[RD] Neoliberals Tour America Looking for Answers; it Turns Out the Truth was in Their Hearts All Along

[Cutlass]

Can you please explain what is at all conservative about anything I just said?

You've been misrepresenting yourself to the point of appearing as a caricature, rather than a character.

 

[OldBoomer]

Is this some sort of immunity to feedback?

 

[Cutlass]

Is this some sort of immunity to feedback?

The US has been moving away from liberalism on almost every area of policy for close to 40 years now. There is no 'flushing 30 years of progressivism down the toilet'. There's been a 40 year unbroken string of steadily dismantling progressivism. Democrats have largely lost white labor because Democrats haven't supported labor in decades. Democrats get increasingly lukewarm support from Blacks because Democrats haven't supported Blacks in decades, and are only holding on there because of the increasing open hostility of Blacks by the Republicans. And here you're railing against the few liberal voices in the wilderness. Well guess what? The Democrats can't mobilize voters as a conservative party. Because they will never out conservative the Republicans.

The problems facing the American people are problems that require liberal solutions. Since the Democrats don't even offer liberal solutions anymore, they have no real appeal beyond being "not as radically insane as the Republicans". And your solution to this is to blame the only handful of Democrats who are actually liberals.

 

[danjuno]

Millennials should be on their knees everyday thanking the prior generations for all of the progress we've made.

Like driving the federal budget and economy into the ground and blaming us for not being able to cope with the fallout? Thanks baby boomers!

So, basically you're a conservative and this is a troll account double login?

Given what I observed before:

I'm still intrigued as to why his first action on joining a strategy game fan site was to go to the off-topic section and get in a political argument. Moving over to OT after spending sometime on the Civ Forums is one thing, but this.....

Probably yes. He also seems afraid to respond to said observation.

 

[OldBoomer]

Tell me about this progress.

The United Nations, The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, The Feminist Movement during the 60's, The EPA, Guaranteed Student Loan Program, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, Family & Medical Leave Act.

Now do tell what "progress" has this current millennial generation made? *crickets*

The US has been moving away from liberalism on almost every area of policy for close to 40 years now. There is no 'flushing 30 years of progressivism down the toilet'. There's been a 40 year unbroken string of steadily dismantling progressivism. Democrats have largely lost white labor because Democrats haven't supported labor in decades. Democrats get increasingly lukewarm support from Blacks because Democrats haven't supported Blacks in decades, and are only holding on there because of the increasing open hostility of Blacks by the Republicans.

See above.

And here you're railing against the few liberal voices in the wilderness. Well guess what? The Democrats can't mobilize voters as a conservative party. Because they will never out conservative the Republicans.

The problems facing the American people are problems that require liberal solutions. Since the Democrats don't even offer liberal solutions anymore, they have no real appeal beyond being "not as radically insane as the Republicans". And your solution to this is to blame the only handful of Democrats who are actually liberals.

What millennials can't seem to grasp is that progress isn't made overnight and that progress can be undone in far less time and with much less effort than what was taken to build it. Secondly, "the fringe" doesn't have the first clue as to what motivates voters, or how to develop a strategy to win elections. Do you have any idea the sheer amount of political will and institutional power it took to build "the blue wall" as a voting block that we could count on each and every election? And all of that has been pissed away in a single decade due to sheer incompetence and pseudo-academic social justice. Not only that, but now liberal institutions which took DECADES to build are also under threat as a result of this nonsense.

 

[Ajidica]

They manipulated data to make it look like Hillary had overwhelming support instead of reporting data honestly. Had they done that,we wouldn't have had ridiculous statements like "Hillary has a 99% chance to win!"

Come on Commodore, you've played enough Civ games to know how percentages work.
Attacking that spearman with my modern armor may give me a 99% chance to win, but there is always that 1% chance. If the spearman happens to win, that doesn't mean the percentage given was faulty.

