Not sure I agree on the Dem position.
I think 'Progressive thinking' is really starting to get a foothold in US politics now. The most high profile spotlight being Marc Rubio's refusal to not take NRA money. Many of the 'establishment' Dems are in the same position; working for the donors over the people.
The more Progressive Dems/ Liberals step up to the plate to face Corp Dems/ Reps, the more likely the establishment fall to the people taking back their government.
So, 'modestly decent', for the Dems, would be someone who will adhere to the Corp donors, which people are beginning to tire of.
In the US, the Dems have all the hallmarks of what happened to Labour under Corbyn.
Who do you think could provide it?It's not about who wins the progressive vote -- it's about who wins over moderates and gets them to turn out. Hillary couldn't/didn't; Sanders won't and Warren won't. Blue progressives will drive red voters out to vote against them. After four years of "progressive", I believe the majority of voters are longing for some stability and professionalism, not histrionics, and not idealism.
Who do you think could provide it?
It's not about who wins the progressive vote -- it's about who wins over moderates and gets them to turn out. Hillary couldn't/didn't; Sanders won't and Warren won't. Blue progressives will drive red voters out to vote against them. After four years of "progressive", I believe the majority of voters are longing for some stability and professionalism, not histrionics, and not idealism.
Absolutely no one I can think of offhand among Democrats.
Sad, isn’t it?
But hopefully someone will emerge (on either side but I don’t see it being anyone but Pence if Trump doesn’t run). Often Presidents end up being relatively obscure relative to the national stage before starting their campaigns. Both Clinton and Obama were; so was Carter. I can’t recall who the last obscure Republican to win was. Hoover?
So, explain to me (after your assumption that "blue progressives will drive red voters to vote against them") why you would believe Rep seats that have been vacated (38 have resigned/ retired) will stay red if local progressive candidates challenge for those seats??
And, the other thing you mentioned about Sanders; he was severely handicapped by the media's determination to focus on the Clinton vs Trump debacle, thus having less of a platform to get his message out. That said, he came mightily close to toppling Clinton via social media and she only got the support of Dem leadership through Donor support and brand name.
She had no message of her own.
I believe people, now, are focused on what the unfiltered message is, from the candidate and will see who is funding them, before deciding on who to vote for.
In my opinion.
I think you are too focused on a narrow issue re: campaign funding. I don't know why that would matter that much -- if someone rings your bell from a ideological or personal point of view and you really support him/her, do you disqualify yourself from voting because someone or something like-minded gave him or her money to help the candidate win?
On progressives, take Doug Jones in Alabama. He's no progressive. He's innocuous. No red progressive would vote for that fucking psycho pedophile cowboy Roy Moore out of hate for Doug Jones. One might vote for Moore out of hate for Democrats generally. But Roy Moore absolutely galvanized blue turnout in Alabama, to vote against him. Had the democrats run a firebrand progressive, I bet support for Moore would have been stronger and turnout higher among reds, and Moore might have won.
Most of those red stepping out of Congress will be replaced with red, and in some case progressive red. It's the swing seats where blues smell blood in the water. Progressive reds HATE progressive blues and vice versa. It's that divisiveness and crowding out on the stump that I think moderate Americans are absolutely sick of, which is why I believe a moderate blue Presidential candidate that is the antithesis of cacophony has the best chance to galvanize blue turnout.
I get that, but you must obviously know that a 'moderate' blue has been tried and tested before and failed.
Why?
Because there's no clear distinction between the GOP and Dems, much like there was no clear distinction between New Labour and the Cons, just a nicer smile.
People want change, clear lines.
I think most people are single issue voters, so for Reps it's guns, immigration and jobs. For Dems it's healthcare guns and immigration.
There's gonna be a fair bit of crossover in subject matter, but no states will be relative walkovers.
Not now.
As much as I detest Trump, I rather think that - as Carville famously exclaimed, "It's the economy, Stupid!"This mid-term election and 2020 will ENTIRELY be a referendum on Trump.
As much as I detest Trump, I rather think that - as Carville famously exclaimed, "It's the economy, Stupid!"
The economy is doing pretty well, all things considered. So if there's a swing towards Democrats in the mid-term, I'll be surprised. And if there's no swing towards Democrats, it'll be the economy that's driving outcomes - not other politics as polarizing as they are.