Obviously true. But where does that 90% notion come from? Well, it comes from the three million votes that Clinton racked up over Trump; the unanswered question is WHY that occurred.
Always the interesting question.
To the people raising the 3M “point”, reason for those 3 million votes is assumed and never debated; to them, it’s because the policy positions raised by Mrs. Clinton were superior to those raised by Mr. Trump. Of course.
It’s worth noting first and foremost that Obama’s 2008 vote count was almost 4 million higher than Clinton’s in 2016. Even his 2012 vote count was higher than Clinton’s in 2016, though only by a scant hundred-thousand votes or so. And, of course, the population of the United States was smaller in 2008 and 2012 than in 2016.
I’d argue the opposite; the 3 million votes were a gift given to Mrs. Clinton BECAUSE Trump was the most personally reprehensible candidate in history (just saying he was the “worst” doesn’t do him justice).
And the corollary to that is, if *any* of the the other sixteen GOP candidates had won the nomination instead of Trump, that 3 million vote margin would have dried up like a raisin and disappeared.
You could well be correct. Polls conducted during the primary races showed Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio performing much better against Clinton than Trump did.
The “three million vote” meme is being used as an opiate to dim the memory of the 2016 blowout, and to avoid the obvious consequences of having to reflect upon it AND CHANGE. Repeating the “three million votes” meme allows the party to wander down their primrose path, pretending that no change is necessary, Mr. Sanders and his voters were treated fairly and kindly, and that policy demands that are not present in the “approved platform” can be ignored.
Indeed, some people think this is a mandate that the Democratic Party should continue pushing its stale platform. But, how can anyone believe that when they see that Obama won in 2008 by almost 10 million votes? That’s what a mandate looks like. It’s doubly illogical to believe that the platform that quite clearly could not compete in 2016 will have any chance of competing in the future, when Millennials and Generation Z voters represent a larger proportion of the electorate, because all data shows that younger Democratic voters skewed far to the left of establishment neoliberals.
I agree with you completely that it’s not a great situation. The GOP embraced its extremist wing, and although (obviously) philosophies of governance differ greatly between traditional and conservative Republican, nobody on the GOP side is threatening to walk out and form a third party.
The Dems need to figure out what to do.
These may seem on the surface to be the similar situations, but I think they aren’t. The Republican base is less educated, votes with lower information, is generally more bigoted and racist, and is, in short, less principled. I realize that’s harsh to say, but the numbers bear it out. I’m not saying every Republican is an ignorant, racist hillbilly, but virtually all of the ignorant, racist hillbillies who do vote, vote Republican. What this means is Republicans can sell out to corporate donors and rely on Koch-funded propaganda with fewer consequences than Democrats. At a certain point, voters on the left simply will not vote for corporate sellouts and unprincipled liars. They will only vote for people whose stances on the issues align with their own.
Regarding whether the Democrats need to figure out what to do, it depends entirely on their aim. If they aim to prevent progressives from getting elected, they’re doing a great job. If they aim to beat Republicans, they are failing. Their donors probably benefit more from having Republicans in office than progressives in office, so the DNC has little incentive to try to get progressive votes or push for progressive policies, since individual politicians can keep enriching themselves in heavily blue districts for a while without any threat of losing to a Republican, even if Democrats remain the minority party.
I think any change will either come from a splinter faction within the Democratic Party or from an Independent or third-party surge. The appointment of Perez to the head of the DNC made it clear where the Democratic establishment stands.