The case for a new Democratic Leadership Council

[RINO Tom]

When Reagan won in 1984, the Democrats had control of 35 governorships and the GOP had 15
Democrats had 46 seats in Congress, GOP had 54
Democrats had full control of 28 state legislatures, 11 split, and only 10 were in GOP control, hell by 1990 only 6 states had a GOP controlled state legislature

Those are all infinently worse than the Democrats today and this was during the so called "Reagan Revolution"

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

The problem is that Democrats didn't much care to keep a lot of those legislatures (specifically in Southern states), at least not enough to pour resources into them to stop an aggressive GOP.

[RINO Tom]

When Reagan won in 1984, the Democrats had control of 35 governorships and the GOP had 15
Democrats had 46 seats in Congress, GOP had 54
Democrats had full control of 28 state legislatures, 11 split, and only 10 were in GOP control, hell by 1990 only 6 states had a GOP controlled state legislature

Those are all infinently worse than the Democrats today and this was during the so called "Reagan Revolution"

As bad as things seem today for Democrats, they are still nowhere near as bad as things were for the GOP when Reagan was president

The problem is that Democrats didn't much care to keep a lot of those legislatures (specifically in Southern states), at least not enough to pour resources into them to stop an aggressive GOP.

I honestly think that who controls senate seats, governorships, and state legislatures are outside of the parties control and just seem to ebb and flow depending on who's prez and other things. The GOP got lucky with Obama because their hatred of him was a great motivator for their electorate. But now both the Clintons and the Obamas are gone and their's no one left to motivate the hate of the GOP electorate and the GOP's policies are going to hurt their own electorate more than anyone else.

Trump, Paul Ryan, and McConnel are the most hated people in America right now and they run the show. That alone will probably tip the scales back in the Democrats favor irrespective of how much money is spent.

If anything, this election has taught me that money and "ground game" is not that important. People will turn out from their own enthusiasm for a candidate they like.

All the Dems need now is a marketing strategy to rebrand the party.

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.

[RINO Tom]

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.

The thing is, Democratic politicians and Democratic voters (outside of teens on Atlas and self-absorbed "pundits" on CNN) don't want to alter their policies in a way that would appeal to those voters.  Moderate/business/affluent/neocon/whatever Republicans might not like Trump, but their alternative is worse, and they voted accordingly in 2016.  I highly doubt the Democrats will move in a direction that appeals to them, and so far they've done the opposite.

[RINO Tom]

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).

[RINO Tom]

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).

That's all true, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I was responding to Northwest, just keeping your response to him/her as part of the conversation thread.