAN!*
(In my defense, the GOP are now communists, but STILL....)
and I don't think they'll want to alienate the centrists with such a statement.
Biden also played the game they wanted, and I have reason to believe they will be smarter in round two so less 'memeable college girl screaming at you' and more 'swave good looking men telling you to do it because it's the right thing to do', So they'll want to try and rebuild Biden's reputation in the long term like the Republicans have tried with Nixon.
Your answer to the Israel existence question - "Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war you're paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer." - is very similar to what Rahm Emanuel is saying, and one which I think a majority of Democrats (and possibly Independents) can agree on.
My roots are center right, and while I have more right than left in me, I'm politically homeless. One of my kids--more progressive than I am—demanded to know who I voted for in the last election. I said neither of these two fuckers. Please, please, please. Let's just have a center [anything] without corruption and with silent leadership so that I don't have to wake up every day and wonder WTF just happened while I was asleep. Trump is not the end of the world. It might be the end of the R party, but life will go on. I think one of our biggest challenges as a country is that we have too much time and money to do stupid shit instead of focusing on what matters. I don't WANT a war or an economic catastrophe, but those kinds of things clear your thinking and sort out the wheat from the chaff. I grew up in Guatemala w/o running water or electricity or plumbing. I'm a US citizen and grateful for it. This is still an amazing country, with serious issues. And those issues are led by both parties. Let's start being reasonable people, okay?
I think the two-party system is too entrenched for this to be the end of the Republican Party. If the D and R parties could survive the major shifts of the 20th century, such as the Democrats becoming the party of civil rights instead of Southern segregationists, I don't see any reason why the parties couldn't survive Trump.
Nate, you are making things harder for yourself than they need to be. I think you've misidentified your 'centre-leftism' when comparing to the various European groupings. You (and other members of the centre-left) would be classic social democrats, who believe in a capitalist, largely private and market-driven economy and a substantial welfare state, which acts to: guarantee people's rights; pay for universal services and projects like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and pensions; redistribute wealth and income to some degree. European liberals (the German Free Democratic Party, for example) are often centre-right parties rather than centre-left ones, on the argument that property rights are as sacrosanct as rights to free speech, etc. As for relations with the 'Left' as you identify it, it's confused by the fact that much of the American left thinks of itself in identity politics terms (what you would call 'woke') rather than in the established terms of the socialist Left, where economic inequality, and unequal access to political power, are the defining issues (which gets called 'populist' in the States!).
Surely what should count are the actual political and economic arrangements you want to see put in place, rather than the existence and flourishing of a labelled group. Just make alliances with the DSA, the Democratic establishment, etc., when you have common ground and fight them when you don't. But I'd say that means arguing for the actual positions you hold, rather than claiming your group is more pragmatic, rational, or whatever. Everyone thinks they're pragmatic (what you might class as Greens or socialists think their proposals are the pragmatic ones; it's not about 'idealism', it's about what might actually work in, say, negotiating the climate crisis or taming the power of the tech bros). Liberalism is an important, valuable intellectual and political tradition, but it isn't the centre-left. Ah, sorry I've gone on for so long.
The gap between now and when Clinton was elected is longer than the gap between when Clinton was elected and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed lol
I think you're spending too much time and space on classifying groups of people that aren't always or even actual groups or clusters or cohorts... Many DSA successful elections really had to do with primary elections in deeply blue areas...that have little to do with general elections...I'd be more interested in an analysis of the Michigan primary...and more importantly in the Michigan general.... for Senator...
I've given up describing anyone by their position on a simplistic left-right axis. Clearly we're not debating whether to execute the King of France ... you give some of the variants, and the range of views and approaches to policy is much more complex than a single dimension. My own policy views have much in common with Democratic Socialists (with some exceptions and nuance), but my approach to decision making is decidedly conservative - I don't like the idea of reflexively pushing for extreme change without careful consideration, and I want to be open to dialog and compromise with others. My favorite candidates have those qualities - an ability to work collaboratively, even with those you disagree with, while having strong support for "left" positions such as public funds benefiting the whole population, and not just the very wealthy.
