Democrats being just a big city party for some groups but not others has already failed.

[BainsBane]

39. Clinton ran against Trump, not Obama.

And he won voters over $100 k. He did not tie. But since you care so much more about contests among Democrats rather than general elections between Republicans and Democrats I will also point out that she also won lower income voters in the primaries. That coincides with the racial composition of the electorate, since incomes of whites average 8x that of African Americans.

Change is a contentless category. The change they wanted was white rule. That has been proven repeatedly in post-election surveys.

The opposition to Clinton and Democrats more generally is white and self -entitled. It's by people who want to turn the clock back to a time when being white and male was enough to guarantee then a status of racial superiority and an average income advantage even greater than the already staggering disparity.

I did not downplay the role of men in Trump's victory. It is obvious that white men are the most reliable GOP voting demographic. They also are the wealthiest, a point that somehow has escaped you. That is why Trump won upper incomes.

What we are seeing now is an effort to center the Democratic party around those same white men. Controlling one party and three branches of government seemingly isn't enough. Hence the disinformation campaign to try the force the Democrats to abandon concern for anyone but a more affluent white male minority. Not that all white people are affluent or even middle-class, of course. The point is average incomes far in excess of the rest of Americans and voting demographics, which in fact relate to the OP's assertion that civil rights and "identity politics" are too divisive.

Your fixating on Obama vs Clinton is not only irrelevant, itignores context. it is far more difficult for the sitting party to win the presidency after 8 years of holding the Oval Office. The "change" sentiment always favors the opposition party. That such a basic historical fact is systematically and repeatedly ignored is past the point of absurdity.

You mistake my failure to believe in the inherent superiority of white men with downplaying their role in Trump's and every Republican and even right wing victory across the globe. Believe me, many, if not most, of us know we live under a system of rampant inequality because many white men see that inequality as beneficial to themselves. What I oppose is remaking the party to cater to the self-entitlement of those men. I reject the pretense that abandoning concerns for civil rights and the lives of anyone but a white male minority is somehow about "everybody." The consequence would be to make society increasingly unequal to benefit them even more. I especially resent the fact that they seek to camouflage that agenda in the language of leftism and social movements rather than simply admitting their concern is their own self interest.

And the fact is that the two votes per precinct that Clinton lost by in Michigan is dwarfed by the millions denied the right to vote by suppression. That we see that point--and those rights--systematically ignored is disturbing. I can't help wonder if that is also about promoting their own interests, which tend to be incompatible with equal rights and a democratic system that seeks to represent and incorporate the concerns of the majority. That may be why we see a corresponding effort to limit the franchise by replacing Democratic primaries with caucuses, which have the lowest voter participation rates and are largely attended by white property owners.