Dems do have a remarkable ability to coalesce over 80% agreement once they get to a final candidate. Mostly because they have have agreement on the principles important to them: bigger govt, pro-abortion, race-baiting, etc.
That’s why Baraq got most of the Clinton primary voters in Nov 2008, even though it was a heavily contested primary/caucus cycle. And if Warren for example defeats Hillary, I’d expect a similar response in ‘16.
“Dems do have a remarkable ability to coalesce over 80% agreement once they get to a final candidate. Mostly because they have have agreement on the principles important to them: bigger govt, pro-abortion, race-baiting, etc.”
This is because the ideologues on the left successfully took over their party long ago, while ideologues on the right are still trying to figure out how to seize control.
Until the ideologues have the power, you can’t enforce orthodoxy, you can’t enshrine certain principles as uncompromisable, all you can do is try to shift your platform to suit the tastes of the voters, which is all the RINOs have been doing, mostly unsuccessfully, for a long time.
Yup.
The liberals I know also think a bit strategically about how things will shake-out in the long term. If they get a candidate that they agree with on most things, they’re willing to vote for that candidate to get closer to their goals - here’s the important part: especially if that candidate hints/suggests that he will nominate judges that’ll do a portion of the dirtywork from the bench for decades after he’s gone.
So even if the Democrat is followed by a Republican, those judges are still there, moving the ball forward towards their goals.