There is an admittedly very small movement afoot in parts of liberal land to seemingly try to understand why it is that they were so utterly caught off guard by Trump and, particularly, to try to understand why traditionally Democratic demographics defected.
It seems unlikely that this movement will be accepted or acknowledged by the mainstream left given that it evidences a degree of logic.
Unfortunately, that movement seems intent on making us CHANGE the way we think. As Hillary said, "Religious people are going to have to change the way they think about abortion and gay marriage."
Is learning to accept and tolerate things one might not like or agree with "changing one's thinking"? If so, perhaps that's not unreasonable -- just as we want folks who don't like guns to accept and tolerate our RKBA.
One of the fundamental problems in our modern world seems to be that everyone wants to tell everyone else how to conduct his life. So folks who don't like homosexuality aren't content just not practicing it themselves but also want to insist that others can't practice it either. So folks who hate guns aren't content to just not have guns themselves but want to tell honest, peaceable folks who like guns that they can't have them.
But as
P.J. O'Rourke said, "There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself."
The vast majority of people are not "one issue" voters. Each candidate has a platform -- an assortment of positions on a variety of issues such as gun control, minority rights, welfare, immigration policy, gay rights, women's issues, foreign policy, free trade, etc. To some extent a candidate's platform is defined by the platform of the party with which he's affiliated.
Different voters have different core, or defining, interests. For example, someone might have a very strong interest in minority rights and will favor a candidate whose platform position on minority rights most closely aligns with his own. He will do so even though that candidate's anti-gun position is inconsistent with the voter's [weak] pro-RKBA view.
In many ways, in a number of States especially, the RKBA community has severe "packaging" problems as far as available candidates go. Too often a pro-RKBA candidate's position on various social issues make him an unacceptable choice for some voters who are pro-RKBA but also more liberal on various social issues. I see that a lot here -- where I know some shooters who just can't seem to bring themselves to go along with the one reasonably pro-RKBA candidate because of his positions on other issues.
