On the NYT op-ed page, a father-daughter team of Democratic pollsters writes:

Was Barack Obama Bad for Democrats?

By STANLEY B. GREENBERG and ANNA GREENBERG DEC. 23, 2016

… His legacy regrettably includes the more than 1,000 Democrats who lost their elections during his two terms. Republicans now have total control in half of America’s states.

Why such political carnage?

When President Obama began focusing on those “left behind” by the recovery, he called for building “ladders of opportunity.” That communicated that the president believed the country’s main challenges were unrealized opportunity for a newly ascendant, multicultural America, rather than the continuing economic struggle experienced by a majority of Americans.

Right. While Barack Obama’s rhetoric tried to appear inclusive, his policies and his personality got across the strong impression that he wasn’t on your side if you weren’t an official Victim-American, such as, most conclusively, his second term infatuation with the Transgendered. If you were just a regular American-American, well, sorry, Obama always seemed to imply, but you had your turn and the future belongs to us.

Mr. Obama also offered only tepid support to the most important political actor in progressive and Democratic politics: the labor movement.

Burly guys in windbreakers are just so … stale, pale, and male.

We think voters were sending a clear message: They want more than a recovery. They want an economy and government that works for them, and that task is unfinished.

But isn’t the notion of a government that works for “them” rather racist? In contrast, a government that works for The Economy or The Global Community seems so much cleaner.

[Comment at Unz.com]