However, my biggest fear at the moment is that the fringe loonies in our party have bitten off far more than they can chew and have ignited this massive wave of resistance toward liberalism in general. The momentum is not in our favor and I don't see this changing anytime soon. These slobbering fools may have just flushed 30+ years of progressivism down the toilet.

How exactly are you framing "progressivism" here? Because LBJ and even Carter were solidly to the left of Clinton and the current Democratic Party. (Christ, even Nixon is to their left, what with breaking out price controls and saying "We are all Keynesian now".) LBJ famously argued for full employment and Humphrey set up the Office of Economic Opportunity to try and bring about full employment. I don't think any major player in the Democratic party recently has said a word about full employment, let alone made it a major part of their economic platform.

Now do tell what "progress" has this current millennial generation made? *crickets*

We haven't been around that long. The clue is in the name "millennial" after all.

See above.

You mention that, but how much of what you mention, were it proposed today fresh and new, would the Democrats sign on to?
I can't see their interventionist wing, like Hillary, being particularly enamored with the United Nations Charter, what with its condemnation of unilateral military action and the insistence disputes be settled through the Security Council.
Or this following pacifist nonsense:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind

Social Security (and the Welfare State in general)?
Bill Clinton ripped that apart with PRWORA, by establishing a limit to how long one could rely on federal assistance, shuffling it off as block grants to states, and increasingly odious "work requirements" which fly in the face of the principles of the Welfare State.

Do you have any idea the sheer amount of political will and institutional power it took to build "the blue wall" as a voting block that we could count on each and every election?

The "Blue Wall", insofar as it was able to secure Democratic victory, has held in what, three of the last ten elections? Not exactly a great showing, especially as "solidly democratic states" broke for the short fingered vulgarian over, as you describe her, the ideal Democratic candidate policy wise.

Not only that, but now liberal institutions which took DECADES to build are also under threat as a result of this nonsense.

His Trumpiness isn't a force of nature, emerging into this world heedless of mortal deeds. Rather, he became President because both parties had abjectly failed to promote policies that were aimed at the majority of the country as opposed to the all important "business community" and financial institutions. Given the modern Democratic parties leeriness of anything approaching "passion" or "populism"* it isn't a surprise that His Trumpiness grabbed that vote.

*Populism in its Mondale or Corbyn sense, not the primordial racist sludge His Trumpiness crudely daubs the label on to.

 

[Cutlass]

The United Nations, The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, The Feminist Movement during the 60's, The EPA, Guaranteed Student Loan Program, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, Family & Medical Leave Act.

Now do tell what "progress" has this current millennial generation made? *crickets*



See above.



What millennials can't seem to grasp is that progress isn't made overnight and that progress can be undone in far less time and with much less effort than what was taken to build it. Secondly, "the fringe" doesn't have the first clue as to what motivates voters, or how to develop a strategy to win elections. Do you have any idea the sheer amount of political will and institutional power it took to build "the blue wall" as a voting block that we could count on each and every election? And all of that has been pissed away in a single decade due to sheer incompetence and pseudo-academic social justice. Not only that, but now liberal institutions which took DECADES to build are also under threat as a result of this nonsense.

No. They are under assault for decades by Boomers. The Millenials are not just not the problem, but are almost entirely not involved at all.

 

[OldBoomer]

Come on Commodore, you've played enough Civ games to know how percentages work.
Attacking that spearman with my modern armor may give me a 99% chance to win, but there is always that 1% chance. If the spearman happens to win, that doesn't mean the percentage given was faulty.

Commodore is correct. The polling was manipulated. During the election this was obvious to anyone who wasn't drinking lattes on the quad.

How exactly are you framing "progressivism" here? Because LBJ and even Carter were solidly to the left of Clinton and the current Democratic Party. (Christ, even Nixon is to their left, what with breaking out price controls and saying "We are all Keynesian now".) LBJ famously argued for full employment and Humphrey set up the Office of Economic Opportunity to try and bring about full employment. I don't think any major player in the Democratic party recently has said a word about full employment, let alone made it a major part of their economic platform.

