The GOP is, at heart, a second best compromise between the ownership/GOPe class that wants lower taxes and less regulation, and a white working class that probably does not really want a small state/lower taxes and less regulation, but does not want to be paying taxes and accepting of tax where the outlaid benefits go to minorities/immigrants.

The current form of government is not ideal for either group but they each are getting something so long as the GOP gives them the feels of acting on white retrenchment. I wouldn't see it so much as zero sum but both groups seem to be OK with getting something. I think it's clear the elites get more but in many ways the middle/working class whites have internalized that to an extent and just want their social grievances flattered.

So Trump is in many ways an ideal: A nationalist populist that at least behaves as if he will give benefits to specifically white voters but is also offering exactly what the GOPe wants as well if he hands the important policy decisions over to Pence/Ryan.

Problem remains for Democrats is that since they have a much more diverse set of interests, they can't simply do two things that aren't drastically different like the GOP can.

I'm not sure your definition of "not widely accepted" would be "widely accepted".

Yes, the 2008 Primary was very poorly run.

If you merely count all the officially reported results, then add the official results of Michigan (which Obama senselessly removed himself from the ballot), Hillary wins the popular vote. This doesn't cherry pick any results (i.e. it does not include states that do not report "official" results such as caucuses in IA).

I fail to see how the count of Clinton voters in MI should be affected by Obama's decision to remove himself from the ballot. It was his decision afterall -- and it should not disenfranchise the voters of MI because of the misbehavior of the state Democrat Party officials. (DNC War on Voting?)

Seems to me this is counting votes under the standard that Gore pursued in FL in 2000. "Count all the votes."

It also doesn't cherry pick in the sense that it doesn't try to assign the fraction of Edwards' votes and delegates would have likely gone to Hillary had he dropped out of the race earlier. As it was, almost all of those delegates went for Obama.

The primaries should be a universal vote on one day this state by state caucus/vote system is awful for both parties

I don't like Iowa and NH playing such an outsized role in the process but a one day system would strongly favor the establishment/donor candidate. That works for my politics but others would see this as a big disadvantage.

LOL

I know rite? Like, you have to laugh to keep yourself from crying. Poor Hillary, whipsawed in both presidential elections she's entered.

2008 Democratic Primary Popular Vote

Don't worry though. Hillary knows, "Third time pays for all." In 2020 we see Hillary return as "Lady Stoneheart"... The north remembers; winter is coming.

I think the best way to have primaries would be to have them state by state, but have the order be randomly chosen for each election.

I think that the main problem this thread has is that we are discussing what should the democrats to do to win votes without actually addressing what should they do once in power.

The strategy is different if you are a fan of tpp and third way economics instead of a progressive social democrat Bernie bro. The way you plan the political articulation depends on that.

The narrative Bernie Sanders has proposed post election is basically " if Trump takes on the economic establishment and helps poor people and the middle class then that's cool , I'll support him. If he tries to use minor ties as a spacegoat for the legit grievance people have then we will fight you, rut roh" . I personally think that is a great move by Bernie but it's not really a good narrative if you think tpp is the best thing since sliced bread.

I don't think the tpp and third way economics are things the parties should agree on.

RE: that long exchange between Phone Booth and I.

~ half hour ago Trump goes HAM on flag burning, says it should result in jail and loss of citizenship

If this turns out to be one of the more durable distracting tweets instead of one of the forgettable ones, e.g., it catches fire and captures public imagination and hot takes, etc. circa sometime later today someone is going to remember that hey, Hillary Clinton was actually for criminalizing flag burning too!

In fact I'm a little suspicious that Trump or whoever does his tweets came up with an exactly one year punishment -- which is more or less what the bill Clinton sponsored -- that maybe even Trump knows this. But I dunno. Besides the point.

Anyway, this is one of those "what kind of party do you want to have?" anecdotes. The party some are describing are EXACTLY the kind an older revision of Hillary Clinton and Third Way strategists tried to create -- tons of feel-good nonsense for middle class and working class whites. Don't you dare harm their precious symbols!

Consider that as the debate plays out today that there are in fact many of you who are advocating the Democrats do just this. Precisely this. What they used to do. We are asking Democrats to take on the Trump Oeuvre, just with slightly less ham-handed clownshow stuff -- co-sponsor Flag Protection Acts! WHITES WILL LOVE IT.

Anyone bothered by Trump's posturing needs to know this battle is headed for the Democrats. Apologists for this stuff will say until they are blue in the face they are not at all advocating they embrace Trump tactics, no never, not that, of course not. But they will point to theatrics and branding and messaging that does not frighten white people, that was the big mistake in 2016, better fix the stragecraft stuff so whites feel good, that is the critical thing to do.

