The case for a new Democratic Leadership Council

[Person Man]

Seriously.  Democrats have only lost this one election.  If they lose two or three more in a row, then a new DLC could be worthwhile for them.  But they shouldn't panic now.  They still have public opinion and the media on their side.

2 if you count 2014. I would say this is a good idea if we get shut out through 2020. Its kinda how we won in 2006.

[Person Man]

Reagan actually left with more house and senate  seats when he left office then before he took office unlike most post War presidents

House seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 158
Senate seats before Reagan(1978-1980): 41

House seats after Reagan(1988-1990): 175
Seante seats after Reagan(1988-1990):45

That's not really what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned governors offices and to a lesser degree, state legislatures. If you want to talk about Congress, 175 really is not that great if you consider the GOP's previous caucuses, omiting the watergate and 1958 losses. I mean it's not terrible (relevant to their others), but it's not great, either.

My point was that even presidents that were considered game changers preside over what can appear to be "decimated" parties. Reagan presided over a party that was more often in worse shape than what Obama has worked with - if you go by the raw numbers, anyway. The lasting effects of a consequential presidency will more than likely manifest themselves years down the line and not during their tenure.

Going from like 37% of congress to 43% of congress isn't that big of a  deal, anyways and especially when it is based on a reigion switching from finally getting over what happened a 100 years ago.

[Person Man]

Also, I find it strange that people insist that so-called social issues were so devastating. What's the evidence? Unless we count immigration as a "social issue" exit polling suggests they played little impact.

A lot of people on the Internet have been trying to attack their "SJW" enemies for years, so they're trying to blame the election on those people.

It's not the *issues* that were damaging, it was the *attitude* of 2016's Democrats.  I think based on the swing maps, that is pretty obvious.  Hillary was fine with shunning some "undesirable" (but reliably Democratic voters) in favor of trying to woo some Republicans, specifically affluent ones in suburban areas ... she didn't get anywhere near enough of the latter to offset the loss of the former, and pretty much the entire Democratic leadership realizes that was a huge mistake of a strategy, and that's why they're moving in an opposite direction (MUCH to the dismay of Non Swing Voter, who might have to decide to become a swing voter soon, LOL).

Its not that we are going to give up on issues that NSV cares about

[Person Man]

Yeah, but what will they do?  Someone like Booker will probably want to attack Trump from a "he's a crazy racist, I mean how could you support him?!" standpoint, and we saw how that worked for Hillary.  Someone like Bernie would want to attack him from a "this guy says Populist Thing X and Populist Thing Y, but he's governed like just another Republican giving tax breaks to billionaires and corporations, and he doesn't care about people like you."  I am inclined to believe - specifically with respect to downballot races - the second strategy is much, much more effective.

Obviously the climates were different, but in 2004 Democrats more or less ran on the idea that Bush was a semi-retarded frat boy in the White House, and we needed to elect someone with a functioning IQ like Kerry ... in 2006, they hammered Bush as an imperialist Wall Street crony who sent hardworking Americans' kids to go die for oil ... one worked a hell of a lot better than the other.

Nobody liked Hillary though. Had Hillary been elected, the GOP would of won a super majority in 2018. Hillary was totally loathed by the Bernie wing of the party even more than the Republicans hated her.

I think this will end in one of 2 ways:

1) Trump is where Carter was in 1976. Disliked by the opposing party yet not trusted or liked by his own party; on the cusp of an emerging realignment that hasn't quite been figured out yet. Trump may fail miserably at things totally our of his control like Carter did or just flat out fail to lead.

-or-

2) Trump is where Reagan was in the 80s. Meaning that he will do a decent job as president but the opposing party will make tons of gains and keep him in check while they figure out who/what their party is about.

Both parties are fractured and your seeing splits emerge even right now. Alot of the neocon faction of the GOP endorsed Hillary. If Trump pals up with Russia, your going to see that part split and possibly join with the Democratic coalition. Trump has also turned off a decent amount of republicans from the idea that the free market can solve every problem. They now dislike free trade and are warming up the idea that health care is a right. If Trump fails to deliver on these things then that's a wing of the GOP that can be split and taken by the Democrats in 2020, much like the GOP took blue collar Democrats in 1980.

True on Free Trade but I don't know if GOP Voters think healthcare is a right.

I don't think Trump thinks that the free market can solve every problem either.

They only need to win enough to cause trouble.