Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Hillary Clinton won 20 states, hardly "a few".
Yet not enough.
Hillary Clinton won 20 states, hardly "a few".
Trump got less votes than McCain and Romney did. Shows how unpopular these two candidates were
That's the point of the OP; they really don't need to evolve. I hope they do become more inclusive, but they don't need to.
107,000 votes in 3 states, with turnout for Hillary WAY down from what it was for Obama in 2012. They really just need a candidate that the base likes more. And demographics are rapidly changing in their favor, as well.
They didn't just ignore white working class, they started attacking them. Declaring every white person racist, and telling them they had some majic thing called white privilege and that is why their lives are so good.
Never mind they work middle class back breaking jobs and their lives can be bleak.
So, the big narrative now is that Trump tapped into the anger of white, working class voters, who turned out in droves to make him our President.
If not for a total of 107,000 votes in 3 states (MI, WI and PA), Hillary wins the election. She woefully underperformed Obama's 2012 #'s in those states, while Trump's increase over Romney's #'s was statistically insignificant.
Democratic dislike for Clinton and lack of enthusiasm for her decided this election.
Which lays the foundation for what Democrats are debating right now: do they need to expand the message, to appeal to what are now seen as "Trump voters"? Or do they just need to give their own base more reason for enthusiasm, boosting turnout and getting those voters who sat this one out back to the polls?
Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats reclaim the mantle as the party of the middle class and working people.
Democrats have done NOTHING for the middle class other than SHRINK it. Thanks to your hero Obama. You really are historically clueless and a half wit. I don't want future elections to be minorities against whites, the coasts against the heartland, cities against rural. But Democrats don't really need to change their message that much.
Making elections about minorities versus whites, cities against the heartland and rural areas is what Democrats do; but here you stupidly spout off that they don't need to change their message that much while suggesting they need to. Once again you remove any doubt what a clueless, hyper partisan half wit you really are.
In fact, the smart strategy is probably more about increasing turnout.
Wrong; their strategy should be to not insult half the nation and promote false narratives that drive a deep dark wedge in our society.
Keith Ellison. Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Trump. These are our future leaders.
Fuck Pelosi. Fuck Schumer.

That's the point of the OP; they really don't need to evolve. I hope they do become more inclusive, but they don't need to.
107,000 votes in 3 states, with turnout for Hillary WAY down from what it was for Obama in 2012. They really just need a candidate that the base likes more. And demographics are rapidly changing in their favor, as well.

Hillary Clinton won 20 states, hardly "a few".
Yep; that amounts to a LOT! However, if not for the massive electoral votes of deep blue California, Democrats would win just about ...... wait for it ....... NOTHING. Furthermore, trump only has narrow majority in many of the states he won. The voices of the minority in those states were nullified by the system, the majority was allowed to cast the votes of the minority.
I didn't vote for Hillary.
I'm more struggling w/ Trump's win. You know
Man, TD really dumbs these discussions down.
That is one hefty set of blinders you have on, TD. A total inability to see or consider opposing points of view.
the actual numbers are available though and not that hard to interpret. Just getting back your traditional voters is not enough as traditional republican voters also left.
You can't just subtract parts of the country you don't like until you get the results you want.
Not in nearly the same #'s.
107,000 votes in 3 states, with demographics changing in their favor w/ each passing year.
like the popular vote?????
=___= sigh. I keep giving you the numbers from the actual votes but they dont get thru to you.
No, I've seen them. They're just irrelevant to this particular discussion - they rely on your individual assumptions, and not on what basically every analysis of turnout this election concluded about which side came out, and which didn't.