The relative stability you want in the next four year, if it comes, will come at the cost of something even worse after.

If you want not to have Trumps anymore, you need to get rid of the factors that lead to Trump happening, and that's not going to be done calmly given the opposition of the DNC and other established interests.

As a non-american, the best shot you had of establishing long-term stability was Bernie Sanders. The way things are going, the Democrats will continue alienating themselves from more and more of their base and the Republicans will continue ramping up fear and instability.

Bernie's numbers were huge and dominating with people under 40. It will take a decade or two, but, i think Gen Z and Millenials will finally usher in more progressive change in the Democratic party.

I don't think politics will reset just like that. Schultz was sacrificed at the altar to calm the public. The superdelegate system, too. The political establishments (Dem and Rep) have been given a taste of how much their constituencies resent them. If they want to maintain power, primaries can only become less democratic going forward.

I'm worried that insurgent candidate like those in 'the squad' were only allowed to succeed as an olive branch to the left-populists for the purposes of maintaining a coherent anti-trump coalition.

The Republicans ran a reasonably clean primary in 2016, and got Trump, a demagogue completely dismissive of the party's interests, who catered to his base, and only helped the Republicans in circumstances of mutual interests. I don't think the party's leadership will be willing to risk something like that again, if the behavior of the Bush-era cabinet appointees he had is any indicator.

>I'm worried that insurgent candidate like those in 'the squad' were only allowed to succeed as an olive branch to the left-populists for the purposes of maintaining a coherent anti-trump coalition.

I don't buy that but happy to be proven wrong. I was following AOC's race closely before she won her election (any before anyone had heard of her). They went out of their way to work with and endorse her competitor. It was AOC's hustle and innovative techniques that made up for her huge money disadvantage (~300k at the end of the election vs ~3mil) as well as the fact that her rival was appointed the seat through a loophole (and so never really learned how to run a campaign) that resulted in her win.

The opposition spent 10+ million trying to unseat her since then.

I really do hope you're right about that. My understanding is that the squad came up with without the consent of the party establishment by running an exceptional ground game during their primaries, in districts that were safe blue, and had politicians who'd become too comfortable where they were at.

They were an unknown threat before.

Caruso-Cabrera did raise quite a bit of money to unseat AOC, but most of the endorsements I can find seem to be from conservative organizations looking to score some kind of moral victory against the Justice Dems. My estimate is that a political novice with (some) name recognition tried to take her down of her own accord, and AOC's pissed off enough corporations and conservatives that she incidentally (or deliberately) walked into a money pit in doing so.

I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that the DNC has spun up its machinery to truly run a full-throated opposition opp against her.

I'd have to do more research on the rest of them, but I don't believe the squad's faced the kind of push-back that the party's capable of yet.

The DNC doesn't have full throated machinery to win. They are specialized in losing and conceding ground. Their "machinery" is a huge number of corporations grifting a profit. They have lots of funds, but they also have lots of pockets to grease just to get some ads out or promote a few tweets or pay an army of strategic consultants that are paid massive salaries despite only having lost races.

Trump's pivotal point was Super Tuesday where the Republican moderate vote was split between 8 choices: he was able to build an insurmountable lead.

Much like marijuana legislation finally passing now, i think it will take the previous generation to die off before we start seeing more democratic progressive candidates like AOC. Bernie's numbers were Yuge and dominating with people under 40. Give it another decade or so: if gen Z shares values with gen X and Millenials, which is yet to be seen, i think the AOC type candidates will make inroads in many places in the Democratic party.

As someone in Gen Z in the western world, the left in Gen Z seems to be more dominant and a lot more to the left - as in, I have many friends that saw Bernie as a "harm reduction" candidate.

That being said, this is only one datapoint, and I also know other people that are far to the right.