I agree that turnout is the key, politically. That is, I think, the core of Trump's election strategy. He feels if he can keep his base committed, he can win because of turnout. I think he's wrong, but that's a political calculation.

At the risk of incurring chunk's derisive wrath, I don't think either party is conservative, in the traditional sense. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic party is more pragmatic, and the Republican more ideological. Yes, there are ideologues in the Democratic party, of course, but the party is distinctly left-leaning but broader in the approach. The apparent radicalization is really just a visceral reaction to 40 years of gross Republican incompetence and mean-spirited rhetoric and policies (and brazen corruption). It is just that so many things have gone horribly wrong during Republican control.

I also agree with Perotista's point about the distinction between traditional conservatism and the current "factions" that claim the mantle - social, religious, fiscal, neo, TEA and political - but don't represent conservative "values". In the same way, though, Democratic socialists may be in the Democratic party, and are certainly of the left, but they don't represent "liberal" values in many respects. In the same way that I decry being static for static's sake, I don't advocate change just for change. It's just that so many things need to change, and fast. [I'd also recommend reading Warren's platform carefully, as she is most definitely a capitalist in the FDR mode, and seeks to save it, and us, from its excesses.]