Trump is labeled racist, sexist and misogynistic because of his words and actions. As are most people.
And lots of people saw a Trump presidency as a possibility, like, everyone paying attention to the fact that there was a Republican presidential runner, and that person was Trump.
I think Sanders did a much better job of reaching that demographic, so I'd argue it was represented, but the Democrat party decided other priorities were more important by selecting Clinton.
Trump went after issues that actually matter. Be careful, I'm not saying LGBT rights and racism don't matter, I'm just saying they aren't really the centerfold of America anymore.
The degree to which people believe this is striking. The reality is that these protections are very recent developments and are today easily reversed, particularly by an administration that cares less than usual about the details of how the federal government is run.
The national legalization of gay marriage happened via the Supreme Court just last year. There is no reason at all it could not be reversed under a new court.
A lot more rests in Department of Justice policy. Look at what Justice has been doing to investigate and clean up racial bias in municipal police forces recently. They have consent decrees with Seattle, Cleveland, and others to try to change the way they do policing.
A new administration could easily abandon every one of those agreements, and the goal of removing racial bias from policing generally. It might even be likely--senior people in the Trump campaign have praised racial profiling as an effective and useful police tactic.
Edit to add: in general, social progress must be continuously defended. Nothing is every "done" in a democracy.
Yes, there is; it's "stare decisis". Even Dred Scott has not been reversed because of it.
Political donations are not supposed to be tax deductible and yet the Clinton Foundation carries on existence as a 501c3; double dipping so that a majority of her income as one of the most wealthy politicians comes in tax deductible while she pays not taxes on it.
In light of the blatant collusion and conflicts of interest released in her emails she should've been barred from running in the first place.
The difference is that he does not pretend to be non-racist, non-sexist and not-misogynistic. A lot of people do.
[edit] I am not american, but somehow I can understand that he won the election. He is a honest hustler among a bunch of good liars. He won't stab you in the back. Maybe in the chest. But you will see it coming.
And I mean that with no sarcasm. I would genuinely like to see you make the case that he is not racist, sexist and/or misogynistic.
And he was careful never to insult big parts of the electorate - it was usually the left that generalized.
All of his big gaffes were either towards non citizens or specific citizens. He never had his basket of deplorables moment.
It was between him and Megyn Kelly, the latino judge, the khans.
And we get to the "grab them by the pussy" - and we end in the messy world of human courtship ... where we are all sexist and objectifying the objects of our desire. Both sexes included.
Of course the assaults are assaults ... and I won't defend them. Somehow they disappeared from the media in the last few days though.
Trump is a dirty fighter. But I think that the majority of his sexism, racism or wherever is mostly opportunistic strikes where he sees weakness.
My thoughts on some of it is that while the white working class (as well as the black working class) are happy to see America help others out, internationally, domestically; they are not happy to see America help others out but at the same time ignore them and belittle them. That can be in trade deals, acquiescing to illegal immigrants, talking down to them, etc. There are likely a sprinkling of racists on the Trump side, but I dare say, there is the same likelihood of reverse racists on the Clinton side ['white people are the devil'].
Even people on the GOP side seemed to accept that Trump was going to lose, so I'd say 'no'. Sometimes the polls are wrong, sometimes you just get surprising results.
By itself that doesn't mean anything. Sanders got way bigger rallies than Clinton too and still lost.
All of the shocked media people and here on HN live in a bubble and have no idea what it's like to live in a working class community.
We are completely fine understanding root causes and bias which may underlie racial or gender based observations, but conveniently turn a blind eye to well-studied drivers for phenomena like nativism.
A lot of the current form of diversity against the disenfranchised "in-group" amounts to "you're f'd for being poor and FU again for being unhappy about being poor".
The line gets a bit muddier on the fiscal side. If you're all for cutting programs that disproportionately support the poor and the poor happen to be disproportionately minority is there a racial component? That's worth being aware of.
Depends on the context really. If that was Sander's slogan, you'd immediately assume whom you'd be taking it back was the bankers & corporation.
It's one of those generic slogan that reflects the views of the beholder. Some will assume it means from the immigrants, others the bureaucrats. It's definitely smarter than the damp squibs that Clinton came up with.
You're left with gun rights which becomes a question of degree. It's thankfully largely divorced from the issues of sex and race, but pretty tightly coupled to regional culture more than anything else.
The fact that Trump won on the backs of uneducated white men certainly says a lot.
[0] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-l...
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
Does this not prove that "diverse" liberalism isn't so diverse after all? Shouldn't a diverse group of people have seen this coming?
Or is liberalism actually systematically excluding people by labelling them as "racist" and "sexist", when in fact they're just fiscal and social conservatives?