You are not smart, but certainly deluded.
You just make yourself sound petty when you say stuff like this.
It forces a corrupt party who has become out of touch with its constituents and drunk with power to accommodate sentiment that its been struggling violently to suppress and that is for the good of the citizenry.
Er, no. Primary voters supported Clinton overwhelmingly, and losing to Trump would indicate that the right has more support, and would lead to the party moving right. But more than that, as I said, the changes that a president Trump would bring about (and get out of here with the silly idea that Trump could win the presidency while the GOP loses Congress) would prevent any progressive expansion similar to the way the changes that Reagan brought about did. Really high structural deficits make new spending way less likely, and the SCOTUS would be far-right leaning. You didn't respond to those points at all, either because you didn't understand them or you could tell that they're true but you didn't want to change a position that you're emotionally attached to.
It's certainly much, much more realistic than Clinton adopting social democratic policy into her presidency.
Clinton, like all presidents and politicians generally, will push to enact the items on the platform, and she's long been a left-leaning Democrat. Frankly, there are some dumb ideas that got on, and it would be better for the country if she didn't, but she will.
What I said was not realistic was the notion that Democrats could get the Senate and the House while Trump wins the presidency. Most voters vote straight tickets. Democrats have a chance to take the Senate and a much smaller one to take the House, but any scenario where that happens, Clinton wins (she'll have to win by a lot to flip the House).
How do you think a Trump presidency works out with regard to party organizing?
What do you mean, exactly?
