Much like the Rightist Tea Party contained multitudes, so will any Leftist Tea Party. It isn't hard. You'll see people all over the spectrum joining in. Irt foreign policy, it would obviously be due to the actions of the trump administration. If he is pugilistic, and especially if he commits troops on the ground, then you will see the anti war movement become huge.
BLM is an interesting one, because it was born from activism and taken on wholesale by the Democratic Party as a turnout device. I think this was a mistake on a tactical level for two reasons:
A) BLM doesn't seem to be as rooted or as representative of the wider community as traditional black advocacy groups like black churches and the NAACP. Notably, the rural black turnout dropped significantly, which suggests that the party should have relied a bit more on traditiona methods of raising turnout. (This is a common mistake of mistaking the cadres for your base).
B) BLM as a slogan began to weaken the urgency of police reform, because it compartmentalised the issue as "something only blacks should care about". True, police violence disproportionately affects African Americans, but it's not like police violence is unknown against other groups. A smart party would have taken BLM and made whites and Hispanics part of the issue as well (I.e. "African Americans bear the brunt of harsh and u transparent policing, but any one of us is at risk when the police believe they have full power...". Like LBJ didn't announce a "war on poverty amongst blacks" (even though disproportionately blacks were mired in poverty, and were more likely to be benefited from welfare programs), he announced a general "war on poverty".
-Indeed. A war merely on Black poverty would not have resulted in those McGovern counties in Tennessee and would have greatly weakened LBJ's (and McGovern's) strength throughout the Shallow South.
