Hard Choices: Why Trump won and how the Dems must change (Lyin' Steve's autopsy)

[Kalimantan]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

[Kalimantan]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.

[Kalimantan]

The problem with so much of this well-thought out analysis comes down to this:

"The Dems won the most votes, and therefore they must change."

"The Dems policies are more popular than the Republicans policies, and therefore they must change them"

The logic is totally screwed, because the EC and house districting are totally screwed. It ends up with the Dems having to appeal to different people, rather than more people, which effectively means some kinds of people are more important than others.

Which isn't a nice conclusion

While you layout a cohearent thought... it isn't correct. 
1) The popular vote is next to irrelevant.
2) Trump didn't try to win the popular vote, Clinton didn't try to win it either.
3) Trying to downplay a loss because you are in the margin of error of a nearly irrelevant stat isn't a good way to go. 
4) This is the "United States of America", not the "Mass of Americans in a single entity", so this naive abolish the electoral college stuff needs to stop (thats in general not in response)   

I disagree with your points, but thats by-the-by. The question was, how should the Dems change? Its been shown they're popular than the Republicans,  but they are the ones that have to change their policies. I don't see how they can go about that in a coherent way, other than dumping the positions the majority like, and supporting policies the minority like. And once again we've run out of logic right there.

OK, I'll put it like this:
Party A competes successfully in 35 states
Party B competes successfully in 20 states
(5 overlaps)
Party B is shocked that they are out of touch with vast swaths of the country. 

Well exactly,  thats my point also. Some Americans views are more important than others.