"More outreach to rural areas of purple states" and "Change the message" are 2 different arguments.

[Garrett78]

Some seem to conflate two different arguments.

Obama has spoken about the importance of doing outreach to rural areas of purple states like Iowa so as to minimize the losses in those areas in order to carry the state. There are Democrats (not all of whom are white, by the way) in rural areas of purple states, and they (like any other group) are more likely to vote if they're the target of GOTV efforts. I, for one, think that's totally valid.

And then there's the argument that Democrats don't have a strong economic message (never mind the evidence to the contrary), or that they need to substantially alter their overall message.

Now, some may subscribe to both arguments, and that's fine. But let's not conflate the two.

[LonePirate]

1. Outreach is fine. Changing the message is non-negotiable. Also, Iowa is no longer purple. It's red.

Obama is likely to be the last Democrat to win a statewide general election in Iowa for a long time.

[Truth321]

2. Will be a long time

The repugs have stolen it all for decades and decades. We may get a dem in 30 years

[Garrett78]

3. That may be. Iowa was super close in 2000 and 2004, whereas Obama won it with relative ease.

I only used Iowa because Obama mentioned all the time he spent minimizing losses in the rural parts of that state.

Trump won Iowa easily this year. It could flip back, but it's probably more likely that it'll remain solidly red for a while. Meanwhile, states like AZ and TX may turn purple or even solidly blue.

Of course, "purple" and "solidly blue/red" are subjective. If the difference is less than 10 percentage points, does that make it "purple?" If so, Iowa was purple this year. Does it have to be less than 5, meaning more than 5 would make a state solidly blue/red? Anyway, most states aren't in play, but we'll see some change (largely due to demographic shifts) in which states are and which states aren't.

[LenaBaby61]

16. Meanwhile, states like AZ and TX may turn purple or even solidly blue.

I know I'm being negative, but I don't think that either state is turning purple or blue IMHO, not with this tRumputin DOJ in there who will further aid the hideous practice of voter disenfranchisement/suppression on steroids towards the Dems. Also, the GOP IMHO will keep states that are red and turn them blood red and turn/keep former blue states like WI, MI. and PA. red. Whose to say some monkey business won't be going on in deep blue states like my own state of California? Scary, at least for me it is. Well, hopefully the Dem governor in NC will be able to stem the tide of voter disenfranchisement/suppression somewhat, but with what's happening down there with that clown McCrory lessening Cooper's power as governor, well, who knows what voting will look like down there in 2 years for Dems. 868 voting places were closed in NC severely affecting Dem areas as you know. NO telling how many more voting locations will be closed by 2018's mid-terms, and whether cyber-hacking or FakiLeaks will be there literally as a tRump card for tRumputin in 2018 and 2020 and beyond.

Dems are going to be fighting for mere survival the next 2-4 years and beyond with this bunch of GOP racist, voter suppressing, dirty rotten criminals running all 3 branches of the government--and being lead by that grifting, money-grubbing, filthy criminal tRumputin and the rest of his grifting crime family.

[Ken Burch]

5. The ONLY change anyone has suggested is to make it more economically progressive

To stand for economic justice AS MUCH(not more than, but as much) as social justice.

NOT to dilute or abandon anything.

[Garrett78]

10. Clinton's economic message was the most progressive ever in terms of major party candidates.

Partly due to the influence Sanders had in the primary and on crafting the platform.

And Clinton won among the working class, among those most hurt by the recession, among those for whom the economy was a top priority. If a segment of the *white* working class has a different set of priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, one need not think too long and hard about why that might be. A white backlash had been building over the last 8 years. I encourage everyone to read "My President Was Black" by Ta-Nehisi Coates.

[Ken Burch]

11. In any case, nobody is calling for the party to be LESS antiracist

At least nobody on the left in the party.

[Justice]

18. Agreed. Absolutely.

[LonePirate]

15. I think just about all Democrats would welcome a more economically progressive message.

The Joe Manchins of the party may not but I don't consider them to be Democrats anyway.