Progressivism is steady progress. For decades inch by bloody inch until you take the whole damn mile. That's what we've done.

We haven't been around that long. The clue is in the name "millennial" after all.

Then it would probably be wise if you saved the rest of us a lecture about progress, no?

You mention that, but how much of what you mention, were it proposed today fresh and new, would the Democrats sign on to?
I can't see their interventionist wing, like Hillary, being particularly enamored with the United Nations Charter, what with its condemnation of unilateral military action and the insistence disputes be settled through the Security Council.

The entire purpose of the UN is to build, administer, and wield liberal institutional power around the globe. Trust me, Hillary Clinton supports the UN.

Or this following pacifist nonsense:

Social Security (and the Welfare State in general)?
Bill Clinton ripped that apart with PRWORA, by establishing a limit to how long one could rely on federal assistance, shuffling it off as block grants to states, and increasingly odious "work requirements" which fly in the face of the principles of the Welfare State.


The "Blue Wall", insofar as it was able to secure Democratic victory, has held in what, three of the last ten elections? Not exactly a great showing, especially as "solidly democratic states" broke for the short fingered vulgarian over, as you describe her, the ideal Democratic candidate policy wise.

This is because "the fringe" doesn't have enough sense to adapt to their changing environment. There are times when great progress can be made and should be made, and then there are times when you have to sit back and protect your institutions to the best of your ability, but what the radicals in the party have done of late is ensured Democratic losses across the board. Now the best we can hope for at this given time is that we will have the opportunity to make some very painful concessions and not lose control over our institutions.

His Trumpiness isn't a force of nature, emerging into this world heedless of mortal deeds. Rather, he became President because both parties had abjectly failed to promote policies that were aimed at the majority of the country as opposed to the all important "business community" and financial institutions.

Trump became president because the Democratic Party was lead down into the weeds by lunatics and effectively failed to support the only candidate who could have beaten Trump.

 

[Berzerker]

The Democrats can't mobilize voters as a conservative party. Because they will never out conservative the Republicans.

they could go populist on trade and libertarian on the drug war

 

[OldBoomer]

they could go populist on trade and libertarian on the drug war

We've already alienated our base why not lose all of our political backing too in a single decade.

 

[danjuno]

The United Nations, The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, The Feminist Movement during the 60's, The EPA, Guaranteed Student Loan Program, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, Family & Medical Leave Act.

Most of those were passed before the baby boomers were old enough to run for congress. Hell, the UN is older than most boomers.

Then it would probably be wise if you saved the rest of us a lecture about progress, no?

Again, coming from the generation that gave us Reagan deficits and an rapidly increasing wealth gap, this is rich.

We've already alienated our base why not lose all of our political backing too in a single decade.

Thank you for reaffirming that you are a right-wing sock puppet.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont think the base supports free trade and is finally questioning the wisdom of jailing millions of people for drugs...trying to outjail the GOP didn't work, just made even more people ineligible to vote

 

[Ajidica]

Commodore is correct. The polling was manipulated. During the election this was obvious to anyone who wasn't drinking lattes on the quad.

We may have seen extreme complacency and herding among the major polling firms, but that doesn't mean it was "manipulated".

Progressivism is steady progress. For decades inch by bloody inch until you take the whole damn mile. That's what we've done.

I'm curious how you reconcile LBJ's and Carter's progressivism including economic policies to force full employment with Clinton's savaging of the Welfare State and Obama's apparent unwillingness to make an issue about it.

The entire purpose of the UN is to build, administer, and wield liberal institutional power around the globe. Trust me, Hillary Clinton supports the UN.

