The leftward drift is an idea that is shrugged off by the average American. What they call evolving or progressing is this drift. Some even argue that Clinton is actually a Republican. Her platform is far to the left socially compared to her husband’s 1996 platform. Her pro-war and big business connections are just a continuation of the Rubin-created Clinton formula. If Democrats or “centrists” in your social circle bothered to look, proof of the leftward drift can be found in the 2000 elections.
The Democrats of 2000 saw a minor primary battle between a pro-business, DLC centrist heir apparent with absolutely no charisma and a liberal alternative. Al Gore was just as wooden and fake as Hillary Clinton is today. His shining moment in the entire campaign was his concession speech. Bill Bradley was an old school liberal pushing a candidacy to the left of Gore. Bradley promised universal health care and the accompanying taxes to pay for it. The result was Gore trouncing Bradley in state after state. Even the whitest of states went solidly to Gore unlike 2016, where there was a line where the black population percentage doomed either Sanders (high) or Clinton (low).
America was a whiter nation then. The 2000 census shows a nation 75% white, and a significant bit of the Hispanic and Asian population was not eligible to vote. The white vote itself had not hardened nor had as much of the population been fully through the cultural revolution education system. Voters over age 65 were overwhelmingly white, skewed more conservative, and now sixteen years later are either dead or immobile and only able to vote in Chicago. Gore defeating Bradley might not persuade the average gay marriage supporting centrist of 2016 that there has been a leftward drift, but there was another candidate from 2000 that drives the point home. Ralph Nader.
In 2000, Ralph Nader was considered the evil spoiler that robbed Gore of the presidency. Lost in that focus is that Nader’s platform might as well be a copy of what Senator Bernie Sanders pitched in 2016. La Wik lacks details, but his message was the message Sanders delivered in front of thousands. Sanders nearly toppled Clinton with this economic message. While Bradley could not win a single state versus Gore, Sanders won twenty three and over 40% of the primary vote. The 1%? Nader’s platform called for no American to earn over $250,000 annually, which is the line for top 1% for annual income. Even some elements of Nader’s platform are in Clinton’s platform with the bits on anarcho-tyranny implementation criminal justice reform. All elements of the pro-gay and feminism planks have been absorbed by the Democrats.
This message was not at the fringe. It was front and center for thousands of mostly white Democrats. Minority clients voted with the reliable machine, rejecting Sanders pitch of full communism. White Democrats have drifted so far to the left that what was considered a fringe, no money oddball campaign platform would have won the nomination in younger or minority packaging. WikiLeaks email releases have revealed a sham primary season that was rigged in multiple ways (debates, SuperPAC coordination, etc.) to secure Clinton the nomination. The far-left insurgency was put down.
It was put down not because it was an actual revolt, but because it came too soon. It was an insurgency against the elite of the party, due to the slow speed at which Obama, Pelosi and Reid were implementing full communism. The same message that could garner a couple percent for a fringe candidate in the general election vote in 2000 nearly secured the nomination in 2016. If Sanders ran third party this year, he would top double digits easily, mortally wounding the Clinton campaign. Come 2024, this will be the standard message.
Eight more years of academic insanity. Eight more years of media messaging. Eight more years of Tumblr echo chamber discussions. Eight more years for the elite to figure out how to defang it. If Clinton were to lose, you will hear it front and center in spring of 2019.