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

[Person Man]

What did Republicans learn in 2008 and 2012?

[Person Man]

-Not to nominate a criminal
-Not to insult millions of Americans
-Not to nominate someone with baggage and a high unfavorability rating
-Not to pick a nominee who will suppress the Progressive wing of the party

That is just a few of them.

This describes Trump to a T

Yeah. That's not really helpful to anyone. In fact, trying avoid someone who won't stir up the pot probably can't get anymore than 20 states or 48% of the two party vote.

[Person Man]

-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.

So I am getting the feeling that the main reason was that "Hillary wasn't liberal enough".

[Person Man]

Nominating a "Centerist" is actually dumb because:

1) The progressive base won't be excited: you absolutely NEED these people to go door-to-door and phonebank hours for you for free.
2) Swing voters actually don't like it because they view it as weak and wishy-washy or that the candidate doesn't have confidence in their policies and why are they spending billions of dollars on bandaids on gushing wounds?
3) Centerists tend to emphasize the wrong issues, which puts off both progressives/leftists and moderates

[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.