She supports the United Nations when it goes along with her policy ideas. There was no United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the United States and whoever we managed to drag along to invade Iraq. (Indeed, that action could be viewed as a refutation of the opening like of the Charter. You know, the whole determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war part.)
I'm not pulling a Berzerker where I appear to hold Hillary singularly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nor did I hold it really against her during the election because as a result of intentional and unintentional manipulation by the Bush administration, the intelligence did indicate there was a reasonable threat coming from Iraq. However, if she was so invested in supporting the United Nations, why did she vote to authorize military action against Iraq in 2002 without the approval of the Security Council?

This is because "the fringe" doesn't have enough sense to adapt to their changing environment. There are times when great progress can be made and should be made, and then there are times when you have to sit back and protect your institutions to the best of your ability, but what the radicals in the party have done of late is ensured Democratic losses across the board. Now the best we can hope for at this given time is that we will have the opportunity to make some very painful concessions and not lose control over our institutions.

I'm a little confused here with what you are saying. You seem to be saying that Democrats should abandon historic core policies, such as Universal Health Care (a policy endorsed by LBJ, Carter, and even sort of Nixon), because they are radical?
I don't want to sound like a doctrinaire hard-liner, more interested in purification than effectiveness, but parties have to believe in something. They can't just be composed of whatever sound bite plays the best during focus group testing. In the UK, the resurgence of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn demonstrates this. People are more willing to support and fight for a party when they know what the party believes in. We also saw that a bit stateside with Sanders. I may have not been overly enamored with Sanders, his ideas resembling more a progressive wish-list than a coherent Social Democratic platform, but I liked and respected him more than Hillary because I knew what he stood for and he was passionate about it. Hillary, whether through just not being very charismatic or not really believing in her policies, tended to come off as forced once she strayed beyond feminist/LGBT issues.
I followed the campaign quite heavily on a multitude of news sources (local paper, Washington Post, BBC) and I can't recall a single specific policy that Hillary had. They were all vague generalities carefully crafted to be a broadly popular as possible. With His Trumpiness, as revolting as he was, everyone could name a clear policy he supported, whether it be banning Muslims, building a big beautiful wall, or his fondness for kitty-cats.

Trump became president because the Democratic Party was lead down into the weeds by lunatics and effectively failed to support the only candidate who could have beaten Trump.

Well, she didn't beat His Trumpiness and it seems more than a little contradictory to blame this amorphous blob of "millennials" as somehow being the death of the party and trying to purge them and then turn around and say the Democrats need more party unity.

Thank you for reaffirming that you are a right-wing sock puppet.

No need to be rude. Perhaps I'm just too nice but nothing he has posted leads me to believe he is particularly right wing (by American standards) or is a "sock-puppet".*

*Mainly because I don't know who he would be a sock-puppet of.

 

[Berzerker]

he blamed Bernie, but I never said Hillary acted alone

 

[OldBoomer]

We may have seen extreme complacency and herding among the major polling firms, but that doesn't mean it was "manipulated".


I'm curious how you reconcile LBJ's and Carter's progressivism including economic policies to force full employment with Clinton's savaging of the Welfare State and Obama's apparent unwillingness to make an issue about it.

See below:

There are times when great progress can be made and should be made, and then there are times when you have to sit back and protect your institutions to the best of your ability...

She supports the United Nations when it goes along with her policy ideas. There was no United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing the United States and whoever we managed to drag along to invade Iraq. (Indeed, that action could be viewed as a refutation of the opening like of the Charter. You know, the whole determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war part.)
I'm not pulling a Berzerker where I appear to hold Hillary singularly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, nor did I hold it really against her during the election because as a result of intentional and unintentional manipulation by the Bush administration, the intelligence did indicate there was a reasonable threat coming from Iraq. However, if she was so invested in supporting the United Nations, why did she vote to authorize military action against Iraq in 2002 without the approval of the Security Council?

Hillary Clinton has always supported Middle East intervention. She has a long and well documented history of it. She also supports the UN as a means to expand liberal control and influence through various institutions globally.

I'm a little confused here with what you are saying. You seem to be saying that Democrats should abandon historic core policies, such as Universal Health Care (a policy endorsed by LBJ, Carter, and even sort of Nixon), because they are radical?

