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?

The Democratic Party as a whole is moving to the left—albeit slowly. Elizabeth Warren would never have gotten elected in the ’90s, let alone become as influential as she has. It can easily be said that the Democrats are no longer the party of the Clintons (the New Democrats), and are instead, the party of Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary Clinton wins the nod in 2016, and manages to win the general, it is unlikely she will be able to excite the base of her own party in four years—as the DNC may slowly be realizing. She’s a hard enough sell now in spite of every effort chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has expended on her behalf. Many on the left will not turn out to vote for Clinton—in fact, a new poll showed that 20 percent of Democrats would defect and vote Trump over Hillary in a general election.

Clinton’s problems start with image. More Americans mistrust her than trust her. This may be due to her various “scandals,” especially her private email server. But it probably also has something to do with the fact that she is politically expedient. A look at her campaign strategy throughout her career is telling. In this regard, she is nearly indistinguishable from the GOP. In 2008, her campaign reportedly circulated a picture of Barack Obama dressed as a Somali elder without providing context for the image, in a seeming effort to stir fears that the now-president was a Muslim. In this current election cycle, Clinton has relied on Republican talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. Specifically, she cited Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal’s faulty analysis of the cost of his domestic plan. Clinton has gone as far as attacking him for proposing universal health care—a move 2008 Hillary called out as a Republican tactic.

Clinton has also resorted to Republican talking points to justify opposing a $15 minimum wage. Though she calls them her greatest enemies, her argument relies on the same false premise as the GOP’s: it will cost jobs. First, Clinton purposefully ignores that a raise to $15 per hour would be gradual. Additionally, she pays no heed to the fact that evidence indicating such increases will cost jobs is thin. In fact, studies overwhelmingly suggest that minimum wage hikes have no impact on employment.

Additionally, many on the left worry that there is no way for Democrats to know what Hillary Clinton will morph into, given her numerous flip-flops. And for all of her talk about fighting for the middle class, she has an uncomfortably cozy relationship with Wall Street and powerful private industries (oil, private prisons, big banks, cable companies, etc.).

But Clinton’s problems run much deeper than impressions of her character. As a candidate, Hillary is closer to George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan than to the heart of the Democratic Party, FDR. Progressives know this about her. She exists out-of-time—propped up by a Democratic establishment similarly stuck on Third Way politics. Hillary is a New Democrat in 2016; she’s caught between two narratives: the GOP/Reagan narrative that government is too big, and inherently inefficient, and the Democratic narrative, that government can and should work for all to solve the problems we face as a country.

Clinton’s background creates a disconnect between her policies and those of her party.

Hillary’s “strongest issue” is foreign policy, given her years of experience at the State Department. Unfortunately, her foreign policy ideas don’t fit with many on the left. Put simply, she is an interventionist hawk. In 2008 Barack Obama compared her to George W. Bush, and that comparison still seems appropriate. She did, after all, vote for the Iraq War and support the use of torture on detainees. Although she has called her war vote “a mistake,” we must look at it in its proper context. When we consider the initiatives she pushed at the State Department (the bombing of Libya, arming the Syrian rebels, and selling arms to Clinton Foundation donors), as well as her current plans, like the no-fly-zone in Syria, it seems less of a one-off, and more like part of a pattern.

Clinton’s strategy is to deal with ISIS is nearly indistinguishable from Marco Rubio’s: defeat ISIS rather than contain them by forming a coalition with our allies to take back territory, sending in ground troops, disrupting their recruitment, and ramping up airstrikes.

Hillary’s plan, like those of the Republicans, is predicated on the idea that by taking out ISIS, U.S. involvement in the region can end.

What Clinton’s and the Republican plans fail to take into account is political culture. Changing political culture within a generation is impossible, let alone changing it in a part of the world Westerners, as a rule, barely understand; where people mistrust and resent us, and where democratic tradition is a novel concept.

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is not the only part of the globe where intervention is Hillary’s modus operandi. Her involvement in legitimizing the violent coup regime in Honduras indicates that as president, interference would also define her Latin America policy.

Besides intervention, Clinton’s foreign policy prioritizes “free markets.” She appears to view the world through the lens of how much multinational business, rather than domestic companies or workers, benefits. Though she has now flip-flopped on both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), her years of support for each suggest her shift is politically motivated.

All things considered, it is safe to call Clinton a neoconservative.

Economically speaking, in spite of touting herself as a “progressive who likes to get things done,” Clinton is essentially a moderate Republican—which makes economic progressives angry. Her capital gains tax proposal does not increase long-term capital gains taxes, and instead targets short-term investments. This might sound solid on paper, but, as I’ve said before, it will impact new investors and the middle class, while preserving the status quo where billionaires, who keep the majority of their assets wrapped up in long term investments, pay lower rates than their secretaries. She is also against reinstating Glass-Steagall, and breaking up the banks—instead opting for a game of regulatory catch-up to monitor “shadow banking.” Her plan barely tackles symptoms while leaving the underlying illness untouched. To make matters worse, this issue is time-sensitive as there may be another financial crisis brewing with subprime auto loans. A collapse would spell disaster for the Democratic Party should it hit after eight years of President Obama with another Democrat in the Oval Office.