[Vogon_Glory]

17. I suspect that you're right. Iowa has gone dark

IMO, Iowa's mostly-white population gave into race-baiters' fears and Democrats should stop wasting so many presidential campaign bucks there. I suspect they'll be channeling their inner bigot for years to come. If my fellow-Caucasians of Iowa want to vote like my fellow-Caucasians of Alabama and Mississippi, there are better ways for Democrats to spend campaign dollars--like tilting purplish states like Arizona and Georgia instead.

Oh, and Iowa, why should we waste taxpayer dollars with that methanol subsidy?

[LonePirate]

20. I wonder how many white Iowans are for that methanol subsidy but against gov't assistance for others

[radical noodle]

4. I guess there's some validity in that feeling

but having lived all my life in Indiana until 2012, I rarely saw so much as a brochure from Dems, yet I managed to think for myself and get out without GOTV and vote in my own best interest.

I guess I'm too old to understand why everyone feels this need to be stroked and cajoled into voting for people who support what is best for them.

[Ken Burch]

7. Tip O'Neill actually had a story about why "stroking" voters is a good idea:

In his memoir, he wrote about an early campaign he was in. He won the race, but noticed that in one precinct, he got one vote LESS than he had in his previous campaign.

He started asking people in the precinct and and one woman admitted that it was her vote he had lost. He asked her if she no longer supported him. She said she still did. So he asked her why she didn't vote for him this time. "You didn't ASK me", she said "people LIKE to be asked".

If making voters feel personally valued gets us more votes, what's the harm? It doesn't take THAT much effort to do that.

[Garrett78]

8. There's no doubt some need GOTV and some don't.

But it's not just a matter of getting out the vote. It's also about setting the record straight. If Candidate X goes into rural Ohio, those who may not pay particularly close attention to politics will learn something about the candidate that they didn't know or that contradicts what they'd been told about the candidate.

For others, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. The outreach may only result in Candidate X losing a particular county by 15 points instead of 25, but that can prove significant, especially if we're talking about multiple counties.

And the message doesn't necessarily have to change much, if at all. Although the candidate may focus more on one area of his/her message than another.

Anyway, my point is that calls for outreach and calls for drastically altering the message should not be conflated.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. also, the dems should be considering focusing on areas that have more people who would vote dem

but are disenfranchised, instead of looking at areas we are steadily losing.

[Ken Burch]

9. There are a lot of people in rural areas(particularly in the South and the Mountain West)

who are disenfranchised and would vote for us if we made sure they were registered(or, if need be RE-registered). Isn't it in our interests to try to get those voters to the polls?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. Yes, the new coalition maybe more south and south west

Than Midwest.

[Garrett78]

13. If Texas goes blue, Republicans are in deep trouble.

They might even call for doing away with the electoral college.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. She lost Texas by smaller numbers than in a long time

Didn't do us any good this cycle but might in the near future

[Justice]

19. Great OP but so many replies just keep making same old arguments

HRC message was about economic justice AS MUCH AS IT WAS ABOUT social justice.

If you didn't hear it, ask yourself, were you paying attention?

Media focused on conflict as they like to do - the ping pong match - so conflict was emails, hacked messages, negative stuff between Trump and Clinton. Every negative thing she said about Trump was on the news. Her positive messages about helping people economically - not so much.

Trump could be negative, he could offer nothing and say nothing. That was okay because his defenders didn't care what he said.

Media didn't demand more of Trump.

We should have demanded more of him and we should demand more of him now. His defenders still act like it is the campaign and they can deflect a substantive question with snark and insults about us and HRC. But his defenders have to defend him now.

And that is a challenge.

We have to focus on 2018 races - Governors, state legislatures, senate and house.

[kcr]

21. Much of the conflating is done by those who want to change the message. They call it outreach.

That way you're not really moving more to the middle and you can still feel like the uber-lefty Revolutionist you claim to be.