But would they recognize what "better" looks like?
I'm dealing with something of this nature but on a completely different subject, and this comment turned on a lightbulb (or maybe a light emitting diode...).
It has to do with the importance of context. If you see a problem (I see two in current conservative ideology of problem solving by destruction, and liberal ideology of wishful thinking) and want to fix it, you first have to identify the what and why of the problem, so you know what to work on. Using the right wing as an example, since it is the more actively toxic, in my opinion, the context of what "better" is always takes right wingedness as a given. This is a cultural tumor that was intentionally implanted and nurtured by what has now become the new Republican Establishment, beginning it's clear emergence with Newt Gingrich, and fed with endless lying propaganda since.
The tumor is now grown so big that in the last election, there were no GOP candidates on the "good" side of the street, so contextual "better" was still really bad.
(I guess I just identified the POTUS as a huge malignant tumor.)
On the Democratic establishment side, I'd say we have a very large benign tumor.
Understandably, lots of people are vaguely aware of this problem, but "anybody from our party" should not be a given in the contextual equation. There should be some real standards set out that candidates need to meet. I heard a snippet of an interview with Richard Dawkins yesterday, in which he said something like there should be
evidence of qualifications relevant to the job presented regarding political candidates.
We've got some tumors to excise, folks, and need to graft in some healthy tissue.
