Nothing. The Democratic Party will collapse into obscurity as Trump leads a new dark age.
Fixed.
I don't know about the fix there. I mean, I've been making gold related puns all day and its not getting old. :-p
But on to the actual topic...
To a certain degree the primary problem of the Clinton campaign was taking things for granted. They took the nomination for granted until Sanders showed up and starting winning states. They took Trump for granted as well of course, figuring people would reject him from the get go. (They forgot Rule 1 of being a Republican, its ok to be a terrible human being if you have an R by your name.) They took the rust belt portion of their firewall for granted, letting three must win states slip through their fingers. They took for granted the media doing their damn job. They took their campaign security for granted. They took for granted that the stupid e-mail stuff wouldn't be a problem come fall. They took for granted their media communication strategy, thinking simple and rare explanations for the unflattering stuff would be enough to smooth it over, not understanding they need to hit back multiple times against allegations. And they took for granted their internet communication strategy, letting the rise of fake news and its pushers dominate discourse in many online forums.
So in short, don't assume you'll just sort of win. A lot of the headache in all of this could have been easily avoided and appropriate steps taken to find a better course. To become immune to Trumps tantrums, the media's spastics, and even Comey's sudden intervention into the campaign.
And another thing, its not necessarily about who we nominate I've noticed. Its about the field of potential nominees. There are a number of parallels between 2016 and 2000 besides the EV/popular vote split. The most glaring is the tiny field of candidates. Clinton and Gore both only had one serious contender facing off against them. And given Gore's overwhelming support and Clinton's demographic advantages, despite themselves, they were able to pretty much walk to the nomination. They didn't have to really work for it. Yes the primaries were contentious. But most the strain of it was on the Sanders side as they fought the uphill battle against overwhelming odds. The Clinton campaign was challenged, but not to the point of needing to really improve to the level needed to win the general election. The Democratic party -needs- a competitive primary where no one starts off with overwhelming support. Preferably where the early front runner doesn't make it. Kerry started ahead in 2004, lost ground to Dean, came back and rolled most the rest of the season... and lost in the general. 2008 Obama was highly considered, but Clinton started off ahead and lost the primary, with Obama taking the nomination and the general. Heck, go back to 92 and that come back kid guy who didn't win anything till Georgia, his first win in 11 contests. And he became president despite that challenge, or perhaps because of it.
And before anyone demands a comparison to Trumps improbable rise in the primaries, remember that the parties and their coalitions are very different in terms of motivations and voting habits. Making a proper comparison here doesn't make sense and thus is no excuse to ignore this advice.
So yeah, gotta keep our candidates on their toes and can't take anything for granted. We live in insane world now after all. Anything can, and probably will happen.
