The vast majority of Democratic primary voters then and now do not identify as democratic socialists. Perhaps Sanders capitalized on unaffiliated anti-establishment types and Democrats who preferred him despite his ideology and not because of it. Move forward to the 2020 contests. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is providing the most substantive, interesting agenda that committed progressives could hope to see. Yet she is lagging in the polls. If this was all about progressive ideology and policy plans, shed be running rings around the rest of the field.
As for Sanders, he benefits this time around from 100 percent name identification. However, the flip side of 100 percent name ID is that hes no longer new, no longer saying things no one else will. Hes just as much of a democratic socialist as he was in 2016, but in the space of a few days weve seen that the energy isnt all on the left; its drifting toward a centrist, young, optimistic candidate. Voters follow the energy and the ethos. They dont carry around a thermometer gauging where on the scale of ideological purity each candidate rates.....
All you need to be is progressive enough to win a Democratic primary. Seeming more moderate than the Sanders clan is an advantage in the general election.
Why are pundits, the media and party insiders so convinced that ideological extremism equals energy/success? Part of it may be wishful thinking for progressives. However, part of the difficulty is linguistic. "Moderate sounds to many ears to mean mild-mannered, prone to compromise and wishy-washy in beliefs. Nonsense. If ever there was a radical moderate, a fervent centrist Democrat, its ORourke. And gosh, hes showing that can be exciting.