No, what you really need is a candidate that empathized with people, that didn't run on the horribly out of touch slogan of "America is already great" and one that countered Trump's racist populism with a more inclusive one that called out him for what a fraud he was.
Bernie Sanders - but Wasserman-Schultz, Brazile and company took care of that. Or, Joe Biden -- it's such a tragedy losing a child (his 2nd time dealing with something so awful) and campaign-wise, the timing couldn't have been much worse. Biden, for whatever his faults, "gets" the Rust Belt situation and calls a BSer out when he sees one.
There's some excellent analysis in this thread, even if the viewpoints are divergent. So strategically - in the autopsy of 2016 as well as going forward - what is optimal? I think it could be:
(1) Hold onto the blue and barely blue 2016 states and try to regain PA/WI/MI, which were all so painfully close. That alone would win back the White House, but I'd fight as hard for FL/AZ. I wouldn't let go of OH/IA just yet, but I'd prioritize them just ahead of NC. GA still seems iffy at best and TX is still a pipedream. It's almost laughable that they tried to run up the score thinking about TX and then a few weeks later tried to "fool" people into thinking that IA was still in play.
(2) Actually show up in the states whose electoral votes you need, or have well-liked surrogates do so. Show up outside the cities of said states. I don't think most of us "coastal elitists" truly believe that the heartland doesn't matter or that its people are deplorable. Their problems are real, and their problems are our problems. But that wasn't the message they got. What they saw was that they were being ignored, at least in HRC's itinerary, and what they heard was that they were deplorable (even if HRC accurately described just a fraction of Trump's supporters as such - although she callously originally said that that fraction was 1/2, IIRC).
(3) Have a clear, economic-centered message that can be distilled to a few soundbites. People don't do nuance. This doesn't necessarily mean ignoring important issues of social equality and justice, but creating a coalition sort of like what FDR had (only in different states now) seems most important.
(4) Fight harder for votes and against attacks (the latter is all the more important in this era of fake news, and it's hard to believe Democrats still haven't learned from how Dukakis and Kerry were pigeonholed). Thinking people will show up just b/c your opponent is worse, even if most people think he really is that awful, is counterproductive.
Trump blew up much of the rulebook this time around, and who knows what 2020 will bring, but do you think the above strategy would've worked - even w/ as unlikeable a candidate as HRC? Any thoughts?
