Future Realignment Possibilities?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I see a lot of posters theorizing some radical shifts to the electoral map occurring over the next 20-30 years. Some think that the Northeast will significantly trend to the right (making states like CT competitive and causing NY/NJ to no longer be safely Democratic strongholds), that Appalachian and Southern whites will move to the left and Democrats will begin to win in the South and KY/WV, that OR/WA will become competitive or Lean R states, and/or that the Mountain West and Plains move to the left. There are some very different ideas out there as to how the electorate will trend by region.

What sort of realignment would you imagine happening by 2040? What would the PVI by state map look like after your imagined realignment, when would it happen, and why did such a shift occur?

[GlobeSoc]

My interpretation of TD's realignment theory

[PoliticalShelter]

How is Kentucky more democratic than West Virginia. Especially when you consider that Kentucky has always been one of the more friendly states in the south to the GOP having been clintons closet state in the south and having voted for Nixon in 1960 and Eisenhower in 1956, and even being one of fords better states in the south.
And that isn't even considering the massive population losses that are occurring in the eastern part of the state, which would be the region most likely to return to these populist democrats.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

[PoliticalShelter]

My rough map.

I don't really like trying to predict where individual states will be, it's easier to try to predict the political trend in a region and say that it is broadly going to move to one party or another. For example I will predict that the southwest is going to move to the democrats, but i couldn't really predict whether Arizona will be core democratic state or if it is still a battleground state.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I'll admit that the dramatic realignment theories on atlas are a bit overblown, but I'll just play along. If Democrats turn back to how they were before Clintonism and third-wayism, here's what I think the map may look like:

[RINO Tom]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.

[BlueDogDemocrat]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.

It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

[RINO Tom]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.

It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

I addressed Dukakis in my post.  And Iowa still hadn't voted for a Democrat in over 20 years until Dukakis and had only supported one in the last 40...

[Sumner 1868]

^ I know Iowa has become this forum's poster child for "Obama-Trump 'WWC' Voters," but you realize it was staunchly Republican BEFORE Bill Clinton came along (minus one election with a completely unique Farm Crisis situation) and only leaned left after that, right?

Huh?


Iowa was much more Democratic than the national average in 1984, and was also more Democratic than the national average in 1972.

It also went for Dukakis in 1988.

I addressed Dukakis in my post.  And Iowa still hadn't voted for a Democrat in over 20 years until Dukakis and had only supported one in the last 40...

1976 was a difference of only one percentage point between Carter and Ford.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I'll admit that the dramatic realignment theories on atlas are a bit overblown, but I'll just play along. If Democrats turn back to how they were before Clintonism and third-wayism, here's what I think the map may look like:

This map looks about right, though I'd put Iowa as a toss-up and Tennessee as Lean R.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

TN: High population growth in a wealthy, mostly white, metro.
OK: Should probably be more R, but I think I messed up with the demographics there.
NE-03: Plains voters are still somewhat republican, especially among the Far West.
IL: Has a lot more southern areas, urban areas, and fewer suburbs. Cook swinging R tips it. Indiana can get more democratic with suburbs going D.
VT: Very economically liberal, which makes a state that's not very satisfied with either party.
MD: Is Likely R, as a combination of rural southerners and urban blacks tips it.

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

[RINO Tom]

Democrats re-align in a more libertarian direction:

What in tarnation? Tennessee is not libertarian whatsoever, there's no reason for it to be more Democratic than its neighbors. Oklahoma is basically the least libertarian state in the Union, Little Dixie is the epitome of economically egalitarian and socially conservative, so why is it only Lean R? Why would NE-03 be Republican yet Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota be strongly Democratic? Why would Illinois be Republican yet Indiana be Democratic? Why would Vermont lean Republican? Why would Maryland be strongly Republican?

Also, such a realignment would never happen. There are people in this party like myself that would prevent the Democrats from ever becoming so fiscally conservative.

TN: High population growth in a wealthy, mostly white, metro.
OK: Should probably be more R, but I think I messed up with the demographics there.
NE-03: Plains voters are still somewhat republican, especially among the Far West.
IL: Has a lot more southern areas, urban areas, and fewer suburbs. Cook swinging R tips it. Indiana can get more democratic with suburbs going D.
VT: Very economically liberal, which makes a state that's not very satisfied with either party.
MD: Is Likely R, as a combination of rural southerners and urban blacks tips it.

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

As is pretending that a majority of Democratic voters don't agree with his ideas, let alone hate libertarian ones.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

CORRECTIONS:
I Made some state predictions that turned out to be wrong. I made a model, and I can say some things with more confidence.
TN is SOLID R (not Tossup)
OK is SOLID R (not Lean R)
IL is LIKELY D (not Likely R)
IN is LEAN R (not Lean D)
MD is LEAN R (not Likely R)
VT is SOLID D (Not Lean R)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

[Roronoa D. Law]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

[Sumner 1868]

So they're gonna cave on economic issues and become a bunch of Ron Paul types on business, regulation, taxes, and spending and that's how they're gonna win?

