I said "or maybe this was the last grand stand" to highlight that it was a hypothetical. With shifting demographics maybe Democrats can overcome an acceptable amount of apathy just to raw numbers? Again, that's purely hypothetical. I don't know.
I'm just saying Trump won with a strategy many even on the right didn't think was winnable. Was it a fluke? These are questions the Democratic party has to be asking.
My bad, I misread you.
The things that stick out to me about this election.
1) Hillary, afaik, has the lowest votes of any single major candidate in the past few elections. That says disinterest in her, which isn't surprising; her campaign's messaging felt, to me, at least, like... "do it because she deserves this chance." Like... we look at Obama campaigning or, well, anyone else, and it's like "I'm doing this amazing stuff for you," and the Clinton messaging felt very "it's my turn," which is what happened during the Obama election, and why I preferred him to her back then. I read a great analysis of the Democratic party earlier this year that basically said "the party works like a corporation; it didn't want Bernie because he was a 'new' Democrat. Hillary had been there the longest, so the party was basically just giving her a promotion. It doesn't really perceive the American people as having a say in what it does; it's a business." That... kinda seems appropriate. The Republicans made the SAME assumption with Jeb. The difference is that the Republicans somehow realized Trump would win and the dynasty wouldn't. The Democrats didn't, and that's why I believe they lost.
2) People keep saying this is about racism, but like I said in my previous post, if it were, we'd see a swell of support for Trump. What we actually see is less support for both candidates. I could be wrong, but I believe this is actually a record for people not voting. You'd think if racists were mad at Obama, they'd be out in droves. But they weren't.
3) Exit polls show that the poorest demographics voted blue, and the richest demographics voted red, but if we look at who won which counties, the richest counties in the nation all seem blue, and the poorest counties all seem red. Based on anecdotal evidence, most of the poorer people I know were very against Clinton, but I also live in traditionally red areas. I recently moved to a richer county, and, yup, it tends to vote blue.
Ultimately, I think this is about the issue of America's overall economic decline and the unrest from it. People say "but wait, the economy is growing," but... like... if you look at where that growth is, it's in essentially three areas (NY, LA, SF), which are all historically blue and remain blue. See
here and
here.
This is why I expressed frustration back when Bernie backed out of the race; you have one person who basically is rich and seems entitled to the position, and then you have another person who is the same thing, except they're saying "I'll make it better for you." It doesn't... really seem surprising to me that this election turned out the way it did.
It's also why I think a bunch of people going "you're a hateful racist" isn't going to fix things. You've got all these people upset about jobs and stuff, and these people who live on the coasts being out of touch and going "you suck." I think this election could be characterized as a rebellion of sorts, and people NEED to learn from this. They need to realize that going around dissing people who
feel awful already is only going to create enemies.
Trying to understand what is happening to prevent it from happening again is what we need, not this moronic moral highgrounding.