I also think its a mistake to claim Trump's success was merely due to him being "an outsider". Voters are not some monolithic block... some may have voted for him because he was an outsider, some may have done so as a reflex "always vote republican", some may have been attracted specifically to his racism. And some may have liked his policies.
I think that it's best not to ignore the "Burn it all down" voters, especially the ones particularly not happy with the direction that the establishment Republican party was going in.
I think Elizabeth Warren might be one of those people:
“I’m gonna have a secretary of education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf,” Warren said. “And only if this person believes that our secretary of education nominee is someone who is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be secretary of education.”
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/30/warren-transgender-secretary-education/
While it is indeed possible that Warren might be overestimating the progressive vote, she's one of the best candidates to unite the Democratic Party itself. To address this quote specifically, though, do you have a better source than the Daily Caller? It wouldn't be a surprise to me if Warren actually did this, but the Daily Caller's not exactly known for its trustworthiness.
To go a bit further, incidentally,
I don't see anything wrong at all with taking a person from a group that's being marginalized and letting them have a bit more of a say in who leads efforts to maintain and make our educational system better. I admit that it's probably not going to actually affect the votes of very many trans folk, though, from a political angle.
Trump started his campaign by announcing he was going to build a border wall.
And a heck of a lot of people didn't take him at his word. To make the landscape more clear, of course, border security is quite popular among both Democrats and Republicans, though the specific focus and preferred courses of action differ.
"Okay but if we run Bernie then Russia won't interfere in the 2020 election" is... a very bold claim.
It really, really is bold. And doesn't have much credible basis to back it up - especially when Trump's been working so hard to give Putin as much of what Putin wants as Trump can get away with and Bernie would be much more neutral and willing to actually do things like... uphold sanctions that Congress unanimously agreed needed to be in place.
So wait the new narrative is the Russians were out to get Hillary not either help Trump or just generally muck up our election and take advantage of the confusion?
New? It was made pretty clear long ago that the Russian efforts were anti-Hillary, first and foremost when it dealt with politics, with a more general anti-Democrat push that comprised the bulk of the efforts (for example, the biggest single push overall was to
get black people not to vote, which is pretty clearly anti-Democrat in effect, and the push to get black people not to vote is the kind of thing that's been portrayed as generally mucking things up), and pro-Trump was notably lower in priority. There was definitely a desire to muck things up, too, but that kind of thing didn't need to be prioritized when their efforts had that as a side effect anyways.
Forget the popular narratives. There is a popular narrative that there is a sex tape of young Russian women urinating on Trump in a Moscow hotel, utter ******** probably fabricated by the security services.
To poke at this, the actual bit of raw intel was that the peeing was on the spot where Obama had slept, not onto Trump. It's something petty and vulgar, but not a kink.
The unexpected U.S. assassination of General Suleimani might make them think twice about backing an anti-Iranian hawk in the White House.
Pompeo?
Seriously, Trump's actions towards Iran have pretty much all ended up benefiting Russia, though.
Exposed: Peter Schweizer Explains
Okay! That's enough reason to disregard that right there! Political operatives with a history of friggin' horrid logic in service to creating partisan propaganda narratives aren't worth paying attention to when they try to make similar hit-pieces.
