There was an article in The NY Times recently about the campaign strategy that that Trump and Bernie employed successfully that I can’t stop trying to use in though experiments.
Basically, the author proposed that they ran against the party, not just in rhetoric but that the party’s moderating influence tempers a message that’s more attention getting when it’s extreme.
You can’t just be for smart immigration enforcement on the right, Trump is for zero immigration, build a wall to keep everyone out, make it impossible for unfriendly nations to even send tourists here, etc. if you’re Bernie, it’s Medicare for all. If you think the NYC Mayoral race is indicative of anything, it’s embracing things like rent freezes and free day care.
In the author’s opinion, it’s not just running to the natural extreme in your own party, either (in other words, it doesn’t mean the most partisan candidates win); as these candidates might (or should) have heterodox views (Trump is a better example of this, when he touts things like a tax break on tips that would be anathema to a Paul Ryan type).
Anyway, I was thinking of version of this on immigration in which a Democratic candidate runs a pro-immigration platform. The Democratic Party is terrified on seen as being soft on enforcement, weak on defense, and overly concerned with alienating coalition groups, but it’s almost impossible to find moderate positions on those issues that don’t sound wildly uninspiring (basically, you end up with Colin Alred).
Imagine a candidate who says “Immigrants aren’t the problem, in fact we need more of them. I propose we tear down the wall and make anyone coming to the US a temporary resident if they can get here.” Another version of this might be “I can’t support Israel’s wars in Gaza and Iran purely on the basis that I don’t support violence for any reason.”
If this author is correct, I would at least think there will be primary candidates in 2026 that will explore better whether this works.