Democrats are talking about how their party has to make changes based on the reasons they believe they lost in this year's election (popular vote notwithstanding), but what's interesting to me is that while this is basically what was said about the Republicans in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats need realize that the GOP DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL! What changed was was what the voters wanted, but while the GOP leadership was grudgingly willing to let the favorite candidate be the nominee, the DNC seems to have launched a mild smear campaign against Bernie Sanders that even seems to have gotten the attention of Julian Assange, the CRIMINAL that I remember being loved by Democrats when he was exposing the follies of the Bush administration. That probably didn't cost Sanders the nomination, by itself, but not only did Sanders last far longer than almost any top party official expected, he probably would have fared even better had the rules governing how the party awards delegates state-to-state been different - an issue that pushed Sanders supporters to yell insults at Clinton rallies and send threats to the Clinton camp and to DNC headquarters about alleged unfair party practices (a hilarious irony given the Democrats are supposed to be THE party of "fairness").
Based on what I've seen and heard, I think Trump's electorate victory is attributable to at least two or three things: The first, is probably lower-than-expected (or slower-than-expected) voter turnout on election day, particularly in terms of minorities and other reliably Democrat voters in the places they needed to turn up. The other is that I think the Democrats were so focused on the Trump Show and how the Republicans were so allegedly out-of-control in their swerve to the far-right that they all but totally ignored how much of their own party was doing the exact same thing in terms of swerving to the far-left AND being almost as dissatisfied with the government as their anti-government Republican counterparts.
Relative to that second reason is the fact that despite having most of the mainstream press on TV and in print in blatant opposition to Trump, Hillary was just not a good candidate. While Hillary had a lot of knowledge and displayed it spectacularly in debates, voters tend to have very short memories and respond with their hearts more than their heads. When she said she was happy to take on Trump and defend her record, most of it (that I can recall) had to do with her work in the legal field in support of children and so forth in the seventies and eighties. That was a stupid thing to rely upon because a BIG piece of the Democrat vote was expected to come from millennials that weren't even born back then! Unlike Trump, whose normal, day-to-day status was one of conflict with almost everyone, she seems never to have been able to shake her personal controversies by making people believe strongly enough that she understood them and their frustrations to get out there and vote for her, anyway. If you think they did because she won the popular vote, then it comes down to saying that the race to an electoral victory is more about geography, speed, and/or timing than the sheer quantity of votes. But even that's not a good excuse because there was a near-record amount of early voting going on prior to November 8. Why were more not for Hillary Clinton?
Frankly, I think it comes down to the reason that I remain a Republican despite some major problems in the party and its proposed policies, which is that while the Democrat platform is almost wholly predicated upon voter DEPENDENCE upon government, requiring an almost blind trust, the Republican platform is all about voter INDEPENDENCE and what voter's can do for themselves far better than the government, which Republicans use mostly for defense purposes. Even if you strongly disagree with that element of the Republican platform and believe it to be naive, at best, the notion or even the pretense of independence has been potent and central to the American experience and "experiment" since at least the days of the Boston Tea Party. I don't think the Democrats are going to fare much better politically or be more successful pushing their agenda unless they act like they have more trust in the Americans that vote for them AND make those Americans more of a priority than, say, illegal immigrants or whether or not a few words offend people halfway around the world.
The Carrier deal is a great example. While I don't think Trump will be able to always act as the President to make deals like this to supposedly save specific jobs - a deal whose specifics and ultimate consequences are still fairly unknown - it's still a brilliantly grand gesture that will probably make not only Republicans, but also some Democrats in Congress more willing to cooperate because they want to be on the side of voters that love Trump for keeping a specific promise before ever even being inaugurated! In terms of image manipulation, it's something that should have been done by Democrats and is actually a move which is more in line with the Democrat message of protecting the working-class FROM large, outsourcing corporations.