Again, see below:

There are times when great progress can be made and should be made, and then there are times when you have to sit back and protect your institutions to the best of your ability...

Well, she didn't beat His Trumpiness and it seems more than a little contradictory to blame this amorphous blob of "millennials" as somehow being the death of the party and trying to purge them and then turn around and say the Democrats need more party unity.

The Bernie supporters were the ones who divided the party and alienated the blue bloods in the Mid-West. Hillary tried to bridge that gap during the campaign, but the message came across as insincere and inconsistent because she was forced to shoehorn millennial pie in the sky nonsense into a rational political platform that she could campaign on.

 

[Ajidica]

There are times when great progress can be made and should be made, and then there are times when you have to sit back and protect your institutions to the best of your ability...

And who determines what those times are, you?
My understanding of the Democrat's losses in the 2016 and earlier elections was due to a lack of coherent policy in that they either can't get behind their current policy, or their policy is sufficiently unappealing to the electorate they try and hide it behind vague statements.
Most articles I have read on election post-mortems agree that a major problem with the Democrat's campaign was messaging. Everyone who would care that His Trumpiness was a dangerously unhinged loon was already convinced of it regardless of how much Hillary's messaging focused on His Trumpiness's obvious lack of qualifications and the "basket of inexplicables" he surrounded himself with. What policy she had got hidden behind "look at my website" or vague generalities like "I'm going to fight for the middle class" which is so vague (and provincial) as to be almost insulting.
I'm not saying "Channel Great Comrade Stalin and unleash our Urge to Purge", but an honest debate about Democratic political positions and messaging is sorely needed. Obama was able to paper over it by being charismatic and likeable; Hillary, as neither charismatic nor particularly likeable, wasn't able to paper over the problems. I'm not expecting the Democratic Party to prostrate themselves before me and redo their entire party platform to perfectly match my Social Democratic tendencies, but an honest debate is needed and won't occur by treating dissent as some sort of Trumpist infiltration.
(Labour treated Militant like that in the late 70s and early 80s and it broke the party badly with Maggie Thatcher commanding substantial Parliamentary majorities as Labour and the centrist splinter faction, the Social Democrat Party, feuded amongst each other.)
Furthermore, blaming some of the most active and engaged members of a party for its defeat does not seem the most productive way to re-energize a party that by its own measures is in a pretty deep malaise.
But hey, what do I know, I'm only 24.

Hillary Clinton has always supported Middle East intervention. She has a long and well documented history of it. She also supports the UN as a means to expand liberal control and influence through various institutions globally.

Still trying to reconcile "support the United Nations" with "flagrantly vote against working inside the United Nations framework of multilateral decisions with any military action undertaken with the consent of the Security Council".

The Bernie supporters were the ones who divided the party and alienated the blue bloods in the Mid-West. Hillary tried to bridge that gap during the campaign, but the message came across as insincere and inconsistent because she was forced to shoehorn millennial pie in the sky nonsense into a rational political platform that she could campaign on.

Good to know you consider traditional Democratic policy goals, espoused by LBJ, Carter, and whichever Kennedy happened to be not-dead at the time as "millennial pie in the sky nonsense".
I mean, what do you consider to be "millennial pie in the sky nonsense" that cost her the election?
I also want to point out that, based on what you said, Sanders was popular in the Mid west, especially in the much-vaunted "Blue Wall". That would seem to indicate that a fairly critical Democrat voting block in some pretty important states weren't thrilled with Clinton's policies and preferred the "millennial pie in the sky nonsense". Given how much Hillary ran up the score in California and New York* with her technocratic liberal policies, it might have made more sense to position the platform to better engage the Mid west voters at the expense of running up the score in very safe states.

*Winning by a 70% margin in New York gives the same number of electoral votes as winning by a 51% margin after all.

