> It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend.

No, you'd be extremely naive to believe this is an isolated event:

* Greece, SYRIZA and minor parties on the surge since 2014

* UK, votes for brexit in 2016, I'm not sure if UKIP is gaining votes or not though.

* France, FN (LePen) is leading the polls at least for the first round.

* Italy, M5S is awfully close to lead the polls in Italy

* In Germany AfD is on the raise

* FPO is leading the pools in Austria

Keep in mind that the mainstream media, often downplays the possibility of an alternative surging - I believe on purpose: In Greece the polls were nearly 15% off in the referendum. It's staggering! Now, Brexit and the US pollsters got-it all wrong. In Greece many people lie to pollsters on purpose.

I don't see any sort of isolation, I see a very clear and predictable pattern.

> There is no genuine leftist alternative.

Wait a minute there. I have this strong sense that if the democrats had gone with the other candidate, they'd be celebrating today. Hillary, was the only candidate that was susceptible to a loss (emails, wall street money, legacy, the surname, etc.). Hillary == Establishment in every possible way. Sanders on the other hand was possibly the most scandal-free candidate of the last 20 years at least. I wouldn't say that the leftist is the problem.

However, at least in Europe, the ones who'd screwed up everyone were the Socialist parties by pushing a Brussels-based liberal agenda for a decade or so, so in a sense, at least in the EU the left or mild left at least, is rather dead in the water.

UPDATE: I think part of T. Frank's article in the Guardian describe my feelings in a detailed manner:

Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.

She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.

And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue – each of which Trump exploited to the fullest. They chose Hillary even though they knew about her private email server. They chose her even though some of those who studied the Clinton Foundation suspected it was a sketchy proposition.

Article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald...