In reading these articles I can’t help but feel there is a disconnect. At first, they both accurately describe Clinton’s (poor) performance/turnout with (white) working-class voters. Then they pivot to a discussion on Trump’s typical voter, which isn’t the white working-class, but one that is more motivated by issues of immigration and harboring more resentments (i.e. racial, religious, cultural, etc). Elections are a summation of turnout across many demographics. And focusing on a reason for the result is a fool’s errand — there are many.
Maybe purists shouldn’t be too hard on Booker (seems like a hard fight to take on given that there wasn’t much good that would come from not supporting such an amendment), but I think it is more important to recognize these demographics so Democrats can pick a candidate who can drum up more support the next time around. Personally, I don’t think any existing (prominent) politician can be successful and am counting on a new leader to emerge. Perhaps one from EMILY’s List. Certainly not Sanders — candidates who run in more than one primary haven’t won since the invention of the world wide web (they’ve lost 7 out of 7 times).