LOL, no, I don't. However, you take any opportunity possible to slyly and implicitly insinuate that Democrats are coastal elites, minorities and not much else; that's just ridiculous. Then, if I ever call you out on it, you (technically correctly) act like you never (explicitly) said anything of the sort and pivot the accusation. Bernie Sanders won a higher percentage of Democrats than Trump won of Republicans, did he not? As for your question, we have all given you several reasons why Hillary defeated Bernie, none of which you're interested in hearing besides, "The Dem Party is represented by Hillary-type voters, not populists," because it's blatantly obvious you think that's true. It's not.
As for your last statement, that is ridiculously debatable. The Democratic Party of 2016 offers "rich, White suburbanites" absolutely nothing, and - as 2016 proved if you look at the exit polls - they offer them even less than TRUMP, who's the worse fit ever for them.
Look, I'm not saying that the Democratic party "is just minorities and coastal elites", that's simply wrong and a straw man. Just look at this forum's favorite state, New Hampshire, and you'll see that this isn't the case (not to mention that CO, NM and TX aren't coastal states). However, I have little doubt that the Democratic party's base (which decides primary elections) doesn't consist of White millennials who care about the downsides of free trade.
And yeah, you gave a few very vague reasons for why Clinton defeating Sanders doesn't tell us much about where the Democrats are headed as a party, but none of them make much sense to me.
Like I said in my previous post, enthusiasm should have trumped Clinton's ground game if the Sanders wing of the party was that strong. Sanders was her only serious opponent, and he lost decisively. Sanders himself endorsed Clinton very enthusiastically, so I doubt the "Sanders wing" (whatever that means) is even much of a thing in the party. Clinton, despite all her obvious flaws as a candidate and a person, was and is still very popular among the Democratic primary electorate, and I see no reason why someone like Booker and Gillibrand would be less appealing to the electorate than Clinton.
If Trump is a disaster as president (which he almost certainly will be if he governs like a Bush- or McCain-type Republican), any Democrat, including Cuomo, Booker or West, will be able to defeat him handily, just like any other Democrat would have beaten him this year.
