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

[Mr. Smith]

Obstruction works, so run the f*&( over anyone you can until the opposition cries uncle.

Manufacture and blow out of proportion any sort of dirt you find and put it all over the airwaves until it becomes truth.

Any position that needs filling should be used as leverage.

And don't prepare for the debates, just campaign, campaign, campaign, campaign like there's no tomorrow...then you'll expand the map quite easily. People know whom they don't want by this point anyway.

Find someone with charisma, that way anything said will be believed, and therefore no damage at the debates will occur.

Make character assassination an implication with the issues on the forefront.

[Mr. Smith]

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.  

Do you have ANY statistical proof that there are more conservatives than liberals, after the GOP lost the popular vote six times in the last seven elections?

Yes.  Yes I do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

Conservatives outnumber liberals 38%-24%.  

It is not news that Democrats need the votes of "moderates" and even a few "conservatives" to win elections. Michael Barone once pointed out that a big reason the GOP took over the Congress in 1994 was that for years, the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for Congressional candidates either (A) Republicans, or (B) Democrats who insisted that they were moderates or conservatives, yet every year, some piece of liberal legislation would pass by a narrow margin.  Barone pointed out that the advent of the Clinton Administration brought much of this out into the open.  There, it was revealed how many moderate and conservative Democrats would vote against liberal legislation on the floor, yet support it with key votes during the committee process.  What happened is that, over time, "conservative" and "moderate" Democrats lost some credibility; they were viewed as "liberals" when they were needed.

The Democrats won the popular vote by over 50% only twice (2008 and 2012), and they were aided greatly by circumstance.  Bill Clinton won with 43% and 49%, and the Perot vote was not a "liberal" vote at all.  The Democrats have proven more popular in the Presidential vote because the GOP had, indeed, become locked into a strident niche of conservatism that was off-putting to many voters in the center.  There was an uptick of liberal self-identification; it became less attractive to be a "conservative" after 2006, and conservatives haven't really recovered from that yet.  Politicians now describe themselves as "liberals" and "progressives"; they were afraid to until 2006.  

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.

This leads well into another point.

Don't run away from the left, embrace it and nominate someone who can manage to return "small-government" into a snarl word as it used to be.

That changes the discourse entirely, just like Reagan did in 1980.

There's already an anti-Carter to take advantage as is. Paul Ryan is likely to turn into the anti-Tip  O'Neill

EDIT: It's likely conservatism will be dwindle in attractiveness soon, just as liberalism was king until the 60's...but it still stayed up until Reaganomics assassinated it.

[Mr. Smith]

-Not to nominate a criminal

Grabbing the crotch of a woman without her consent is at the least "criminal sexual conduct", and if some black street thug did that to a pretty white girl who disliked such an unwanted act he might do a long prison term for that.

I'm not discussing the undue harshness of the legal system toward black people. White people should not get away with that, either.
  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"They're rapists! They're murderers! They're bringing crime and drugs...". Mocking someone with a neurological disorder? I now know that I have have Asperger's syndrome, and I am even more offended.

Many American citizens marry illegal aliens... citizenship status would be the least of my concerns with a wife.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, Americans across the political spectrum are excited at the prospect of Donald Trump as President. His favorability ratings are underwater except in the "Midwest" where he made a pitch to promise jobs.

(I know how that will work-- jobs with much lower pay that allow the Master Class far higher profits and executive compensation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the Reactionary Party have a progressive wing? I expect Donald Trump and the Republican Houses of Congress to repress progressive tendencies wherever they exist so that America can 'enjoy' the sort of inequality typical of a plantation society or fascist regime.

I expect to hate life in Trump's America. even such a potential joy as my favorite sports team winning a championship, getting to look at a scenic wonder in America, or participating in a graduation or wedding will be compromised. I expect terms of employment to be far harsher.
  

In the case of Trump, it's the conservative wing he has to answer to, and yeah he didn't suppress them to nearly the same extent Hillary did to the progressives.

Hillary may have tacked quite a bit of ways left for the primaries, but she didn't really follow up after taking the nomination.

[Mr. Smith]

The valid points were the ones about not appealing to progressives and insulting Bernie supporters. 

The idea that Democrats should completely change course and cater to WWT voters in the midwest because of one election is ridiculous though.  As has been pointed out in multiple threads, Democrats dominated in diverse counties.  The country is getting more diverse.  You cannot please everyone.  Focusing on WWT, which is a shrinking segment of the population is the wrong strategy.

WWC and minorities are NOT necessarily opposed.

[Mr. Smith]

The valid points were the ones about not appealing to progressives and insulting Bernie supporters. 

The idea that Democrats should completely change course and cater to WWT voters in the midwest because of one election is ridiculous though.  As has been pointed out in multiple threads, Democrats dominated in diverse counties.  The country is getting more diverse.  You cannot please everyone.  Focusing on WWT, which is a shrinking segment of the population is the wrong strategy.

WWC and minorities are NOT necessarily opposed.

They are on many cultural issues such as keeping the confederate flag, gun control, abortion, building a wall, immigration reform, affirmative action.  That's what people are voting on nowadays... not who has a better plan for Syria. 

And yet minimum wage still increased in 2014 in midst of all that, there's still discontent on the cronyism of healthcare.

Also, plenty of minorities are not enthused about gun control or abortion.

Why the fixation on foreign policy, which for the most part is agreed to be (and always has been): MURDER THE S&*T OUT OF ANYONE OPPOSED TO US, JUST MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE TO DIE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.