The Democrats should be the ones doing the autopsy

[ElectionsGuy]

2016 saw the decimation of the Democratic party at all levels of government and their least amount of power since 1980 or perhaps even farther back. In 2012, when Romney lost, Democrats and most Republicans demanded an 'autopsy' of their party, and worried about them never winning a presidential election again. But the Democrats now lost the white house (though they can still brag that they won the popular vote in 6 of the 7 last elections), and Republicans control the house and senate and lost an unexpectedly low amount of seats in both chambers. The 2018 Senate map, even with a Trump presidency, doesn't look promising for Democrats either, as the only targets they have are Arizona and Nevada. At the state level, it looks like if North Carolina goes to Cooper (which looks it will, just barely), Republicans will have 33 governorship to Democrats 16. In state legislatures, it looks like Republicans have increased their strength in most states, have picked up the Kentucky House (finally ending any Democratic control of state legislatures anywhere in the south) and the Minnesota Senate. Democrats picked up seats in the west and southwest, where Clinton over performed past results relative to the result of this election. Both Nevada chambers are now Democratic for example, and Democrats increased their seats in New Mexico and Texas. But Republicans have even more control (due to the presidency) now than they did in 2014 and have managed to keep nearly everything they had in 2014 with some exceptions.

The Democrats need to reevaluate themselves. They have a rural white non-college problem. Some of the Demographic changes of this election definitely favor Democrats, all you have to do is look at some metropolitan areas across the country and see how they voted compared to 2012 (DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc.) but the backlash among rural whites without a college degree was MUCH bigger and was under detected in the polls. Some of the problem was also a lack of turnout with the Obama coalition, but it wasn't the primary reason states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were lost.

[Sumner 1868]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

[ElectionsGuy]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

[ElectionsGuy]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

But, if turnout among young whites is down, doesn't that help Democrats, since both Romney and Trump carried young whites?

[hopper]

The Democrats will be fine long term though. They might need a short-term autopsy though! The thing that Democrats might be concerned with after this election is some minorities and white women were "Shy Trump Voters" that it really threw Hillary's Polling Team off I think in the end.

[Virginiá]

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

According to civicyouth, turnout among young voters was greater than 2012. In addition, overall, Trump didn't do better than Romney among the 18-29 bloc but Clinton did 5% worse than Obama.

Also something that might worry Democrats is that in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Clinton actually lost 18-24 year olds by small margins. Given Clinton's absolutely massive image problem with young voters, it could be a one-off thing but if in 2020 a candidate that has broader appeal still does poorly with them, then Democrats might be in for very hard times in at least Wisconsin. Young voters are critical to them in that state. Given Clinton's painfully obvious weaknesses in the rustbelt and Obama's massive margins among this group in 2012, I'm inclined to believe Democrats can pick up the pieces in 2020 if they play their cards right.


I think Democrats could surely use a post-election report, but it wouldn't need to be anywhere near as big as the GOP's, as Democrats don't have that many problems. We have a problem with white working class voters and we have a downballot wreckage to clean up. However, I would note that a key strategy here might now be to just make sure everyone remembers how much of a scumbag conman Trump is so he can drag the GOP down with him in 2018 and 2020. Republicans love to gloat about their state-level power, but we'll see how they fair in a midterm under a terribly unpopular president who has offended a large portion of this country, and will probably continue doing so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think Democrats could surely use a post-election report, but it wouldn't need to be anywhere near as big as the GOP's, as Democrats don't have that many problems.

You just lost an election to a mentally unstable Reality TV star.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Obama's presidency saw the Democrats getting decimated on all levels but presidential. It'll take years to repair the damage.

We may be looking at a weird reverse of post-1968 situation, when Republicans got an advantage on presidential level, while Democrats hold onto almost everything else.

[LLR]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

But, if turnout among young whites is down, doesn't that help Democrats, since both Romney and Trump carried young whites?

Young people not young whites. Of course, knowing you, you might not know the difference...

[Virginiá]

You just lost an election to a mentally unstable Reality TV star.

I'm just not sure how big a report needs to be to tell the DNC to never again back an inauthentic scandal-plagued candidate under fbi investigation who quickly ended up being the 2nd-most disliked nominee in modern history. If some candidate like that runs again, the DNC should do the opposite and try and recruit candidate(s) to defeat such a person.

There are other things we need to work on in this party, but we don't have as many long-term problems as the GOP.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

But, if turnout among young whites is down, doesn't that help Democrats, since both Romney and Trump carried young whites?

Young people not young whites. Of course, knowing you, you might not know the difference...

I'm responding to a post from Elections Guy that specifically mentioned young whites.

