I did not vote for Clinton. No, I just start with snark because that's how I talk to people who say "lugenpresse" in the vernacular of white nationlists. But I guess I mean Trump supporters. Also did I mention I was not a white male?
"One, two" percent is not significant. And did we forget that Donald Trump utilized free media effectively to gain billions of dollars in media coverage? Once again, I'm going to remind you that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million and 2.1% - which is not insignificant.
Anyway - your history is as usual as colored as your God-Emperor's connection to facts.
Number one, sure, we agree the people are disgusted. But have you seen who's disgusted, and where they're disgusted? Coastal area liberals voted for Clinton overwhelmingly, as did Illinois - and they added up to 232 electoral votes. For your theory to work out, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia should have remained as solidly red as they were in 2012, not moved towards the blue side. Your theory of universal revulsion at the Democratic Party isn't shared by the facts. If it were true, we'd see a uniform and broad swing towards the Republicans. We didn't.
"Personification of the movement." What movement? Can you spell out this movement for me? White nationalism, trade protectionism, and .... ? Really, this is just like the Obama cargo cult, where everyone hailed Obama as the second coming of Christ. You sound exactly like the Obamabots of 8 years ago who hailed Obama as the great realigning candidate who ended the Reagan era.
Also "loud proud realignment" launchings tend to win the popular vote, tend to increase Congressional majorities, tend to be ideologically moored, tend to do a lot of things that Donnie didn't do or isn't.
If anything, Trump's election is like a much paler weaker shade of Obama's 2008 campaign.
I mean Pence. We're talking about the "non asshole Trump" here that you imagine in your fantasy world so I refer to Pence. My point is, the Republican Party cannot sustain itself with 51% elections and winning 52 Senate seats. In this era, we've seen the Democratic Party do far better when they win (53% and 59 Democratic senators, for example).
Pence, at best, would be a guy who won 52%. You may consider that solid but that's on the order of the weaker re-election margins (as Obama's was, clearly). And obviously, we're back to Democratic control in 2024, where they probably win a hefty majority, if history is any guide. The best the Democratic nominee did in this era was 379 electoral votes; the best any GOP nominee is going to do in this era is something on the order of 329 electoral votes, most likely.
Do you start seeing my point now? The GOP coalition is much narrower, much weaker, much more demographically disadvantaged and largely based on white people (like yourself) who have this cultural fear and resentment of the world and are economically situated in the Old Economy like coal, old manufacturing jobs, etc. The Democratic coalition is clearly younger, millenial-based, more diverse, and based in the New Economy (Clinton carried Silicon Valley, she carried North Virginia, she carried the Research Triangle in North Carolina).
I'm going to point out that hyper-polarization is not sustainable. When your opposition routinely wins 45-48% of the vote, you have a strong sustained opposition and nothing really gets done. We've had periods like this in American history and usually, there's a break in the dam as I've said elsewhere. And that dam looks to be broken by Democrats, not Republicans.
A two point increase is not an "uptick" worth measuring. You keep clinging to this as if it was some massive gain and Latinos didn't vote 65% for Clinton, well above Kerry's 55%. You keep trying to cling to these miniscule upticks, ignoring that they went Democratic overwhelmingly. In what universe is losing Latinos 65-29% an achievement? Or Asians 65-29% and African Americans 88-8%? Especially when they're rising majorities unlikely to embrace your vision anytime soon?
Think of the flip side. Latinos - 65% of them - said they rejected your candidate's vision of a wall, rejected them enough to vote for the other candidate. A full 71% didn't vote for your candidate because of his immigration proposals.
Now tell me how the Latino vote uptick looks now.
Are you about to trot out the fact you have black and Latino friends?
Look, minorities under 40 voted third party or stayed home. They didn't suddenly gravitate to Trump. I've covered why the uptick is imaginary. Their mothers and aunts were excited about Hillary; they weren't.
Right, the Democratic Party sucks at not being an elitist party. I agree on that point and this is why they will become vastly more populist in the future. See: Sanders, Bernard. That's' one way to win back working class voters and white voters and younger minority millenial voters. Sure. But that's not because of Trump, per se, that's more because Trump points to the age we're going to be in, not that his policies will be magically adopted by the Democratic Party.