 

[OldBoomer]

And who determines what those times are, you?
My understanding of the Democrat's losses in the 2016 and earlier elections was due to a lack of coherent policy in that they either can't get behind their current policy, or their policy is sufficiently unappealing to the electorate they try and hide it behind vague statements.
Most articles I have read on election post-mortems agree that a major problem with the Democrat's campaign was messaging.

That's essentially what I just said, however what's most important is why was messaging an issue.

I'm not saying "Channel Great Comrade Stalin and unleash our Urge to Purge", but an honest debate about Democratic political positions and messaging is sorely needed. Obama was able to paper over it by being charismatic and likeable; Hillary, as neither charismatic nor particularly likeable, wasn't able to paper over the problems. I'm not expecting the Democratic Party to prostrate themselves before me and redo their entire party platform to perfectly match my Social Democratic tendencies, but an honest debate is needed and won't occur by treating dissent as some sort of Trumpist infiltration.

Right now there's two wings in the Democratic Party. I would say this defeat was similar to Romney's loss to Obama during the midterms if it wasn't for the fact that "the fringe" threw everything they had at Trump and nothing stuck even with the backing of the media, Hollywood, and academia (which Romney never had). This indicates to me that their strategy is a losing one. They're no Tea Party who's going to make a comeback and take the electorate by storm. Purge them now and move on.

Now's the time to take our lumps, lick our wounds and hope we don't have to make too many painful concessions. It's disparaging, but these slobbering fools undersigned that check. Trump and the deplorables won, and they're taking it straight to the bank whether you, or I like it or not.

Still trying to reconcile "support the United Nations" with "flagrantly vote against working inside the United Nations framework of multilateral decisions with any military action undertaken with the consent of the Security Council".

The UN is a means to an end for expanding liberal policy globally through the national institutions of foreign countries that we normally would not have direct control, or influence over. What's with the puritanism? Just because Hillary Clinton sided with the hawks on the Iraq War doesn't mean she wouldn't support the UN when it serves liberal institutions.

Good to know you consider traditional Democratic policy goals, espoused by LBJ, Carter, and whichever Kennedy happened to be not-dead at the time as "millennial pie in the sky nonsense".
I mean, what do you consider to be "millennial pie in the sky nonsense" that cost her the election?

Mainly the puritanism. If you want to win elections you need political backing, institutions, donors, media outlets, etc. That's how the sausage is made.

I also want to point out that, based on what you said, Sanders was popular in the Mid west, especially in the much-vaunted "Blue Wall". That would seem to indicate that a fairly critical Democrat voting block in some pretty important states weren't thrilled with Clinton's policies and preferred the "millennial pie in the sky nonsense".

That's because he poisoned the well and sold voters a fairy tale, which was guaranteed to end in disappointment and a low turnout for our candidate who was the only person who could have beaten Trump.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Commodore is correct. The polling was manipulated. During the election this was obvious to anyone who wasn't drinking lattes on the quad.

You would think comparing Penis sizes during the debate, constant lying, grab by the pussy, attacking gold star mother, attacking war veterans, racist comments, pure fantasy promises, attacking the media that you know
Republicans wouldnt be so I dunno Angry ? Stupid ?Gullible ?

But then again Evangelicals that twist themselves into a pretzel justifying their support for a lying, cheating, con-artist, athiest is a prime example of what happened.

We should have seen this coming, from a long way away. The GOP are masterful at these dirty political moves, they just got even dirtier and nastier this time around. And you what there voters didnt even bat an eyelid.

 

[OldBoomer]

You would think comparing Penis sizes during the debate, constant lying, grab by the pussy, attacking gold star mother, attacking war veterans, racist comments, pure fantasy promises, attacking the media that you know
Republicans wouldnt be so I dunno Angry ? Stupid ?Gullible ?

But then again Evangelicals that twist themselves into a pretzel justifying their support for a lying, cheating, con-artist, athiest is a prime example of what happened.