On 1. I've been frustrated on the center-left making electability arguments against the DSA types as opposed to "no actually this is better policy. Capitalism works".
On 2. The liberals should not accept the democratic establishment if it becomes progressive. We should start our own power. DSA types are just as dangerous as MAGA.
On 4. Capitalism has been resoundingly successful if you look globally. So many people lifted out of poverty in my lifetime. This has come at some cost to some segments of the US population, but the real discussion here I think is nationalism, not whether capitalism is insanely effective. Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being? I say obviously no, we should prioritize the global poor first.(though no politician should ever say this lol)
A lot of interesting stuff here, but without settling on a definition of center-left it's hard to bring the questions into focus. So I'll content myself with a few nit-picks. The quarter-pole of the 21st century is 50 years in the future--as a sports-betting Substack should get right. Blockbuster peaked in 2004, not the 1990s, Clinton probably 1996/97 with welfare reform, re-election, the Balanced Budget Act; but before Lewinski (however, oddly, his Gallup high in 73% came in December 1998, after he had been impeached).
The meaningful comparison to 53% who say Democrats are too far to the left is not the 8% who say they are too far to the right; but the 47% who say Republicans are too far to the right. There is a gap, but 6%, not 45%.
84,000 primary voters should be divided by Democrats eligible to vote, not 750,000 population. It's likely over 20%, still a minority, but not 11%.
The Yale poll should show standard errors. It likely had under 200 extremely liberal respondents, each of whom saw only a few pairs of the 30 issues, not all 435 possible matchups. For example, at a guess 40 people might have been asked about Israel/Palestine at all, and paired with a random selection of the other issues. The 45%--18 who ranked Israel/Palestine higher--is a highly uncertain estimate of what all voters would say asked about all possible pairs.
The decline in moderates is real but old news--most happened in the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush/Obama years. Since Trump, it's been flat.
I just don’t get why the center left doesn’t steal some of the Dsa lefts thunder on Palestine. It doesn’t really hurt them electorally with swing voters and lets them triangulate other positions (I feel the same way about transgender rights because as a friend to many trans people i think it’s a moral litmus test but it’s a little more of an electoral hindrance with swing voters)
I'm starting to think that more Dems should be silent on the Israel - Palestine conflict. Say the situation is tenuous and that US policy has to be fluid, but US values do not. Then refer to basic rights to live safely and freely, indicting both sides and don't commit to how we will react in advance. Since most Americans wonder why we're investing so much in the region, indicate that we can't protect those that don't really want protection, implying that Bibi is a wild card.
The questions are good, but I think the center left and the left need to unite around a strategy to actually do something material for the non rich. Forget about reversing all of Trumpism, as it's clear that there is too much support for much of that agenda. Instead, build support for a domestic vision with key, immediate impactful improvement and make it clear that a congressional majority is necessary to make it happen. Then do it fast and save the restoration of norms for later in the term. Avoid division by actually doing something material. Had Trump done something positive for his public economically, he would be unstoppable.
> Silver Bulletin is the only newsletter in the U.S. politics Top 10 classified as non-partisan by independent researchers.
I disagree with their conclusion- looking at the top 10 list, I would also designate The Free Press as non-partisan, though the other top-10ers are most decidedly partisan.
And the coverage here is usually coming from a perspective inside of the Democratic party and outside of the Republican party. There was a lot of inside-baseball around things like Biden and Harris, in a way that there hasn't really been for the Republican side of the aisle.
Not a criticism personally, and there's not really "pro-Democratic" advocacy like those researchers might have been looking for, but it's still the primary perspective.
One meaningful separation within the center-left is whether it should be focused on a Liberal approach to change, or if it should be focused on just keeping things the way that they are. Is housing good enough and we should avoid changing it or only have minor tweaks, or do we need a vast overhaul that is still focused on a market-based approach? Should immigration stay as it is, or do we need One Billion Americans as Yglesias advocates for? Is healthcare fine, or do we need structural changes to the healthcare system to streamline regulations and allow for more doctors to join the system and increase supply? Do we want the system to stay the same, or do we want a Abundance agenda?
