Is Hillary the Democratic version of Mitt Romney?

[Slander and/or Libel]

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.

So you are going for the Karl Rove 50+1 strategy?

You mean the strategy of getting more votes than the other candidate?

[Slander and/or Libel]

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.

So you are going for the Karl Rove 50+1 strategy?

You mean the strategy of getting more votes than the other candidate?

This is a great strategy for winning the Presidency, but it also has serious negative effects for the Democratic Party. Look at the shift from 2008 to 2015 in terms of state legislatures, governorships, House and Senate elections, etc. and you'll see that the Republican Party has effectively swept the board in terms of control over the Democrats in these key areas because the Democrats have abandoned the old 50 state strategy that Bill and Dean worked so hard to build. Even if Democrats win in 2016, they don't have much to gain from it.

Here's a good article on this very subject: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/democratic-blues-121561

A combination of off-year elections, focus on national races driving attention away from state and local races (making them easier to buy), consolidation of power through the ability to draw district boundaries, and the natural geographic disadvantage currently suffered by progressives through the combination of population clustering in urban centers and single member districts.

There you go. Is that what the article says? I haven't read it yet. Does it argue against trying to win the presidency through getting  more votes than the other guy?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Given the majorities that Democrats enjoyed in 2009, reversion to the mean was close to inevitable. Combine that with the fact that the midterm electorate is increasingly disparate from the presidential electorate, and that the second-term presidential electorate isn't nearly as excited as the first-term electorate (and that in the Senate Democrats were already defending the big gains they had made in 2006), and this looks neither mysterious or like Obama somehow failing to do something he could otherwise have done.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Given the majorities that Democrats enjoyed in 2009, reversion to the mean was close to inevitable.

The largest Pub majority since the 1920s is the mean?

No, I'm not saying that it's not a historic low for the Democrats. Only that starting the clock at a historic high for the Democrats is putting a thumb on the scale, if the aim is to talk about how horrible Obama has been for the party. A good bit, though certainly not all, of the decline is reversion to the mean.