Cave? This is something they've planned for eons now. Democrats real base is donors. In terms of affiliation they are only about a little more than a quarter (!) of the populace. They've been losing members non-stop since the 1970s, except for brief upward blips during 1992 and 2008-2009 when it looked like they might do something productive. The fact 46% of the remaining members of the party didn't want to build the latte-conservative Sunbelt-suburb coalition is what they're worried about more than Trump.

[TheLeftwardTide]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

There's also something in here (targeted to Jalawest2) about describing Sanders's policies as "economic liberalism". Economic liberalism is more akin to free-market capitalism than social democracy; it is not a left-wing ideology by any means, and certainly doesn't describe Sanders's policies. If you want to try to make a political argument, at least use the proper terminology. I like the terms "economic egalitarianism" (thanks RINO Tom), "New Deal liberalism", or, in the case of Sanders, simply "social democracy".

Also, the current time period is very similar to that of the late 1970s. Here:

The New Deal Era and The Neoliberal Era

Stage 1: The Root (Maximum number of terms)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)
Ronald Reagan (Republican)
The root politician is immensely popular, winning all of his elections in a landslide. He is considered to have very bold economic ideas that set the standard for the next several decades, along with having a strong base of support among their respective parties.

Stage 2: The Continuation (1 elected term)
Harry S. Truman (Democratic)
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
The continuation is, to its namesake, a continuation of the root's policies. He tends to be more moderate and more friendly with the party establishment than the root. He is mildly popular and tends to win elections in an upset (1948, 1988).

Stage 3: Opposition Realignment (2 terms)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
The opposition realignment is a member from the opposite party who is now confined to the modern political consensus, and so he shifts his party to the center. He is very popular, winning both elections by wide margins, and largely governing in a period of tranquility. However, the majority party makes large gains during his presidency.

Stage 4: The Expansion (2 terms)
John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
George W. Bush (Republican)
The expansion not only adopts the root's policies, but goes even further, reforming government to fit the root's ideal agenda. Their first election is decided by a very close margin. However, an unpopular war tanks the approval ratings of the expansion, and political unrest begins to rise. People are ready for change, and four years later, the majority party tries to forget that the expansion ever existed.
Oh, and something about LBJ and Dubya both being from Texas.

Stage 5: Faux-Change (2 terms)
Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford (Republican)
Barack Obama (Democratic)
The candidate's first election is largely built on a message of change, a sign of discontent at the political order under the expansion, and they win by a comfortable margin. However, when in office, they try to break out of the current political confines, but are not able to; whether this means Nixon being unable to enact fiscally conservative policies, or Obama unable to enact proper healthcare reform. The majority party makes large gains during this presidency.

Stage 6: Unpopular Outsider (1 term)
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Donald Trump (Republican)
While the unpopular outsider is from the majority party, they (to their namesake) are not part of the political establishment. They win their election by a very narrow margin in a time of turmoil, and their presidency is plagued by a myriad of issues. They are deeply unpopular in both parties, yet more so from the political opposition. Their presidency ends up, in a way, being opposed to the root; look at Carter's deregulation and Trump's protectionism. The current political era is crumbling, and soon it is time to start anew...

I want to refine this political theory and post it on its own someday, but I think it's quite useful to explain to establishment Democrats why their """theories""" are wrong.

I predict that the next "root" will be Sanders, because he seem to fit the bill. He, like Reagan, was/is hated by their respective party establishment. He, like Reagan, mounted a primary challenge against the moderate establishment candidate that was lost, but energized a large part of the base nonetheless.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

So they're gonna cave on economic issues and become a bunch of Ron Paul types on business, regulation, taxes, and spending and that's how they're gonna win?

Ok well somebody needs to explain this strategy to Schumer with his Better Deal agenda because somehow he's chosen not to take your advice at all. Probably because he talks to actual Democrats.

Copying Trump's dipsh**t positions on Trade isn't the path to a majority.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

[TheLeftwardTide]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

Mind actually coming up with some reason to back up your claims? Gary Johnson only garnered a very small part of the vote, so comparing his share of the vote is rather irrelevant in terms of determining generational trends. The millennial swing towards him can be very easily explained by what I said above; the fact that he was the only pro-weed candidate, and there are many millennials who vote solely based on weed. Sanders, on the other hand, garnered a much more energized bloc of support from millennials, and a much larger chunk of millennials supported Sanders as well. Ask any Sanders supporter why they voted for him, and you'll usually get similar answers.
- Student loan debt
- Unable to find a decent job
- Authenticity; doesn't take big-money donations

Also, you don't seem to understand what "identity politics" really is. I think Sanders represents the epitome of refusing to do identity politics. Here, he explains to a room full of high school students how Republicans use identity politics to divide the white and black working class into blocs, so that they can win. Sanders wants to unite all of the working class under one banner. If anything, the establishment was peddling identity politics by pushing the message of "racist, sexist Bernie Bros". The article that you posted doesn't confirm your claim in any way, shape, or form. Instead of just pasting an article, why don't you think of an argument?

