if you think they need to talk to you before they go pontificating about what you were thinking. They think they are brilliant analysts; I think they are showing the arrogance of ignorance.
Too much of the analysis of the primaries and general election were done by white males who seem to view the results from inside a bubble. Do you follow Sarah Lerner? She has a great piece in Dame, "Oh, White Men With Your Never-ending Need to Dictate the Democratic Platform." Your comment about the paucity of profiles of Clinton supporters reminded me of this from her article:
"...Publications and politics tend to elevate elite white male voices. In the New York Times, Mark Lilla asserted that “the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end.” Eight months later in the same outlet, Mark Penn and Andrew Stein called for Democrats to return to the center, claiming that “identity politics are creating a new social divide.” Even Bernie Sanders pointed to “politically correct rhetoric” as a reason why Trump won the election. In these men’s minds, the most significant barrier to future Democratic victories is marginalized groups refusing to back down from their full-throated demands for equal consideration.
"Perhaps most frustrating about this constantly recycled narrative around “identity politics” sinking the electoral chances of those on the left is that it is contradicted by data. The blatant bigotry that Trump voters rubber-stamped is often excused as “economic anxiety,” but exit polls showed that Hillary Clinton won both the under-$30,000 and $30,000 to $49,999 brackets. And for all the talk of Trump’s “populist” appeal, it was Clinton’s economic message that voters preferred in nearly every swing state (yes, including the decisive Rust Belt) and across the country." [link:https://www.damemagazine.com/2017/07/18/oh-white-men-your-never-ending-need-dictate-democratic-platform|
= new reply since forum marked as read
