The D party has picked centrists before. They always lose when they do.
Bill Clinton rates this post "ironic".
Bill Clinton was an ultraliberal progressive.
Actually, the last non-lib that the D's nominated was John F Kennedy
How long have you been in this country? Three days?
Oh and thanks for the setup.

Unlike the usual wags who think they make points here, that there Googly Image is a real quote. It's linked.
Ok, since we're using Kennedy quotes for this discussion, here's a Kennedy quote for you:
“Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
How does that square up with the present day progressive liberal (Marxist) "free stuff and free income for everyone" agenda?
I wooden know. Nobody brought up any "progressive liberal (Marxist) "free stuff and free income for everyone" agenda. And they prolly didn't do that because there's no such thing. You know, like the way nobody brought up edible tires.
The quote is genuine -- even though it's a Googly Image. Start there and try again.
Innnteresting. Let's look at a few examples as a counterpoint, shall we?
See, e.g. (1) The Green New Deal; (2) Universal Basic Income, and (3) Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants
Green New Deal (note: I realize AOC tried to walk back from this once the media picked it up ran with it, but that's total BS--it's undisputed that the GND proposal is outlined precisely as set forth here...see GND FAQ link below)
"Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
...
Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work"
Green New Deal FAQ
The Green New Deal that Democrats proposed Thursday looks to create a more environmentally sound country with economic benefits for everyone — even those who don’t want to work.
...
But for those not interested in working, there’s something in the plan as well. The overview notes that the Green New Deal aims to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal offers 'economic security' for those 'unwilling to work'
Is there a case for supporting those who at a particular moment are neither “working” nor “unable to work”? Is there an insight there worth salvaging? ...
Of the many ambitious policy ideas emerging at the moment, Universal Basic Income is the one that most explicitly discards the idea that work is the essential qualifier for public support. While many UBI supporters think it’s an appropriate response to a future in which there may be fewer jobs (because of the robots and all that), the idea has value regardless of one’s prediction about the future of work. Income from a UBI can form the basis of savings, but that won’t happen without accounts or incentives to set aside some income.
The case for helping the "unwilling to work"
Universal Basic Income
Yang’s campaign has become a surprise success based largely on one idea: giving Americans a $1,000 per month universal basic income payment.
Yang’s platform helped get America talking about universal income again, but his plan is expensive.
According to one estimate, Yang’s universal basic income would cost $2.8 trillion a year — an estimated 236 million adult citizens in the United States multiplied by a $12,000 yearly payment. (With Yang’s plan welfare and social program beneficiaries could choose to keep their benefits in lieu of receiving the cash payment, so number of adults receiving it could vary.)
To pay for the plan, dubbed the “freedom dividend,” Yang has proposed things like a 10 percent value-added tax (VAT) on the production of goods or services (the majority of countries already have a VAT), a higher capital gains tax and removing the Social Security tax cap.
This free cash plan would pay you $1,320 per month and wouldn't cost the government a cent
Free Health Insurance, Including to Illegal Immigrants
Many of the Democratic candidates for president have endorsed providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. This analysis estimates the cost of providing illegal immigrants access to the existing system of government health benefits for low-income people. ... We estimate that there are 4.9 million uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes low enough to qualify for Medicaid or Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC), which are the subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Assuming a realistic enrollment rate, the cost of providing ACA subsidies to illegal immigrants would be about $10 billion per year, with costs rising to as much as $23 billion per year if all eligible illegal immigrants enrolled. Costs would be similar under a hybrid approach that provides Medicaid for the lowest-income illegal immigrants and ACA subsidies for those with higher incomes
How Much Would It Cost to Provide Health Insurance to Illegal Immigrants?
Democrats running for president have said they would support extending government health care coverage to undocumented immigrants -- a big shift, since undocumented immigrants currently have little access to federal programs.
They don't qualify for Medicare, aren't eligible for federal Affordable Care Act subsidies and generally can't enroll in Medicaid, which provides coverage for low-income people.
... Some 59% of Americans say that such coverage should not be available to undocumented immigrants, according to a CNN poll conducted in late June.
Democrats want to offer health care to undocumented immigrants. Here's what that means - CNNPolitics