The base of the Democratic party is minorities, women, and millennials. It's known as the Obama coalition.
Clinton lost millenials to Sanders and women to Trump...
EU people always walk into conversations with misconceptions about what works in US politics.
Because we don't follow the dogmatic believe that the US is special snowflake where stuff that works everywhere else doesn't work.
Moreover, because they don't have the history of diversity that the US has, they always put white people first.
Just because minorities and Europe aren't always distinguishable by a single phenotypical trait(skin color) doesn't mean Europe isn't diverse.
So the priority is always economic populism (which is just lying and demagoguery) over intersectionality,
The priority is to do whats best for the community. The "Fuck you, got mine" sentiment is way less apparent in Europe.
Thats why Europe has universal healthcare for everyone without notable differences in quality of care, no matter whether you are rich or poor.
Thats why Europe has a free or almost free education system, where everyone gets the same opportunities regardless of financial situation.
Thats why europeans are fine with paying up to over 50% in taxes so the government can give 36 months of unemployment benefits followed by an unconditional base payment called "Sozialhilfe - "Social support".
That is how you leave people behind. It's not like Germany, where your population of black people in total is some 800k+, so you ignore them because they don't have much voting power.
Why do you think Germany leaves minorities behind and ignores them?
To be honest I rarely get what the perceived problem with minorities in Germany is for americans. We don't have systemic racism like we see it in the US.
It seems like you are criticizing more the fact that black people are such a small minority in Germany than the way they are treated in Germany.
In the US, they're 42 million people. Even if they weren't a significant chunk of the population and therefore a potent voting bloc, you still can't leave 42 million people behind.
I don't get this argument.
If they weren't a sizable chuck, that would mean if they weren't 42 million people.
So lets say they were less than 1 million people, would that change anything?
Colorado is the state with the highest amount of college-educated voters in the whole US. The divide between Trump and Hillary voters is heavy in education. She won by a higher percentage in CO than Trump did in WI, MI, or PA.
All the more reason for democrats to push for an education reform so that everyone gets the same education opportunities.
Anti-establishment is not a fucking position. It's not a fucking policy. It's nothing but wanting to kick those who have power in the balls, because you want the power. It has no plans. It has no solutions. It's all about 'optics'we can't take money, it'll look bad, even if we need it to fund congressional races!
Its about not taking money from special interest groups.
Do you really believe Wall Street poured money on Clinton and didn't expect anything in return?
Its fucking bankers, the calculate return on investment in their sleep. Thats literally all they do.
We can't rebuke white people for being racist, they'll get mad at us and we'll look bad! Even if you're seasoned and qualified, if you don't agree 100% with us, we're not going to accept you!
Racists are racists no matter what, but politicians have to be smart and look at the reasons for the racism. People don't just become openly racist, its usually problems they face and demagogues who are telling them to blame minorities for it.
Thats what Michael Moores point was. Yes they are assholes, but if want to be their president you need to also be willing to address their problems and not just shrug them off as the racist assholes they are.
And that is how idealism weakens the party. Labour in the UK is an example of this right now, because they are always focused on infighting the party and 'purging the Blairites', when obviously from a moderate standpoint even a fucking Blairite would be better than a Tory, no? But no, in the eyes of the far left a Blairite is a Tory, with no nuances, no room for differences, no compromises. Sorry, I'm not interested in turning the Democratic Party into that.
I don't know much about UK politics, but I don't know how that connects to the US.
Sanders would have definitely won against Trump, his idealism wouldn't have weakened the party against Trump.
Why is the uncompromising attitude of the left permitted, while an uncompromising attitude from closer to the center is garbage? There is hypocrisy everywhere.
Because the centrist approach gave us Trump now, while the left approach is what works like a charm in Scandinavia and other places.
Warren was a Republican for much longer than Hillary Clinton, then she became a Democrat. Indeed, a principled person.
Shifting ones principles based on inside reconsideration resonates more with voters than shifting positions on topics according to poll numbers.
Sanders is super against money in politics, unless the DNC is funneling some into his reelection campaigns. Then, it's okay. Indeed, also a principled person.
As long as he doesn't have to meet special interest groups.
I mean, if the 2 million dollars from Pfizer would get them the same influence as the 10 dollars gave 40 year old Mary from Minnesota, then Pfizer wouldn't give the 2 million dollars.
Money buying influence is the problem.
Get real. Nobody in the world is pure after they've lived long enough. They're not the future of the party, they're old. Exit polling said the electorate wanted more conservative policies, not more liberal ones. But that is selectively ignored by the Sanders stans, just like how he didn't really sweep the rust belt, and the states he got he didn't even win by high margins.
Yeah oddly enough Sanders appealed the the left and independents, while Hillary appealed to the centrist part of the democrats.
In the primaries his group was smaller than Hillarys, but in the general election these independents even some of the far left went to Trump, leaving Clinton with only the cetrist part of the democrats.
Sanders however would have had the left, the centrists and the independents, because if Hillary had lost the primaries, her voters would have never supported Trump.
Or in short: Sanders appeal was actually broader than Clintons.