We should have seen this coming, for a long way away. The GOP are masterful at these dirty political moves, they just got even dirtier and nastier this time around. And you what there voters didnt even bat an eyelid.

This sounds like a great story, but the truth is that many of our blue wall voters cast their ballots for Trump too.

 

[Ajidica]

That's essentially what I just said, however what's most important is why was messaging an issue.

Because the base doesn't really get excited by right-of-center technocratic liberalism? You can't craft an enthusiastic message talking about an issue most people are decidedly "meh" about.
At least Hillary didn't do something as painfully vapid as the infamous EdStone.
If the Democrats have a problem with messaging, telling a vocal and engaged wing of the party to shut up and sit down, debate is over, doesn't seem like a winning solution.

Right now there's two wings in the Democratic Party. I would say this defeat was similar to Romney's loss to Obama during the midterms if it wasn't for the fact that "the fringe" threw everything they had at Trump and nothing stuck even with the backing of the media, Hollywood, and academia (which Romney never had). This indicates to me that their strategy is a losing one. They're no Tea Party who's going to make a comeback and take the electorate by storm. Purge them now and move on.

Hang on.
Hillary LOST.
The technocratic right-of-center liberalism (I'm calling it "Third Way" from here on out because I'm sick of typing out the whole thing) favored by Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic establishment has taken a pummeling over the last few years. If we are going to channel Great Comrade Stalin and unleash our Urge to Purge, why not "purge" the wing of the party that lost "bigly"?
Sanders is still riding high in the Senate any many of the Democratic congresscritters who are increasingly the face of the party tend toward the left of the party.
Put another way, what policy of Hillary or the Third Way is charismatic or compelling enough to reconnect with the Midwest voters, who you say went for Sanders and were disillusioned with Hillary and thus cost her the election?
You can't win back ostensibly sympathetic voters by telling them they were stupid for not doing as they were told.

Just because Hillary Clinton sided with the hawks on the Iraq War doesn't mean she wouldn't support the UN when it serves liberal institutions.

Because that's not the point.
It's like telling a judge you support laws against carjacking, except when you see a Porsche parked on the side of the street unlocked any you really, really, want that Porsche.
Either you believe in the principles of the United Nations -the pacific settlement of disputes and prohibition of war except for self-defense- or you view it as a formality at best.

Mainly the puritanism. If you want to win elections you need political backing, institutions, donors, media outlets, etc. That's how the sausage is made.

In the (in)famous words of Merlyn Rees, "We need to remain focused on the specific allegations".
Hillary took in approximately twice the amount of donations as His Trumpiness did, so money clearly wasn't an issue unless you are comfortable with the concept of money buying elections. (Carter certainly isn't comfortable with that concept given his criticism of Citizens United.)
Hillary had solid political backing across the Democratic elected officials. It may not have been the most enthusiastic among some groups, but Sanders explicitly endorsed her and spoke positively of her at the Convention, there was no Ted Cruz style sleazebaggery.
Media outlets were solidly endorsing Hillary, of the major news networks only Fox was on the Trump Train, and that was after Megyn Kelly left. Wiki notes that of the 100 largest US newspapers, only two went for Trump. One of the big conservative ones, Chicago Tribune, went for Johnson, and USA Today broke their tradition of not endorsing any candidate and explicitly said "Do Not Vote For Trump".

Am I missing anything? I'm not seeing where this alleged puritanism forced onto Hillary by the "millennial pie in the sky nonsense" hindered her with regards to corporate donations, support from elected officials and notables, or news media.
And you don't need to give the sausage-speech to me.

That's because he poisoned the well and sold voters a fairy tale, which was guaranteed to end in disappointment and a low turnout for our candidate who was the only person who could have beaten Trump.

"We lost because our key voters were too stupid" is probably not the take away from 2016.
Also, where are you getting this idea that bog-standard Social Democracy wrapped in a sexy package* is some sort of fairy-tale predestined to disappointment?

*Well, as sexy as a seventy year old guy can make it.