And the very predictable result of that is the Flag Protection Act of 2005, 1 year prison sentence and $100k fine for flag burning. Co-sponsor: Hillary Clinton.

Although admittedly losing citizenship is a new Trumpian wrinkle so kudos to Trump for moving the Overton Window farther into the dystopian hellscape.

I don't want to be part of a Democratic party that cozies up with racists and opponents of free speech. Also we saw in 2016 how Trump was able to flank Clinton from the left on many issues--even if it was kind of a fever dream in terms of actual policies, a lot of the criticisms (for example the crime bill of 1994 that Clinton was involved in and her support of the Iraq war, and speeches at Goldman Sachs) definitely turned off a lot of Democrats from either voting for her or being more active in supporting her--donating, volunteering, phone banking, etc. which is something we all better start doing if we don't want to get crushed in 2018.

The only way you don't get crushed in 2018 is if Trump is a huge fail. The map is horrible for dems then. The dems have to try and not give up complete control of the senate (+60 seats for repubs) they will not retake the house in 2018.

I don't think the democrats should have one big faction that agrees on everything either. I'm ok with political conglomerates having different wings and then having primaries.

But when you discuss political articulation and long term strategy you have to do it from the perspective of the wing not from the perspective of the whole party.

Once the candidate is picked and everybody agrees to support him strategy can be discussed from a conglomerate perspective but not when thinking a 4 year plan.

It sounds like you're saying the Dems shouldn't have an ideology. I think that would be fine, and it would be more like not have parties at all, which would be an improvement. That is, if the GOP did the same. In the real world the GOP is a united front on economic issues (historically - Trump talks differently, but we'll see) and without a united opposition it's like one side is playing tug-o-war and the other side is standing there saying, "hey, this isn't a game. "

It used to be less like this. The GOP had a candidate who called their program "voodoo economics" but he caved.

Democrats should have a broad ideological agreement of course but the strategy in the long term has to be discussed from the perspective of a certain faction not from the party as a whole. The party is not a sacred cow, it's just a tool to push a certain agenda.

In the US we got felonies and misdemeanors. In general felonies are punishable by a year or more in a prison, misdemeanors are punishable by less than a year in a jail. It's very common for min|max|given sentences to cluster right around a year for this reason.

The above is true, although given that it's Trump, I doubt he was thinking of it in that fashion, and simply threw out the first figure that sounded good to him. ZOMG THOSE FLAG-BURNING ANTI-AMERICANS PUT EM' AWAY FOR A YEAR!

Interview by David Axerlod (one of my favorites) and Joel Benenson, Senior Strategist for the Clinton 2016 Campaign.

Man Joel still doesn't get it. Talks about how they ran a great campaign, Hillary had a clear message on "family benefits" that was embraced, blames third party candidates and Comey a lot (although he may be right on Comey). He is clearly still agitated and shook.

Anyways, thought I would share.

I'll watch later. But, yeah, Axelrod is very cool. Smart and genuine. He may be the #1 and perhaps only political guy I'd like to have a beer with. Well...Van Jones too.

I like that. Why in the world is Iowa allowed such a permanent outsize roll in selecting a president when they are so irrelevant to everything else??

I got about 35 minutes in. Got 15 minutes of COMEY COMEY COMEY which you know I can tolerate. Then Benenson starts jibbering about fact checkers. These ****ing guys. Beneson is basically like, oh shame on them, they cosigned fact checking to the back page, needed to be front page!

Axelrod called him out on it and was like, look, it didn't matter because voters don't care. Axelrod for Permanent Presidential Campaign Strategist.

If Democrats learn one and ONLY ONE lesson from this whole ****ing thing, I hope the whole entire notion of "fact checkers" is dropped entirely from the lexicon. Just forget they exist. The whole mentality is not fit for post-modern elections. It's such a dismissal of agency. Fact-checkers are a cultural affectation of liberals, they are not arbiters of truth for voters.

Also Axelrod spent about 10 minutes in the middle on some interesting stuff.

Beneson said twice they were polling 10 battlegrounds regularly (daily? wasn't clear).

Assume:
FL
NV
PA
MI
CO
OH
NC
NH
AZ
IA
VA
WI

Wait, that's 12.

Which states do we think they didn't poll regularly?

He then later admitted he was personally surprised they were down in MI and WI but so (relatively) close in GA/TX/AZ.

I won't speculate how they informed themselves about the state of the race but it sure seems like reading between the lines these guys didn't really have their finger on it. Seems like they were genuinely caught off guard.

TX, AZ, GA(?)? If they had won there people would be talking about The Latino Strategy for a long time.