Sooooo. What lessons did Democrats learn from 2016 that they can apply in 2020?

[Sumner 1868]

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.

I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.

There are no Javits or Case figures left in the GOP and haven't been since the 1970s. There are conservatives who are okay with Roe and gay rights, but no real "liberals." As for the Blue Dogs, what's the point of electing members who never support any progressive legislation whatsoever except when it's in extreme small-scale and restively inoffensive? Sure, they block the most conservative legislation but they don't support anything.

The real problem with Democrats in the 90s is that the Republicans held several districts that voted for Clinton as president, but shielded this fact by hanging onto enough pro-Reagan/Bush Southern districts that had long ago abandoned the party in general. The DNC never really tried expanding into districts that were a much better fit for the party until they were wiped out of the South.

[Person Man]

Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.

The issues that led to the 1994 blowout didn't just materialize out of nowhere or with the Clinton administration. They were building up for years. Democrats maintained a lot of power in states that were very clearly, particularly with hindsight, moving away from them and had been for a long time. It was only a matter of time before presidential voting habits found their way further down the ballot.

In fact, I might argue that the Republican Revolution began spilling blood in '92, when Democrats lost 9 House seats despite comfortably winning the presidency and began losing their grip in numerous states (AK, WI, MI, OH, etc) with mostly not-insignificant legislative losses that were later followed by more severe losses in '94.

I'm sure there are lots of nuances to the GOP's surge to power, but Barone's explanation doesn't really fit, imo. At least not as a "primary" explanation. Maybe a marginal one.

I would hold that the solid lead the GOP has in (A) the House of Representatives, (B) Governorships, (C) State Legislative seats, a lead that has been pretty constant since 2010, is proof that while there is not a conservative "majority", there are more conservatives than liberals.

If we're going by quantity, then it might be better to measure by (or at least consider) which party wins the popular vote for, say, House/legislative elections state-by-state. It's no secret that for natural and unnatural reasons, in numerous states, the GOP has been winning more seats than their vote share would reasonably predict, sometimes quite a bit more. As for gubernatorial/other elections - 8 years of an incumbent Democratic president who was pretty unpopular during each midterm, one being during a slow recession recovery, it's not surprising that Democrats got bled out and it's hardly, at least in my eyes, a convincing measure of popular GOP support. To me it looks more like they got really, really lucky, in addition to having some structural advantages (better hold on older/white voters, etc). If the GOP is so popular and desired, then they shouldn't have trouble holding onto much of their power in 2018.

I don't know when, even if, there was a time when liberals outnumbered conservatives in Gallup's (or anyone's) polling, but I think the better question here is which party has more supporters overall, and that has long been the Democratic Party. The presidential PV streak shines a light on that if you ask me, but then again, it doesn't mean as much as one might think when you consider that many of them are 1) concentrated in areas where they help us less, and 2) we have a lot of low-propensity voters

Some of the 9 House seats lost in 1992 were due to reapportionment in the South.  Due to Court decisions, FL, NC, GA, LA, SC, VA, TX, and AL created Congressional districts that were 65% black in order to elect black Democrats from the South to Congress.  This, alone, accounted for a gain of 2 GOP seats in GA and 1 in AL.  It also ensured that a number of moderate-to-conservative Southern Democrats would have tougher re-election fights, and would not be replaced by Democrats.  (Many of these Democrats retired in 1994.)

1992 was also a year where a number of Democrats were implicated in the House Bank and House Post Office scandals.  A number of House members with large numbers of overdrafts were dumped in 1992, guys who were considered fairly safe up until then. 

There was also a war going on against "The Permanent Congress".  "Term Limits" first began to be a theme in 1992.  Books such as "Conservative Votes: Liberal Victories" had already been written.  But it took the advent of a liberal Democratic President in Bill Clinton to bring out in the open how Democrats who claimed not to be liberals provided the votes for critical liberal legislation.

As an aside:  I used to think that more ideological parties would be more coherent.  I thought the Democrats should trade Stennis and Eastland for Javits and Case.  We have that now, and I think it's awful.  The ideological nature of today's parties is the root of the obstructionism we suffer under.  Up until now, the GOP was primarily at fault for this, but Democrats are now showing me that they can narrow that gap.

There are no Javits or Case figures left in the GOP and haven't been since the 1970s. There are conservatives who are okay with Roe and gay rights, but no real "liberals." As for the Blue Dogs, what's the point of electing members who never support any progressive legislation whatsoever except when it's in extreme small-scale and restively inoffensive? Sure, they block the most conservative legislation but they don't support anything.

The real problem with Democrats in the 90s is that the Republicans held several districts that voted for Clinton as president, but shielded this fact by hanging onto enough pro-Reagan/Bush Southern districts that had long ago abandoned the party in general. The DNC never really tried expanding into districts that were a much better fit for the party until they were wiped out of the South.

Yeah, but now we're at the point in time where the DNC can basically tell southern rural whites to go F- themselves (though they've basically been doing this anyway for decades, and southern whites really only started getting the message once Obama took office). Now they can focus on the types of districts that actually would allow them to hold the House for a decently long amount of time, like flipping seats in the blue-ening suburbs in Orange County, SEPA (though they need to fix gerrymandering there first by winning the Governorship back and making sure the Brady machine doesn't kowtow to legislative Republicans for a protection-mander), CO-6, VA-10, NJ-5, and others. That's a much more sustainable House majority in the long-term than the 2009-2010 House Democratic caucus was.

I know about CO-6. The guy keeps out performing the top of the ticket by 10ish....definitely have to do better or wait until these guys retire. 2018 might be a year where throwing these guys out would make sense to put a check on an accidental presidency.

[Hammy]

I don't see where they've learned anything. 

They SHOULD have learned that since there are more conservatives than liberals in America, they need to be a "big tent" party.  That means tolerating centrists, giving them real roles in the party, and recognizing that, at times, a moderate compromise is better than no advancement at all. 

While I agree they likely haven't learned anything, you say there are more conservatives despite a-Clinton winning the PV nationally and b-this despite many Sanders supporters not turning out which makes no sense.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

If there's anything I've learned in my several years of sustained involvement with the Democratic party, it's that Democrats don't learn lessons. Empowered decision making Democrats least of all.