Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy

[Sbane]

It really does though.  You can't win everyone.  The Republican party has become the party of poor, working class, no college degree whites. We have to just accept that. Democrats have courted minorities and college educated whites.  This has caused a backlash among whites without a college education.  If we started courting whites without a college education we'd have to severely change our party value system (e.g., drop support for gay marriage, support the confederate flag, etc. etc.)... most liberals don't want to do any of that.

Or maybe you just want it that way. The latter part of your post is basically admitting it is not set in stone.

Yes I do.  However, it does have to be that way because the vast majority of the party also wants it that way, so it will end up being that way.  Do you think most Democrats will want the party to shift on gay marriage just to court rural voters in Wisconsin?  It's not going to happen. 

They don't have to shift on gay marriage to win back Wisconsin. They just have to have an economically populist message, like Obama did. Democrats will always do better with that message. Even in places like Georgia, Florida, Texas and North Carolina, the Democratic base is the working class. I do agree that the white working class is moving away from the Democrats, and that will likely continue over time, but the Democrats will still do better with an economically populist message. That message will both help them grow long term in diversifying states, while mitigating their decimation in the midwest in the short term.

[Sbane]

I totally agree with this article.  Democrats need to look to the future not the past.  I suspect another factor going on in the midwest is the reverse migration of African Americans from industrial states back to the South.

The fact is, a lot more attention was paid to Ohio and Iowa than Georgia or Arizona, which ended up being closer.  Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin are all trending Republican.  Yes, Wisconsin and Michigan are still winnable, but the focus should be on where there are positive gains. 

I am not convinced that Pennsylvania is trending Republican long-term though...  There is a significant portion of that state that is very East Coast and will trend Democrat (Philly + Burbs). 

Anyways, Democrats should focus on Florida, Arizona and Georgia.  They should also focus on house races in Texas.  With that much Democratic growth in the state they have to make gains there unless there is truly outrageous gerrymandering.

I think it's so weird people seem to be ignoring the fact that gaining power only matters if you have representatives, Senators and governors who will help you enact your ORIGINAL policy goals ... you know, the reason you wanted that power in the first place?

Picking off some college-educated Whites is much different than openly courting economically conservative college-educated Whites, specifically in the South.  Why do you even want them?  You might have a random guy or gal with a D next to the name in DC, but they'll be beholden to their voters who DON'T want a minimum wage increase, DON'T want stronger unions, DON'T want a stronger safety net, DON'T want an expanded welfare state, etc.  There reaches a point where getting to 270 (or a majority in Congress) doesn't even matter if your caucus can't agree on anything.

Because I am a democrat that is economically conservative and this is where the parties are headed.  Republicans will be the party of the white working class (i.e., voters without a college degree or a college degree from a low-tiered school who still end up working blue collar jobs)... Democrats will be the party of educated whites + minorities.  I am a democrat, but I do not generally support unions or an expanded welfare state.  I vote democrat because I am not into a lot of dumb wars, I am not into homophobic candidates, and I support gun control.  I have nothing in common with poor working class unionized whites in Ohio... which is the exact direction the Republican party is headed.

So, I do want our caucus to agree, just not with the issues you mention above.

Not that the rest of your post wasn't stupid as hell, but you are WAY out of line with your party - and especially with the wing of your party that is CLEARLY gaining power after the 2016 defeat - in the bolded sentence.  The Democrats are VERY CLEARLY going in a more economically progressive, populist direction.  I don't see how that's even debatable.  College educated Whites voted for Trump.  Trump's vote share went up DIRECTLY with a rise in income.  Your fantasy about what it means to be a Democrat exists only in your mind, bro.  It's the party of the poor, it's the party of inner-cities, it's the party of disadvantaged minorities, it's the party of unions, and its most "elite" faction is a bunch of PhD holders with no income who jerk each other off in Starbucks.  Embrace it!

I wouldn't be so confident, buddy. While Democrats have to push the populist message, college educated whites are trending Democrat and that will continue to happen. Especially with younger voters. This won't hit the GOP hard till another decade, but you guys better figure out how to appeal to college educated millenials who have >100k in student debt.

[Sbane]

Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).

[Sbane]

Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).

Pretty much this.  They should be operating on the assumption that the 4 Romney state senators are gone and try to keep net loses at 3 or lower.  IMO, it's time to encourage Manchin and Heitkamp to take Trump admin positions so that you don't have to spend a dime on their seats.  Focus on flipping NV and AZ and making something else competitive (probably MS or TX, both of which also have seats up in 2020).  Beyond that, the senate is best conceded until 2020 and the fight taken to the House.  Turn out enough of Cleveland and Philly and use the tariffs and trade restrictions as a wedge issue with retirees in FL/AZ/PA, the energy industry, and free market types in general.

Yeah, Trump policies could cause stagflation....sound familiar?