This all fits within a center-left viewpoint, but it looks extremely different in policy - this also has a lot of implications for the other questions, especially things like alliances with the Left.
This was a good read. I won't post all of them here, but I spent time answering those 12 questions. I consider myself somewhat of a blend between center-right traditional conservatism but with a bit of a libertarian bent on foreign policy and some social issues.
As I went through the questions, I identified a few major themes to my answers:
1. Lean into your brand. Be the adults in the room, support technocratic ideas, be okay with terms like "technocracy", "good government", and "classical liberalism".
2. Be willing to work with members of both parties that support your platform, and similarly be ready to loudly reject far-left members of the DSA who are a threat to democracy as much as the MAGA right. "Vote blue no matter who" just means you're a partisan Democrat that reads Slowing Boring with your morning coffee.
3. Be prepared to actually argue and provide evidence to support your policy positions.
4. Be willing to admit that the Democratic establishment has delivered very poor results in places like California and Illinois. Borrow from Democrats and Republicans that have done things well (education reform in deep red Mississippi has been wildly successful as have housing reforms in blue Colorado).
5. Pick your battles and focus on the ones that unite (housing affordability, reducing inflation, improving infrastructure, and increasing public safety). The "how" will differ, but everybody ultimately wants those things. There are certain other issues like abortion where people are simply locked in and there are no policy arguments to be had. Leave those issues to referenda or the state/local level (i.e. don't force Massachusetts policies on Nebraska).
If you find this analysis interesting I'd recommend looking at the trajectory of the Liberal Party in Australia as a possible signpost. Their founding principles fit squarely in the above "liberal" characterisation, albeit they are classed as a party of the right in a 2 party system with an opposing centrist party with origins in the trade union movement to its left. In absolute terms, I think the Liberal Party maps quite closely to the "center-left" described here.
Historically, it was an unreconciled alliance with a more nationalist right wing element and an urban elite base. Both these factions have largely split off ("Teal" independents to the elite left and "One Nation" nationalist anti-immigration populist right). The remaining party has completely imploded in terms of approval ratings in a short space of time, despite being the natural opposition party to a relatively unpopular technocratic centre left government. The 2 party system in Australia was resilient for many decades until very recently.
Conclusion being, the changes described here are potentially profound, don't have easy answers and could result in political ruptures that would seem unthinkable in relatively short order.
If you are not partisan enough, you cannot win primaries. With the trend within the party going more extreme both ways, candidates are going to be more polarized. That being said, more people are identifying themselves as independents, mostly, judging from the comment section, they couldn't stand either party's current trajectory. So, looks like we are going to 1. Do nothing and stuck with picking the crap that's less stinky. Arguably for the past 2-4 cycles, depending on who you ask. Or 2. Change how primaries are run and give independents more saying. Make candidates cater to a broader audience. Or 3. Return of Silver Party (?)
It just increasingly feels like the Democrats learned absolutely zero lessons from the 2020 Presidential primary. The new “should we have open borders” will be “do you want Israel to exist?” And then 70% of the country will be sitting there wondering what this has to do with them.
Hyperbole aside, the real problem for the center is that they will expect this answer to be 'No' when the answer will be some variation of, and I'm calling my shot now:
"Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war your paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer."
That answer is one that will spark a lot of outrage on the right,
but on the left and even in libertarian circles will have people silently nodding.
It's also the type of gish-gallop that's a mine field to argue through. You dismantle one point of contention, it just opens up the next line of attack.
That answer will not satisfy those on the far far left, nor the right, but that’s fine. Keep it on between the 50 yard lines and keep it short is the best strategy.
They don't need to. To be blunt, as much as the DSA and I are enemies I learned to respect them a decade ago and I do count friends in their numbers. They don't want the kooky left, they instead what to (and a quote here), "remind the centrists what they gave up for nothing in return."
Which, honestly, I trust the DSA more than a trust the GOP right now.
*AND I'M A F***ING LIBERTARIAN!*
(In my defense, the GOP are now communists, but STILL....)
