"Do Democratic voters really want to hitch their wagon to four years of a center-right candidate like Hillary Clinton?"

Earlier today, this:

"Don't you feel repression, just closing in around?" Must be time for a GOP conspiracy, says David Brooks.

Here's the flip side.

Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president, by Walter Bragman (Salon)

Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020

Nobody is acknowledging it yet, but in all likelihood the next president, be it a Republican or a Democrat, will have just four years to get as much done as possible before passing the torch to the challenger in 2020. Republicans have little hope of a two-term presidency (let alone winning in 2016) due to changing demographics, and a narrative shift that favors acceptance and diversity over traditional values, and Southern dominance. There is a realignment occurring in the United States the likes of which we have not seen since the Solid South became solid red.

Democrats, however, should be concerned for a different reason. The last consecutive two-term presidents from the same party were James Madison and James Monroe, who were both Democratic-Republicans. That transition occurred before the formation of our modern two-party system.

The 2020 election is one Democrats cannot afford to lose. It is a census year, which means the future of the House will be determined for the next decade. It is also highly possible that at least two (or three) seats will open on the Supreme Court, given the ages of the justices—more than are likely to open between 2016 and 2020. If the Democrats do not win, the GOP will have a solid hold on government for at least another 10 years.

And that raises one very important question: Do Democratic voters really want to hitch their wagon to four years of a center-right candidate like Hillary Clinton?