One of the things I keep thinking about when weighing the democratic presidential candidates is who is more likely to ACTUALLY MAKE more progressive changes in office. I don't think it's just a  matter of who is generally more progressive (based on their past records or rhetoric) or what the highlight of their campaign is, especially in the primary.

Without mentioning any names, I wonder if those who are promoting more bold progressive policies will change their tune to a more centrist tone during the general election if they receive the nomination, but more importantly, once in office will they have a harder time actually implementing their plans than a candidate who has been slightly more cautious/centirst from the beginning?

In other words, is the centrist candidate being smarter, not just for the sake of winning both the primary and general election but also because they will actually have a better chance to see through their plans once in office? Assuming the centrist candidate will be more successful in promoting their policies in office, couldn't it be possible that they may actually bring more progressive change? And if this is the case, then would it be a better option to vote for them in the name of pragmatism, or would it still be a better idea to vote for the candidate promoting the most progressive policies with the hope that their plans will succeed (even if you may doubt it).