It looks like a lot of folks here want to stay with the "you HAVE to!" approach to seeking votes.

[Ken Burch]

We're all disappointed with the result and we all want to do better in 2018 and 2020-so what argument is there for staying with an approach(simply demanding that people vote for our ticket, and not making a positive argument for voting for it based on the good things we have to offer, and that we especially had to offer this year) that, time and again, has been shown not to work?

It's not as though we're ever going to convert anyone just by waiting around for people to say "yeah, we were idiots not to vote for the Democratic ticket in 2016, and we'll vote for it no matter what in 2020-even if it runs on a platform to the right of the one we ran on this year".

What possible harm can come from trying a different approach in how we talk to people?

Is there anyone here who thinks we COULDN'T win by running a campaign in which we actually made a case for voting FOR our ticket and our platform? Or who thinks we have something to lose by trying to generate real grassroots enthusiasm rather than simply calling on a dour sense of obligation?

This isn't about who we should have nominated or who we should nominate. I actually don't KNOW who we should nominate in 2020 yet. I'm just saying we need to be open to different approaches to communication

[msongs]

1. majority of voters voted FOR us, distribution of voters and suppression caused losses

with other supporting reasons. if we could take 150K californians and spread them across 4 red states we would have had a massive prez win

[Ken Burch]

5. A plurality voted for us, not an outright majority.

And it wasn't enough to carry the Upper Midwest.

A positive appeal and an actual argument FOR our platform and our ticket could have made the difference. A lot of us were begging for that kind of campaign to be run. What harm would have come of trying? I believe that the result would have been our party actually carrying the states we needed(also Florida and Georgia, states we just barely lost)and Hillary being elected.

[elleng]

2. 'we need to be open to different approaches to communication.'

'As much as Mr. Trump won the election in Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton lost it. Her campaign, which prided itself on employing all the data wizards and ground game gurus money can buy, did not do nearly enough to lock down the upper Midwest, particularly Wisconsin and Michigan, and instead treated those states as a given.

Paul Soglin is the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin’s capital city, in cerulean Dane County. He supported Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary, and said he talked at least once a week with a field organizer from the Sanders campaign during the primary. But once Mrs. Clinton locked up the nomination, it was radio silence from the Clinton campaign.

“Since I first held elected office in the early ’70s, virtually every presidential election, I’ve been contacted, either by the candidate or by a staffer,” he told me. “I’m not saying this to say I’m important. But the point is, not only wasn’t she in the state, but I never got a call, a contact, anything after the primary.”'>>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/campaign-stops/not-your-grandmothers-wisconsin.html?

[Ken Burch]

6. Thanks for posting that link. n/t.

[elleng]

7. You're welcome, Ken.

Trying to inform.

[Onyrleft]

3. Real Republicans beat Republican light every time.

Remember that successful moderate revolution from the history books?
No? There has never been a moderate uprising. It shouldn't be hard to sell pro-people economic and social policies, especially after people experience Republican rule for a few years.

[mythology]

10. You do realize that the parties are more polarized than ever right?

This utterly unsupported contention that any Democrat is just a shade better than any Republican needs to die.

Here's some of those annoying facts that should hopefully help you not say something so blatantly and obviously wrong in the future:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

[J_William_Ryan]

4. Its both the message and messenger.

A majority of the states aren’t going elect president a Democratic candidate a majority of their residents don’t like, regardless how appealing the Democratic message.

Sad but true.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. some people want to win elections

And some people just want to "win DU"

I would advise you not to waste too much energy on the latter crowd. The issues, the parameters, even the usernames change but the game stays remarkably, transparently consistent.

[TransitJohn]

9. Good fucking post!

cheers!!