If you read the story, my point really is that little by little, the top 20% are becoming the voters who are the deciders. Fewer working class are joining the party and many more have become independents. The numbers you are using are skewed and not representative anymore of the classes. My point is really that people are feeling disenfranchised and betrayed and are voting less. My point is that independents make up a large sector of unrepresented voters. My point esp. is that we are losing our democracy to the top two tiers - not the 1% but the 20% who are still voting although in fewer numbers than they used to as well.
I'm extrapolating that it was Bernie who brought out the vote whether it was by finally representing those independents and poor and middle class that had stopped voting or whether it was as a response to Hillary's possible failure to win the nomination. I don't know which. I'm also responding to the articulation that financially speaking that twenty percent isn't interested in helping the rest of us. They are for social justice but not necessarily for parting with their wealth to do so. That's where Bernie enters the picture for me. Clinton will attract and does those voters and they will have influence on her policies.
I think I'm processing this, too. My reasoning for putting this out there was more informative than to influence for either side but definitely to show that Bernie's attempt to bring our democracy back to the people (and not the top 20%) was his target. What we used to call the top 1% is now the top 20% in terms of its influence. That does not bode well for middle class Americans.
Finally, I'm not sure the poor and diverse necessarily understand the ramifications of all this. That's not condescension, that just reality. If they are less engaged, they are less informed. So what finally attracts them to a particular candidate?
= new reply since forum marked as read
