Let’s not absolve Democrats of all responsibility. They made no effort to fight back against the non-stop lies about the ACA in 2009. By 2010 the well was quite effectively poisoned with no pushback from Democrats, and Republicans successfully used their lies to take control of the House but more importantly, targeted the right state house seats to seize control of redistricting. It was a perfect storm that led to this gerrymandered situation where Republicans have an enormous advantage in the House.
Hence the thread on the future of the Democratic brand.
The need for the Democratic side is to focus on purple districts. And to figure out how to appeal to White working class voters better, even White working class males, while also still motivating your core to actually show and vote in local elections even in mid-term years.
Without that it is hard enough to win a majority of the popular vote in local and state level elections, let alone enough to overcome gerrymandering in Congressional districts.
Concentrating on purple districts is all well and good but ultimately not all that helpful as long as there continues to be a first-past-the-post system of deciding the “winner.”
It’s interesting that all of Clinton’s opposition were not Democrats when her husband was President. You’d almost think that Republicans were trying to get two shots at her, so they sent a couple of their moderates over to the Democrats to try to take her out.
So what is a dem to do if they’d like to see a female presidential candidate but they’re not so cra-cray about Hillary? She does rub a number of people the wrong way. She doesn’t have Bill’s charisma. Or is she the left’s answer to Trump?
I don’t really like Hillary, but she’s nothing like Trump. He is impossible for anyone with two brain cells to take seriously - completely over the top. She’s unlikeable (IMO) but at least has some gravitas and legitimacy as a candidate.
A female comparison to Trump would be if someone like Kim Kardashian ran for the Democratic nomination.