It's not directly "The Problem." But note that the candidate bought into it. Obama campaigned in Wisconsin, Hil did not. It's symptomatic.

Forget about appealing to Trump voters/Republicans. Focus on the enthusiasm gap and turning out the base.

This is the right answer but it's also kind of hard. The answer seems to be "well simply find the next Obama" but that seems to be answering the "how does Auburn get even with Alabama" question by saying "oh well just find another Cam Newton."

Put differently: how do Democrats get their voters to the polls without a once-in-a-generation political personality/biography/talent at the top of the ticket?

Harder to answer.

It's hard to find specific candidates to fit the mold sure (this is probably true for both sides), but the general message seems to be that Sanders/Warren/Obama types that can inspire and bring passion are better than the Kerry/Clinton/Kaine centrist, "presidential" candidates.

Trump got fewer votes than Romney. He was an unpopular Republican who had the luck of running against an unpopular Democrat.

It could be that the public recognizes the failed policies and that's largely why Clinton was unpopular and they also recognize that Trump is not likely to do better and is also unpopular. Or it could be that policy has little to do with it and it was a just a contest for who could generate the least enthusiasm and (electorally) Hillary did that by a small margin.

I suspect that prime time Obama, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, or TR all would have handily won this election despite enormous policy differences.

I'm not super knowledgeable about young Democrats around the country, but I doubt it's that hard. Joe Biden would have been fine - though maybe he didn't want to run. Maybe Sherrod Brown if people could listen to his gravely voice for a year and a half. If he were 10 years younger, Jerry Brown would have been fine.

You don't have to be a rock star, just someone who is credible and earnest.

And, Hillary is winning the popular vote by 2 million. As bad as it was to nominate someone with those favorability ratings, it also turns out to be more of a tactical mistake of going hard for Florida and North Carolina at the expense of the midwest.

Dude I love your posts, and I'd take a bullet for Obama, but please never ever forget that OBAMA NEVER RAN AGAINST TRUMP.

This is a whole new ****ing ballgame. Trump is going to **** up every single thing he touches over the next four years. And you know what? He'll easily convince the rust belt that Obama Pelosi Schumer did it.

Ya know that sub 5% unemployment rate? Trump did that now. It was 40% under Obama. That's the reality in the rust belt.

Ya know what Trumps approval rating will be after crushing dems in 2018, and faking a moon landing where he had a tremendous conversation with E.T., that he claims was paid for by Mexico? It's gonna be 30 points higher than his current favorability.

That's what we're up against. The last ****ing thing we should do is pander to the rust belt, and I'm glad to see that a lot of good posters here realize this. Trump will always out pander any dem on the planet.

So what do we do? We need to go straight MLK on their asses until they stay home in 2020 or switch dem. These rust belt voters have empathy in them. They scrape an inch of ice off their windshields at 5am every day for months straight while praying for spring. And it sucks. But if you show them enough pictures from the Jim Crow era, they'll start to realize that cold winter mornings aren't a reason to blow up the country. I hope warren runs and has Obama write every single one of her speeches.

To be clear, I do think we need to pander to the Rust Belt because I'm in the Rust Belt and I enjoy pandering but also the Dems aren't ever winning without it. But I think the key is to go after the disillusioned Obama voters who stayed home in 2016 rather than try to win over the deplorables. And by pandering, I mean focus on job creation, affordable healthcare, cutting college expenses, etc. A lot of that didn't happen in 2016 because we were all so busy loling at how insane Trump was.

Something like a tax credits for manufacturers moving to areas where industry has declined or infrastructure spending in such areas could very well be good policy that would win votes in those areas. Corporate tax/capital gains tax raise -> investment in declining areas?

I keep seeing this but will never understand why this matters. Its like how can someone be so uninformed and without an opinion that the candidate personally coming to your geographic region makes a difference?

The overwhelming majority of the American public is ill informed. I live in Warren County, Pennsylvania. Trump won here by forty points. Our largest employers are an apparel retailer who manufactures most of their products in China (distribution, product design, and some customer service is local) and an oil refinery that gets their crude from Canada.

Tariffs on Chinese goods or an end to NAFTA would be the death knell for this community, and they just overwhelmingly voted for it. I'm probably selling my home and moving out in the next year if either of those come to pass, because it's going to get awful here.

Uhh, you have a functioning brain bro so let's dispel with the false equivalency that rust belt "independents" are playing with a full deck like you. "What are your thoughts about 'In god we trust' on currency?", is not a question you'll be posing anytime soon.

Sorry for being crass, but here's a newsflash bro: Trump has a GOAT counterstrategy to that in the rust belt.

We need to change the conversation in the rust belt. Let MLK guide you when thinking about strategy for 2020. What would he say to these rust belt voters? Do you think it would be effective vs. Trump? Do you think making their eyes glaze over with good stuff in page 3,457 of Obamacare will be effective?

They ****ing voted for a proud sexual predator because Hillary didn't hit up a fish fry in Ohio? Sorry, not convinced.

You are completely surrounded by oil fields some old some new and fracking has been a big cause of that. Why do you think the oil is from Canada?

lol warren county. You're exactly right that these little towns in rustbelt PA are going to crumble if Trump gets his way.

Our refinery makes gasoline and asphalt. Pennsylvania crude is unsuitable for making gas, as the paraffin content is too high. Pennsylvania crude makes motor oil and other lubricants. There's a pipeline (Kiantone) that runs directly from Canada to our refinery.

Is that oil going to stop flowing? Isn't Trump for all of the above?

I understand why they voted for Trump out there, the towns have been crumbling for years. It's also mostly a conservative blue collar area.

I honestly don't know if the oil would stop flowing if we tear up NAFTA, and given the obvious level of investment it may not happen, but it still worries me.

You're correct about these towns crumbling. If the liberals (and I consider myself a liberal) want to learn anything from this election I would hope it's this. To most Trump voters "Make America Great Again" = "Make my Hometown Great Again".

Without NAFTA Canada could do things which would add to the cost of the oil. Oil is a buyer's market at the moment though, right? So, it probably wouldn't have an effect until there's some scarcity. Maybe if we have more of our pipeline explosions/leaks like the recent events on the Colonial Pipeline, Canada could price gauge us more easily.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lo.../prb0633-e.pdf

I wonder how much longer the Saudis tolerate our rhetoric against Islam when it's coming straight from the White House. Has Trump mentioned Saudi Arabia even once on the campaign trail?

I'm a liberal, and pretty isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, but we tolerate the Saudis, not the other way around. If we decided to go against the royal family rather than support them, that country would look like Syria/Iraq within 2 years.

Given their oil output that would be a global calamity.

See oil being a buyer's market. Also, Saudi Arabia seems to be pretty FUBAR internally and their military seems to not be able to function without a LOT of help from the US. I don't just mean sales of equipment, but training and maintenance and logistics and everything.

I think they'll tolerate a lot.

That said, there's a lot of money there so I doubt Trump is going to seriously upset the Saudi royal family. Whether or not his rhetoric stirs up rebellion against the family might be another story.

The Middle East is such an unbelievable cluster****. Good history piece:

How the Iranian-Saudi Proxy Struggle Tore Apart the Middle East

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/wo...proxy-war.html

Have no idea what our policies should be.

SA will be glad to see Obama hit the bricks and hope Trump will improve relations. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...4297F22C469FA9

Hard to see them being happy with Trump handing Syria to Iran and Russia, and Flynn as NSA makes it seem like he was serious about that.

May have hope if Romney is Sec. of State though.