[The_Doctor]

The Democrats have short term problems. Serious, strong, but short term problems. One, the economic message. Two, fixing the identity issue (go back to being the party of FDR, JFK, the party that represented everyone). This will take 2 elections to resolve.

GOP still on a ticking time bomb strapped on a one way ticket to the moon.

[Person Man]

The Democrats have short term problems. Serious, strong, but short term problems. One, the economic message. Two, fixing the identity issue (go back to being the party of FDR, JFK, the party that represented everyone). This will take 2 elections to resolve.

GOP still on a ticking time bomb strapped on a one way ticket to the moon.

How do we become a "party for everyone"? I know that blaming discrimination on everything is what is wrong with the party, but there are some civil rights/liberties issues that are still core to the message. However, even they were able to push these sorts of issues.

[Pericles]

The Democrats are in bad shape. The party is hollow and is at their weakest in decades. The Democrats need an autopsy and a reassessment of their future.

[henster]

This was a candidate problem not a party one! Clinton lost because of her association to failed trade deals, she let Trump run to left of her on many issues. Nobody here thinks Biden would have lost had he ran.

[Frodo]

This was a candidate problem not a party one! Clinton lost because of her association to failed trade deals, she let Trump run to left of her on many issues. Nobody here thinks Biden would have lost had he ran.

We're not just talking about the presidential election -Hillary was not the reason why we got destroyed down ballot beginning with the Republican Revolution in 1994, and accelerating in 2010.  There are deeper forces and trends we are contending with, so stop trying to simplify it.

[kydmb99]

I'm a little skeptical of anyone who says any political party is set up for the "long term" as if american politics is this perfectly predictable arc when it has historically been anything but. There has never been an "emerging majority" in american politics and it's foolish to assume there will ever be one in the future.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm a little skeptical of anyone who says any political party is set up for the "long term" as if american politics is this perfectly predictable arc when it has historically been anything but. There has never been an "emerging majority" in american politics and it's foolish to assume there will ever be one in the future.

Democarats were in the white house every year from 1932-1952 and so were the GOP from 1896-1912

[kydmb99]

What's your point? Sure, there are periods where one party or the other may have an upper hand for a period but it always seems to swing back the other way. Governing is hard. Keeping coalitions is hard. The interests and voting patterns of groups are constantly in flux. I'm not saying it can't happen, but these democrats saying that they are set up for the long term need to be careful. It just basically never happens that way.

[Figueira]

The "Obama coalition" meme really needs to be retired. Even a basic analysis of 2008/2012 makes it very obvious Obama's winning "coalition" included people beyond the stereotypes the phrase is associated with. Which should have been obvious the whole time, of course.

By Obama coalition, I'm not just talking about blacks and Hispanics, I'm also talking about young whites and urbanites. Its also evident that his winning majority included many more rural whites than the Democratic Party's future coalition, so I agree, I'm not trying to just say non-whites. And I'm saying its the failure of turnout of these groups that ended up costing Hillary slightly.

Obama lost young whites in 2012.  They were the one group that really fell out of his coalition between 2008 and 2012.

A lot more young people showed up with Obama rather than Hillary, is what I am saying. Its not who he's winning or by how much but rather what groups of people turned out disproportionately for him that other candidates can't replicate.

But, if turnout among young whites is down, doesn't that help Democrats, since both Romney and Trump carried young whites?

That assumes that the young whites who aren't voting are a representative cross-section of young whites in general. Most data I've seen shows that that isn't the case; the young whites who don't vote are generally the sort that would vote Democratic if they voted.

Also, margins matter. Young whites are slightly Republican but they're not some kind of massively Republican demographic.

Also fun fact, Clinton did better among younger millennials than among older millennials.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What's your point? Sure, there are periods where one party or the other may have an upper hand for a period but it always seems to swing back the other way. Governing is hard. Keeping coalitions is hard. The interests and voting patterns of groups are constantly in flux. I'm not saying it can't happen, but these democrats saying that they are set up for the long term need to be careful. It just basically never happens that way.

they prob  mean have a significant advantage like dems did from 1932-1968 when they won 7/9 elections

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm a little skeptical of anyone who says any political party is set up for the "long term" as if american politics is this perfectly predictable arc when it has historically been anything but. There has never been an "emerging majority" in american politics and it's foolish to assume there will ever be one in the future.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

[hopper]

This was a candidate problem not a party one! Clinton lost because of her association to failed trade deals, she let Trump run to left of her on many issues. Nobody here thinks Biden would have lost had he ran.

Ran to her left? Yeah on trade maybe.