Autopsy for Democrats

After the 2012 election, the RNC had a report commonly referred to as the "autopsy" or "post-mortem". Seems like Trump mostly ignored it and won anyway, but maybe Democrats need to do the same thing this time around.

Maybe it won't matter. In 4 years or maybe even 2, I have a feeling that Trump will probably be a deeply unpopular president, but maybe not.

So what is the main problem for Democrats in appealing to the middle of the country? Is it guns? Maybe Democrats just need to accept that guns are sacred in America and any attempt to restrict them is bad politics?

Another possibility: liberal smugness. The most extreme "Social Justice Warrior" stuff you see on campuses these days may have gone a bit too far. We may be seeing a backlash.

Here's one more take I saw, which seems like it may be spot on:

The Democratic Party Establishment Is Finished

Quote:

What a joke. By Jim Newell The Democrats will now control next to nothing above the municipal level. Donald Trump will be president. We are going to be unpacking this night for the rest of our lives, and lives beyond that. We can’t comprehend even 1 percent of what’s just happened. But one aspect of it, minor in the overall sweep, that I’m pretty sure we can comprehend well enough right now: The Democratic Party establishment has beclowned itself and is finished. . . . The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn’t just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. . . . Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn’t know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did. We should blame all those people around the Clintons more than the Clintons themselves, and the Clintons themselves deserve a ridiculous amount of blame. Hillary Clinton was just an ambitious person who wanted to be president. There are a lot of people like that. But she was enabled. The Democratic establishment is a club unwelcoming to outsiders, because outsiders don’t first look out for the club. The Clintons will be gone now. For the sake of the country, let them take the hangers-on with them. What was the line? Hillary Clinton would do well in a general election, because she’d been “vetted” for 20-some years and there was nothing new Republicans could try? Just writing that, I recognize that it’s the funniest line I’ve ever seen, and yet it was the exact argument Clinton used in two separate campaigns for the Democratic nomination. The ace ground game, the brilliant ad-makers, the top Hollywood talent, and the best analytics operation ever assembled? This was all a joke. The best analytics team in the world, apparently, couldn’t find in their numbers that it was worth making a single stop to Wisconsin following the convention in a campaign against a Republican whose base appeal was in the Rust Belt. Not that an extra visit would have changed the result. Think of how wrong the entire national media conversation was—and yes, I contributed my fair share—about how the Republicans were being torn apart as a party.

Whatever else we know, the polling, the pundits, these people got it wrong. Look at all this polling data from Wisconsin:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tein-5976.html

Every single poll taken there going back for months showed Hillary with a comfortable lead (6.5% average), yet Trump won Wisconsin. Except for one poll, same thing in Michigan and Pennsylvania. BTW, if those three states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania had gone the other way, Hillary would be president.

via International Skeptics Forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313810&goto=newpost