There is clearly a split and voters are clearly angry. It really does seem like the party is fractured. I stated it during the primary process and most lifelong Democrats said that it wasn't such a big deal and the party would come together and unite behind the Clinton campaign. That did not end up happening, there are clearly problems within this party. From blatantly rigging the primaries to ignoring and insulting large portions of the base (mainly whites, progressives, young people. Voters which the party used to take for granted and assumed would fall in line), this entire election cycle has been a disaster for the party. The party establishment has been exposed. During this election, the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa were all lost (pretty sure these states have always gone blue in every election since 1992). It is fairly clear that voters in this particular area of the country are fed up with the Democrats they have been electing and the party has failed them. These are states in which an independent outsider Senator Sanders won (or came very close to winning) in the primary process (despite the DNC doing everything in their power to block him and the media clearly giving more coverage to the Clinton campaign). The anger towards the DNC/establishment seems to me is the main reason as to how and why this election was lost (and this election was supposed to be a slam dunk, the opposing candidate is vile and brash). How does the party rebuild and recover? Where does the party go from here? Does the party become like the Republican Party has been for the past 8 years trying to discredit/block every action taken by the President? Or does it try to fall in line and work hard to help unite the country?
Well they can hope Trump royally screws up at which point the Dems with a more tailored message can sweep 2018 and then 2020. I would say that the media is scrutinizing every little thing Trump does but that's the case for any President. Will they discredit Trump at every turn they get the answer is yes. It has proven to be an effective strategy in US politics. No matter how good things are going, America will ALWAYS have pressing issues. The controlling party will always get blamed for them, that's just how it works. The electorate is fickle and short-sighted.
Clean house in the DNC. Let Sanders and Warren set the agenda. Load up on young, charismatic talent. Take back all three branches of government in 2020. Undo all the gerrymandering and voter restrictions. Continue electoral dominance into the foreseeable future.
putting up good candidates and not pick them in a committee, let the people decide. This was a totally winnable election.
Just wait it out. Map of what would have happened if just 18-24 year olds voted: Despite what happened Tuesday, Republicans still have a LOT of work to do...
Democrats don't need a major shift. They do need to look like they've cleaned up though. People like Donna brazile and really anyone named in the emails negatively has to go. After that it is simple. Move over a little to the left and next time at the primaries...have a larger field and stay out of the way. That simple.
Hillary was an historically bad candidate. A lewd, braggart billionaire from New York City who managed to fracture his party, have the Republican leaders in the House and Senate openly chastise him, and have two former Republican presidents openly state that they would not vote for him, still won the damn election - with decadally-low voter turnout.
I think this proves that likability is a rating that Democrats have to account for, but not so much Republicans. Republicans are more consistent voters. Democrats need to be inspired and connect to their candidate.
This. Get rid of the old leadership, especially that scumbag Debbie Waserman, and let Sanders and Obama restructure the new democratic party. It is high time to listen to the concerns of people in the rust belt states instead of trying to stick to them something they obviously do not want (e.g. TTP). Choose candidates at every level based on their talent, not because it is "their turn".
I'm not sure Sanders and Warren should be the, ahem... future of the party. I like their message - they need a new messenger. I think people made it resoundingly clear Tuesday night that they want to tear the Washington infrastructure to the ground, regardless of party. I hate to say this but... outside the box (/cringe ) thinking is going to be a critical component of any 2018 and beyond planning for the DNC. And so I agree with everyone who thinks a house-cleaning is in order. I offered him in another thread, I'll do it again here: Van Jones is the kind of candidate they need to cultivate: young, charismatic, compassionate; he's smart and he's spent years on television learning how to communicate his messaging, in short bursts, against opponents... He's my guy.
More Baracks, less Hillarys. Swing for the fences with your candidate. Going with the familiar, predictably malleable "experienced" candidate is the hallmark of the neoconservatives.
They need to rebuild from the ground up. It's going to be tough to make up much ground on the federal level in 2018 but they need to start by taking back power in more state governments. On top of that, the Democrats need some rising stars to emerge that are a breath of fresh air and they need to get rid of the faces involved in this Clinton campaign, at least publicly. I also agree with the poster who said that Warren and Sanders need to emerge as the elder statesmen of the party. Assuming how toxic I believe a Trump administration and Republican Congress is going to be, 2020 has to be the year that the Democrats strike back heavily at the federal level.
I actually like Van Jones, a lot. He's a pretty good guy. There is a video of a Trump supporter stopping him on the street and him debating him on the street. Took time out of his day to do that and listen to the other side. Many think his 'Whitelash' rant is playing the race card but seem to miss out that he never said all of Trump supporters adhere to that idea. I do think though that he's a good person to get more involved with the DNC, whether that be as president or anything else really.
I had a government professor say once "If you're young and Conservative you are heartless, but if you are old and Liberal you are ignorant."