If you want to be spicier, you can say "...fooled 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 with dementia..."
I mean, Biden told him no so it's a harder case,
and I don't think they'll want to alienate the centrists with such a statement.
Biden also played the game they wanted, and I have reason to believe they will be smarter in round two so less 'memeable college girl screaming at you' and more 'swave good looking men telling you to do it because it's the right thing to do', So they'll want to try and rebuild Biden's reputation in the long term like the Republicans have tried with Nixon.
Your answer to the Israel existence question - "Israel deserves to exist as much as Palestine, But Netanyahu is a War Criminal who fooled a president with dementia into a war you're paying for at the pump. We cannot support that any longer." - is very similar to what Rahm Emanuel is saying, and one which I think a majority of Democrats (and possibly Independents) can agree on.
My roots are center right, and while I have more right than left in me, I'm politically homeless. One of my kids--more progressive than I am—demanded to know who I voted for in the last election. I said neither of these two fuckers. Please, please, please. Let's just have a center [anything] without corruption and with silent leadership so that I don't have to wake up every day and wonder WTF just happened while I was asleep. Trump is not the end of the world. It might be the end of the R party, but life will go on. I think one of our biggest challenges as a country is that we have too much time and money to do stupid shit instead of focusing on what matters. I don't WANT a war or an economic catastrophe, but those kinds of things clear your thinking and sort out the wheat from the chaff. I grew up in Guatemala w/o running water or electricity or plumbing. I'm a US citizen and grateful for it. This is still an amazing country, with serious issues. And those issues are led by both parties. Let's start being reasonable people, okay?
I think the two-party system is too entrenched for this to be the end of the Republican Party. If the D and R parties could survive the major shifts of the 20th century, such as the Democrats becoming the party of civil rights instead of Southern segregationists, I don't see any reason why the parties couldn't survive Trump.
I hope you're right. What we really need right now is STRONGER parties to keep out the Platner and Trump types.
Nate, you are making things harder for yourself than they need to be. I think you've misidentified your 'centre-leftism' when comparing to the various European groupings. You (and other members of the centre-left) would be classic social democrats, who believe in a capitalist, largely private and market-driven economy and a substantial welfare state, which acts to: guarantee people's rights; pay for universal services and projects like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and pensions; redistribute wealth and income to some degree. European liberals (the German Free Democratic Party, for example) are often centre-right parties rather than centre-left ones, on the argument that property rights are as sacrosanct as rights to free speech, etc. As for relations with the 'Left' as you identify it, it's confused by the fact that much of the American left thinks of itself in identity politics terms (what you would call 'woke') rather than in the established terms of the socialist Left, where economic inequality, and unequal access to political power, are the defining issues (which gets called 'populist' in the States!).
Surely what should count are the actual political and economic arrangements you want to see put in place, rather than the existence and flourishing of a labelled group. Just make alliances with the DSA, the Democratic establishment, etc., when you have common ground and fight them when you don't. But I'd say that means arguing for the actual positions you hold, rather than claiming your group is more pragmatic, rational, or whatever. Everyone thinks they're pragmatic (what you might class as Greens or socialists think their proposals are the pragmatic ones; it's not about 'idealism', it's about what might actually work in, say, negotiating the climate crisis or taming the power of the tech bros). Liberalism is an important, valuable intellectual and political tradition, but it isn't the centre-left. Ah, sorry I've gone on for so long.
> You could argue about whether Bill Clinton counts as “modern”.
I read this footnote, then I withered into a toadstool and died.
The gap between now and when Clinton was elected is longer than the gap between when Clinton was elected and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed lol
Fake News
I think you're spending too much time and space on classifying groups of people that aren't always or even actual groups or clusters or cohorts... Many DSA successful elections really had to do with primary elections in deeply blue areas...that have little to do with general elections...I'd be more interested in an analysis of the Michigan primary...and more importantly in the Michigan general.... for Senator...
