> That the "center of America" (same as for rural areas in Germany, which also heavily tend to vote conservative/right) has been vastly ignored by the left is a fact.
I disagree with this premise. Many of the signature policies of the "left" were specifically intended to address the issues facing "middle America" - the ACA/Obamacare was intended to address rising health care costs, Clinton was pushing a retraining program for workers in areas where jobs have migrated from, and both Sanders and Clinton were arguing for increasing access to tertiary education via free/discounted programs.
I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. Blaming the Federal government (ostensibly "left" despite the Republican controlled House and Senate for the last 6 years) for the failings of State politicians and Governors, who have at least as much impact in your daily life, is another example of how absurd politics has become. We need to break the partisan nature of politics and start electing people who are interested in building a city/county/State/country for ALL of their constituents via compromise.
> I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans.
(disclaimer: the following may be inaccurate due to the fact that I'm a German and don't get reports on every activity of Clinton)
From what I've seen in news reports, Trump has made a habit during his campaign to appear not only in contested swing states but also in areas where many jobs have been lost - be it due to the closure of coal mines, huge factories or whatever - and promised people to "make them great again" and "make their voices being heard". Clinton however focused on swing states and the DNC shot down the Sanders campaign.
In Germany, it's the same - old miner towns or rural areas rarely get visits from campaigning politicians, except when there's a beer fest or a really huge factory opening. This is where that "we're abandoned" complaint comes from - it's not that local politicians abandon the population in these areas, it's that state/country politicians rarely turn up, and as a result the "abandoned" areas rarely get any media attention outside local newspapers (we don't really have the ultra-local TV stations like in the US). And if they do get mass media attention, it's mostly in the form of some TV team turning up and filming stuff like that abandoned houses get squatted by homeless people and the entire area gets dragged down by filth; not exactly what makes one proud of living in such areas. While Democrats and left-wings don't do anything, the right-wingers at least promise "we will help you", and that is - even if they don't have the slightest thought of keeping good on their promises - enough for the population to vote for them.
On a sidenote, that is what really scares me about Trump. As bad as it is, but he is the first politician in long times to publically show "I am doing, to the letter, exactly that what I promised in my campaign", and people will vote for him and his party AGAIN because of this, while ignoring that what he promises is backwards, false loads of dung.
Clinton did plenty of campaigning in impoverished areas - the difference is that she wasn't making some wild claim so it did not generate the same coverage. "Clinton gives speech in Detroit" doesn't have the same media impact as "Trump says he will knock the shit out of ISIS".
There are many reasons why Trump won and Clinton lost - the perception that the left has abandoned Trump supporters likely had some impact but the bigger story there is why there is that perception not that the DNC has abandoned Red states (Clinton loss has even been attributed to her campaign efforts in traditionally red states - http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498376750/is-hillary-clinton-r...).
The mistake of Clinton was to persist running for office. She knew that the Republicans would dominate the entire election with that stupid email server debate.
It didn't need any wild claims from Trump to dominate the media coverage, the email stuff was way more than enough that could be exploited to drown out her media presence. Any candidate with a bit more sensible advocates would have cancelled the run early, but Clinton decided to stick and hope for the best, instead of letting Sanders take the run and ride the waves of support among young people.
I disagree with this premise. Many of the signature policies of the "left" were specifically intended to address the issues facing "middle America" - the ACA/Obamacare was intended to address rising health care costs, Clinton was pushing a retraining program for workers in areas where jobs have migrated from, and both Sanders and Clinton were arguing for increasing access to tertiary education via free/discounted programs.
I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. Blaming the Federal government (ostensibly "left" despite the Republican controlled House and Senate for the last 6 years) for the failings of State politicians and Governors, who have at least as much impact in your daily life, is another example of how absurd politics has become. We need to break the partisan nature of politics and start electing people who are interested in building a city/county/State/country for ALL of their constituents via compromise.