policy proposals are mostly what people are "obsessed" with, not necessarily his personality. He's an asshole ya, but his suggestions of building a wall, maintaining a muslim registry, expanding the war OF terror, increasing the police state, etc., are inherently racist policies and those are what people are most against.

The author is trying to give suggestions on how the democratic party can deal with Trump and defeat him in the next election. The democratic party of course is just as bad, so there's that. If we rely on the democratic party to spur "substantive debate" about the issues we're toast, again.

I would disagree with the author on this:

"wether we like it or not, Mr. Trump won legitimately. Denying that only feeds the perception that there are “legitimate” candidates and “illegitimate” ones, and a small elite decides which is which."

No, Trump didn't win legitimately. If Clinton had won she wouldn't have won legitimately either. Nothing about this election was legitimate. They both cheated, that's been proven. Trump won with barely 25% of the voting population's votes. Not only that, this election itself was not legitimate because the ruling elite did force upon us two unacceptable candidates. The ruling elite's corporate media monopoly controlled the whole thing. So ya, the perception is right, a small elite does decide who we're allowed to have as president and who we can vote for.

and I hope the dems will support it (unless it's focused on pipelines).

Interesting article Bisbonian

now in a state of such disarray and confusion, they will fail to heed Luigi Zingales' excellent advice. They appear to be in the midst of an identity crisis, divided among themselves and unsure of how to proceed. Street demonstrations of inchoate rage will accomplish nothing, and as Zingales says,

These protests are also counterproductive. There will be plenty of reasons to complain during the Trump presidency, when really awful decisions are made. Why complain now, when no decision has been made? It delegitimizes the future protests and exposes the bias of the opposition.

"Anything but Trump and everything but Trump" does not a coherent strategy make. Trump's personality is not necessarily relevant to whatever policies he might pursue, and as yet we do not know what they will be. It is entirely possible, even probable, that we might agree with some of them wholeheartedly, while opposing others absolutely. There is a chance that Trump will be able to unite the Left and the Right in regard to trade policy and to foreign policy generally. A chance - no more than that. Ideological inconstancy and unpredictability are key aspects of Trump's character.

It is still too soon to know how these possibilities might play out politically and diplomatically. But I think it would be strategically wise for progressives to keep their powder dry, until Trump actually does something, instead of prematurely judging everything we suppose he might probably do. Acting too soon can sometimes be worse than not acting at all.

Progressives go back into the party or join hands with the democratic party, and then face being told in 2018 that the democratic party must capture the House and Senate to stop Trum/gop. And to do that you have to once again vote for hand picked corporatists and militarists.

From what I can tell, the DNC remains in the hands of the same people who back stabbled Sanders and his supporters. And within that faction a growing belief that Sanders caused Hillary to lose. (After Sanders lost the primaries, he spoke to House reps, and they boo'ed him.)

I don't know, but is this looking like a repeat of what happened in the primaries and afterward? At the end of the day, will the resistance to Trump go down a corporatist hole?