There is an old story in politics from the 1950s, where Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson is approached by a confident aide who tells him that he has the thinking people on his side, to which Stevenson replies, “ah, but I need a majority.” Liberalism is rooted in condescension, which is hidden under the veneer of tolerance and supporting free speech. It is actually remarkable: a group of overly indoctrinated individuals have managed to successfully polish a turd--until now.

For liberals, Hillary Clinton was so amazingly qualified to be president. She could have been the first female president, and she had a long history of public service etc. except no one liked her. No one has ever really liked Hillary except hard-core liberals, and they’re not the majority of the country. She was also dishonest, inauthentic, not trustworthy, and overly secretive. These characteristics were hurled at her in the 1990s, and rehashed when her campaign stumbled endlessly trying to explain how her unsecure and unauthorized private email server was okay for her to use for official business secretary of state. The ethical quid pro quo allegations at the Clinton Foundation were also another source of heartburn for the campaign. Though there was an absence of hard evidence, it appears a pattern as common: good things happened to big donors to the Clinton Foundation. Just take a look at the Rosatom takeover of Uranium One as an example. All feed into the notion that voters couldn’t trust Hillary, that she was in it for herself, and that she was a typical politician: all talk, no action. She lost in one of the biggest political upsets in American history.

As liberals deal with ruins of their movement and the Democratic Party struggles to find its way out of political exile, they’re lashing out at Trump voters, even reluctant ones who they could flip in 2020. Those who out themselves are then besieged by judgment by the urban-based elite, who still haven't noticed that their way of thinking failed to win over voters. In fact, it was the opposite; millions of Obama voters voted for Trump. Talk about compounding the suck that is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So, as liberals think they’re gaining ground with a Tea Party of their own (i.e. town hall protests) and continue to embrace identity politics because nothing says insanity than smashing your face against the same wall twice for a different result, they also have to know that it’s only emboldening Trump voters. The New York Times had an article that showed how even Democrats from the Clinton era are sick of the progressive antics that have taken over their party, namely that fact that Bill Clinton pretty much reiterated much of what Trump said about immigration. The only difference is that Bill was lauded for it; Trump is smeared as a racist. It also delves into how dating is becoming a game of cloak and dagger for some, with dates lying to their friends about political affiliations to avoid being shunned. While others make it very clear that they’re not interested in Trump supporters. So, in liberal America, your vote is all that defines you. And they say the GOP has an outreach problem.

Via NYT:

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia. Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority. […] Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one. Disagreeing meant being publicly shamed. Protests and righteous indignation on social media and in Hollywood may seem to liberals to be about policy and persuasion. But moderate conservatives say they are having the opposite effect, chipping away at their middle ground and pushing them closer to Mr. Trump. […] Conservatives have gotten vicious, too, sometimes with Mr. Trump’s encouragement. But if political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seem a logical place to start. Yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them. […] It is tempting to blame Mr. Trump for America’s toxic political state of mind. He has wreaked havoc on political civility and is putting American democratic institutions through the most robust stress test in decades. But many experts argue that he is a symptom, not a cause, and that the roots go deeper. […] The Democratic Party has changed so much that I don’t even recognize it anymore,” she said. “These people are destroying our democracy. They are scarier to me than these Islamic terrorists. I feel absolutely disgusted with them and their antics. It strengthens people’s resolve in wanting to support President Trump. It really does.” Polling data suggest many center-right voters feel the same way. The first poll by the Pew Research Center on presidential job performance since Mr. Trump took office showed last week that while he has almost no support from Democrats, he has high marks among moderates who lean Republican: 70 percent approve, while 20 percent disapprove.

Looks like liberals are doing a bang up job getting Trump that second term, especially those who work in Hollywood.