>b-b-but Clinton swept minority voters, they obviously don't like Burning Sandals

Yes, Clinton swept minority voters. However, the minority voters weren't necessarily picking between a good and an evil, but rather a good and a greater good. They liked Sanders's economic message, but they saw how the Clintons have helped their respective communities, and they thought that Clinton would have a better chance at defeating the eventual Republican nominee. The evidence is in the polling; Sanders is actually more popular among women and minorities than with men and whites. This destroys the entire narrative, which was very popular among establishment Democrats. This narrative is the epitome of identity politics, solidifying my point above.

Final point, if you say that Sanders's success was due to his personality, aren't you implying that he's a likable candidate, or at least a good enough politician to frame himself as likable?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The Democrats voted for Clinton, not Sanders. All the fanboying about him aside, pretending he's certain to be the Moses of the next re-alignment is fantasy.

Pretending that Democrats want fiscal conservatism is an even bigger fantasy. Any polls showing that Democrats (particularly younger Democrats) are becoming at all interested in Rand Paul's agenda?

Also why have I so rarely come across any libertarian minded Democrat when I live in supposedly a place filled with libertarian minded Democrats (Orange County)?

http://khn.org/news/support-for-sanders-single-payer-plan-fades-with-control-cost-concerns/. Social liberalism is a lot more popular among the democrats than Sander's economic liberalism.

Yeah andRepublicans are not the only who lies to their base. There are many Democrats who want to move the party to the left just like the Bannon wing in the GOP want to move to the right but it won't happen. Plus the Democrats base is really pro establishment. When was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost the primary not barring a corruption scandal or redistricting?

False equivalence. Bannon is a moderate Republican economically, his extreme conservatism came with his social views. The majority of Berniecrats are economically left-wing and socially moderate to liberal. Also, the Overton window has shifted way too far to the right on economics in this point in time. Pretending that the Democratic base is "pro-establishment" is a load of horse-s**t. Clinton had every single institutional advantage over Sanders, we all knew that she was going to win the primary from the start. The fact that Sanders was even competitive should be a sign about the changing winds. Oh, and at the moment, Sanders is more popular than Clinton amongst Democrats. No, this idea that the Democrats will become even more fiscally conservative is very baseless, especially considering how younger voters broke for Sanders. The main reason Gary Johnson had millennial support was because of the "DUDE WEED LMAO" crowd.

Yeah, that's a blatant double standard. Writing away Johnson's support as irrelevant and Sanders as a perfect predictor of the future is nothing more than pretending your fantasies are the truth.
In the real world, Sanders had more conservative supporters than Clinton (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/07/no-sanders-supporters-are-not-more-liberal-than-clintons-heres-what-really-drives-elections/?utm_term=.5ad91356e91a)

His "success" (at not leaving even after he lost) was due far more to personality and identity politics than support for his socialism.

Mind actually coming up with some reason to back up your claims? Gary Johnson only garnered a very small part of the vote, so comparing his share of the vote is rather irrelevant in terms of determining generational trends. The millennial swing towards him can be very easily explained by what I said above; the fact that he was the only pro-weed candidate, and there are many millennials who vote solely based on weed. Sanders, on the other hand, garnered a much more energized bloc of support from millennials, and a much larger chunk of millennials supported Sanders as well. Ask any Sanders supporter why they voted for him, and you'll usually get similar answers.
- Student loan debt
- Unable to find a decent job
- Authenticity; doesn't take big-money donations

Also, you don't seem to understand what "identity politics" really is. I think Sanders represents the epitome of refusing to do identity politics. Here, he explains to a room full of high school students how Republicans use identity politics to divide the white and black working class into blocs, so that they can win. Sanders wants to unite all of the working class under one banner. If anything, the establishment was peddling identity politics by pushing the message of "racist, sexist Bernie Bros". The article that you posted doesn't confirm your claim in any way, shape, or form. Instead of just pasting an article, why don't you think of an argument?

>b-b-but Clinton swept minority voters, they obviously don't like Burning Sandals

Yes, Clinton swept minority voters. However, the minority voters weren't necessarily picking between a good and an evil, but rather a good and a greater good. They liked Sanders's economic message, but they saw how the Clintons have helped their respective communities, and they thought that Clinton would have a better chance at defeating the eventual Republican nominee. The evidence is in the polling; Sanders is actually more popular among women and minorities than with men and whites. This destroys the entire narrative, which, in a sense, is centered around identity politics.

Final point, if you say that Sanders's success was due to his personality, aren't you implying that he's a likable candidate, or at least a good enough politician to frame himself as likable?

Sanders supporters tended to be more liberal on social issues, not economic ones. So were Johnson supporters, who often polled in double digits among millenials.
Sanders managed to acquire a reputation as honest and full of integrity. Being as it is not true, I can't imagine it lasting long.

[GlobeSoc]

Full disclosure: I would never vote for libertarian dems ever, barring a literal apocalypse if they don't win. I might vote for libertarian GOPhers if I believe they will further the cause of making the republican party realign in that direction

That being said:

YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE

NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT IS FROM NOVA

NEITHER CLINTONISM NOR BERNIEISM IS LIBERTARIAN