I've given up describing anyone by their position on a simplistic left-right axis. Clearly we're not debating whether to execute the King of France ... you give some of the variants, and the range of views and approaches to policy is much more complex than a single dimension. My own policy views have much in common with Democratic Socialists (with some exceptions and nuance), but my approach to decision making is decidedly conservative - I don't like the idea of reflexively pushing for extreme change without careful consideration, and I want to be open to dialog and compromise with others. My favorite candidates have those qualities - an ability to work collaboratively, even with those you disagree with, while having strong support for "left" positions such as public funds benefiting the whole population, and not just the very wealthy.
On 1. I've been frustrated on the center-left making electability arguments against the DSA types as opposed to "no actually this is better policy. Capitalism works".
On 2. The liberals should not accept the democratic establishment if it becomes progressive. We should start our own power. DSA types are just as dangerous as MAGA.
On 4. Capitalism has been resoundingly successful if you look globally. So many people lifted out of poverty in my lifetime. This has come at some cost to some segments of the US population, but the real discussion here I think is nationalism, not whether capitalism is insanely effective. Should we prioritize American workers economic well being over global workers well being? I say obviously no, we should prioritize the global poor first.(though no politician should ever say this lol)
A lot of interesting stuff here, but without settling on a definition of center-left it's hard to bring the questions into focus. So I'll content myself with a few nit-picks. The quarter-pole of the 21st century is 50 years in the future--as a sports-betting Substack should get right. Blockbuster peaked in 2004, not the 1990s, Clinton probably 1996/97 with welfare reform, re-election, the Balanced Budget Act; but before Lewinski (however, oddly, his Gallup high in 73% came in December 1998, after he had been impeached).
The meaningful comparison to 53% who say Democrats are too far to the left is not the 8% who say they are too far to the right; but the 47% who say Republicans are too far to the right. There is a gap, but 6%, not 45%.
84,000 primary voters should be divided by Democrats eligible to vote, not 750,000 population. It's likely over 20%, still a minority, but not 11%.
The Yale poll should show standard errors. It likely had under 200 extremely liberal respondents, each of whom saw only a few pairs of the 30 issues, not all 435 possible matchups. For example, at a guess 40 people might have been asked about Israel/Palestine at all, and paired with a random selection of the other issues. The 45%--18 who ranked Israel/Palestine higher--is a highly uncertain estimate of what all voters would say asked about all possible pairs.
The decline in moderates is real but old news--most happened in the Bill Clinton/George W. Bush/Obama years. Since Trump, it's been flat.
I just don’t get why the center left doesn’t steal some of the Dsa lefts thunder on Palestine. It doesn’t really hurt them electorally with swing voters and lets them triangulate other positions (I feel the same way about transgender rights because as a friend to many trans people i think it’s a moral litmus test but it’s a little more of an electoral hindrance with swing voters)
I just looked it up and it’s also popularist! Ending aid/arms sales to Israel actually polls pretty well.
I'm starting to think that more Dems should be silent on the Israel - Palestine conflict. Say the situation is tenuous and that US policy has to be fluid, but US values do not. Then refer to basic rights to live safely and freely, indicting both sides and don't commit to how we will react in advance. Since most Americans wonder why we're investing so much in the region, indicate that we can't protect those that don't really want protection, implying that Bibi is a wild card.
The questions are good, but I think the center left and the left need to unite around a strategy to actually do something material for the non rich. Forget about reversing all of Trumpism, as it's clear that there is too much support for much of that agenda. Instead, build support for a domestic vision with key, immediate impactful improvement and make it clear that a congressional majority is necessary to make it happen. Then do it fast and save the restoration of norms for later in the term. Avoid division by actually doing something material. Had Trump done something positive for his public economically, he would be unstoppable.
• 🔴 Labor/Social Democrats
• 🔵 Conservative/Tory/Christian Democrats
• 🟡 Liberal/Center-Left
• 🟣 Populist/Right-Wing/Nationalist
We are instead becoming 4 parties:
- Democratic Socialists and Woke Progressives
- Liberal/Center-Left Socialist-lite non-Woke Progressives
- Reagan Conservatives
- MAGA/Populist/Nationalist
> Silver Bulletin is the only newsletter in the U.S. politics Top 10 classified as non-partisan by independent researchers.
