I see Democrats as somewhat concentrated in particular cities and also in particular occupations, more than Republicans are. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is another way in which Democrats are less diverse.
Read the whole thing. He is delicately suggesting that Democrats might have a notion of diversity that is too narrow. However, I doubt that he would have written that post if the election had gone the other way. Moreover, the election easily could have gone the other way. Maybe if it had been held a few weeks earlier or a few weeks later the outcome would have been different. Maybe if the Democratic ticket had been more attractive the outcome would have been different. Maybe if Rubio or one of the other Republican establishment favorites had won the nomination the outcome would have been different.
I should note that all election-reading, including my own, tends to be self-serving. One crude way to describe the social order in this country is that straight, white progressives are at the top, conservatives are in the middle, and various presumably oppressed groups are at the bottom. Progressives prefer to read the election as a kick in the pants of the folks at the bottom. Conservatives prefer to read the election as a kick in the pants of the folks at the top. I might add that some progressives see a social order that includes two layers on the left, with centrist Clinton Democrats on top of true progressives. In this view, the centrists are the ones who received the kick in the pants.
Elections prove much less than we are inclined to think they do. I would say that if progressives and Democrats were right about policy issues before the election, then they are still right. If they were wrong, they would still be wrong, even if they had won.
What I take away from recent elections is that other people bought into Barack Obama and Donald Trump much more than I would. I am not sure what else I should read into the results.
Part of being “right on policy” is being able to implement that policy. The goal isn’t to be “right on policy” in some theoretical idea space, but to improve peoples lives in the real world by getting real things done. Therefore, viability is a facet of “being right on policy.”
So electability certainly matters to people in terms of judging who is right and who is wrong in the sense of if you can’t implement your policy then its worthless blather. This is one area where libertarians seem particularly pathetic.
Trump showed you could win an election without having to play by the lefts rules. That opened up policy space that was previously closed, not because it wasn’t correct, but because people thought you couldn’t win power that way.
“I am not sure what else I should read into the results.”
I suggest the following (for both you and I)
The reality of the candidates, and the reality of how the electorate perceives any candidate, are conveyed only vaguely, or not-at-all, by polls, commentators, and the media.