Someone needs to tell all American political pundits that the election of a single person, even a party, in a single election means little in terms of history. The US presidential election is no bellwether of world opinion. Liberalism is alive and well amongst the people.

The Republicans now control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They will almost certainly wind up controlling the Supreme Court for at least a generation, maybe two. They control 33 state governorships compared to 16 Dems and one Independent. They control 32 state legislatures, 17 with a veto-proof majority. The Dems control 13, 5 of which are veto-proof.

It's not just Trump, and it's not just a single election.

But it remains a single country and a single election period ("election" almost always includes electing multiple people but it is still a single election process) . The dems had control only a few months ago and could have it back in a few years. SCOTUS's impact is purely local. It means little to the rest of the world in the long run. In many places (canada) US politics seems to have an opposite effect. America has shown liberals of the world how not to do things.

"But it remains a single country and a single election period ...The dems had control only a few months ago"

No, they've been losing ground pretty steadily for 20 years. The media didn't pay much attention until recently because most of the losses were occurring in "flyover" areas.

They're paying attention now.

Even at the Federal level, the Republicans have had control of the House of Representatives since 2010, and the Senate since 2014.

And I don't agree that it's just the U.S. In other countries you have Brexit, the rise of the Le Pen family in France, etc.

So what's your conclusion about what it is?

I'll go first, I think that is mostly because of a disastrous 2010 off-year election, its ensuing redistricting period, and, well, I enjoyed this piece:

http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blo...

"So what's your conclusion about what it is?"

Utter failure of the current Democratic Party to connect with those voters who made up its base for a century or more.

I don't think there's any other way to spin it. Trump won because he carried several industrial and mining states that were traditionally Democratic strongholds.

Your link is just another attempt to blame it on "stupid racists".

Did it ever occur to the Dem leadership that calling people stupid racists doesn't make them more likely to vote for you?

Those states all voted for Obama twice. While I suppose it's possible that everyone in those states turned into a stupid racist over the last four years, that's not where I'd place my bet.

They also should let him know that a series of rambling interludes about various "think pieces" does not a quality narrative make.

I found this to be a terrible read, from start to finish. Perhaps I missed something.

I sort of liked the content of the piece even it if does feel a bit rambling.

What bothers me is that I had (slight) difficulty getting through it, but the difficulty wasn't because of the rambling nature but more on sentence-by-sentence level. It seems needlessly convoluted and reminds me of the reams of academic pages I had to read in college.

And it's not like I usually only read 'simple' stuff.