Those who say "Americans will never vote for a Socialist Jew" are revealing their own prejudice
Yes, I'm going there. And based on this logic, Barack Obama might as well should not have been nominated because Americans in the 21st century would never vote for an Ivy-League educated black man who was born in Hawaii, whose father was from Kenya, whose stepfather was a Muslim from Indonesia, whose middle name was Hussein, and whose last name was Obama (change the second letter to...oh fuck it 
). And Hillary Clinton should never have been nominated because Americans would never have voted for any woman - let alone, one with the polarizing political history that Hillary Clinton had.
Furthermore, by this same logic:
1992-1996: "Americans will never vote for a draft-dodging, womanizing, Baby Boomer politician from a poor rural family in Arkansas!"
1976: "Americans will never vote for a Southern Baptist with no experience in Washington!"
1964: "Americans will never vote for a sordidly corrupt and always-scheming Texan!"
1959: "Americans will never vote for an Irish Catholic!"
1948: "Americans will never vote for a Democratic President five times in a row!
1932-1944: "Americans will never vote for a wheelchair-bound New York aristocrat four times in a row!"
Seems like a GREAT track record of predicting what American voters will do! 
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Liberal" and "revolution" being two of them, in your post. I think a lot of voters in this country felt they had two crappy choices facing them in the general election, and worked from there. I don't think they necessarily wanted what Trump was selling, either, whatever label that would fall under.
My saying that doesn't mean I claim to "know exactly how every voter in the country was feeling". One thing I can safely say is that in terms of objective data, as I said in my previous post, we have some specific data points on, for instance, the rust belt. See, in that sentence above, I said "I think"- which means I am expressing a subjective opinion. However, we know that Hillary clinton lost PA, MI and WI. We know that she dropped a shit-ton of counties in the midwest that Obama carried (the polling in Iowa should have been a red flag, to all of us, in retrospect) we also KNOW that Sanders outperformed her in several of those key areas during the primaries. See, there's speculation, but some of my speculations here are based on objective data. Doesn't mean it's right, but it has a basis in reality.
I don't even understand why you'd say that- believe me, if I wanted to make jokes they'd be funnier- unless I said something that confused you, upset you or left you unable to formulate a more relevant response. I'm not deflecting anything, nor am I "ranting errantly"
in fact I think I'm doing a yeoman's job of following your scattershot logic, here.
...people want to win elections? Spending the next 4 years proclaiming how righteously aggrieved they are, isn't gonna win any. Now, as for "cool and hip"- what the fuck kind of nonsense is that? Bernie Sanders is a 74 year old frumpy bald guy who sounds like Alan Arkin when he talks. He is no one's definition of "cool and hip". No one fucking voted for him, worked for him, or supported him, because they thought it made them "cool and hip". The only people who thought "cool and hip" was gonna win the election were the Manhattan-ensconced Hillary campaign geniuses who thought getting Jay-Z and Katy Perry to endorse her, or sending her on Ellen to do the "nae nae"- was any sort of substitute for having a ground game in Michigan or talking about jobs to unemployed Wisconsinites.
it's never pleasant watching politicians pander to youth. I recall the Macarena dancing at the convention in '96 with similar cringing...