I disagree with their conclusion- looking at the top 10 list, I would also designate The Free Press as non-partisan, though the other top-10ers are most decidedly partisan.
And the coverage here is usually coming from a perspective inside of the Democratic party and outside of the Republican party. There was a lot of inside-baseball around things like Biden and Harris, in a way that there hasn't really been for the Republican side of the aisle.
Not a criticism personally, and there's not really "pro-Democratic" advocacy like those researchers might have been looking for, but it's still the primary perspective.
If you look at this link (from the SB article) it says FP is on the right.
https://www.chaoticera.news/substack-data?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Yeah, I just take issue with that label- the publication is pretty heterodox, as is this one.
One meaningful separation within the center-left is whether it should be focused on a Liberal approach to change, or if it should be focused on just keeping things the way that they are. Is housing good enough and we should avoid changing it or only have minor tweaks, or do we need a vast overhaul that is still focused on a market-based approach? Should immigration stay as it is, or do we need One Billion Americans as Yglesias advocates for? Is healthcare fine, or do we need structural changes to the healthcare system to streamline regulations and allow for more doctors to join the system and increase supply? Do we want the system to stay the same, or do we want a Abundance agenda?
This all fits within a center-left viewpoint, but it looks extremely different in policy - this also has a lot of implications for the other questions, especially things like alliances with the Left.
This was a good read. I won't post all of them here, but I spent time answering those 12 questions. I consider myself somewhat of a blend between center-right traditional conservatism but with a bit of a libertarian bent on foreign policy and some social issues.
As I went through the questions, I identified a few major themes to my answers:
1. Lean into your brand. Be the adults in the room, support technocratic ideas, be okay with terms like "technocracy", "good government", and "classical liberalism".
2. Be willing to work with members of both parties that support your platform, and similarly be ready to loudly reject far-left members of the DSA who are a threat to democracy as much as the MAGA right. "Vote blue no matter who" just means you're a partisan Democrat that reads Slowing Boring with your morning coffee.
3. Be prepared to actually argue and provide evidence to support your policy positions.
4. Be willing to admit that the Democratic establishment has delivered very poor results in places like California and Illinois. Borrow from Democrats and Republicans that have done things well (education reform in deep red Mississippi has been wildly successful as have housing reforms in blue Colorado).
5. Pick your battles and focus on the ones that unite (housing affordability, reducing inflation, improving infrastructure, and increasing public safety). The "how" will differ, but everybody ultimately wants those things. There are certain other issues like abortion where people are simply locked in and there are no policy arguments to be had. Leave those issues to referenda or the state/local level (i.e. don't force Massachusetts policies on Nebraska).
If you find this analysis interesting I'd recommend looking at the trajectory of the Liberal Party in Australia as a possible signpost. Their founding principles fit squarely in the above "liberal" characterisation, albeit they are classed as a party of the right in a 2 party system with an opposing centrist party with origins in the trade union movement to its left. In absolute terms, I think the Liberal Party maps quite closely to the "center-left" described here.
Historically, it was an unreconciled alliance with a more nationalist right wing element and an urban elite base. Both these factions have largely split off ("Teal" independents to the elite left and "One Nation" nationalist anti-immigration populist right). The remaining party has completely imploded in terms of approval ratings in a short space of time, despite being the natural opposition party to a relatively unpopular technocratic centre left government. The 2 party system in Australia was resilient for many decades until very recently.
Conclusion being, the changes described here are potentially profound, don't have easy answers and could result in political ruptures that would seem unthinkable in relatively short order.
If you are not partisan enough, you cannot win primaries. With the trend within the party going more extreme both ways, candidates are going to be more polarized. That being said, more people are identifying themselves as independents, mostly, judging from the comment section, they couldn't stand either party's current trajectory. So, looks like we are going to 1. Do nothing and stuck with picking the crap that's less stinky. Arguably for the past 2-4 cycles, depending on who you ask. Or 2. Change how primaries are run and give independents more saying. Make candidates cater to a broader audience. Or 3. Return of Silver Party (?)