But it needs to do some serious soul searching, and there should be a REAL post-mortem going on.

Leadership change, yes. Reevaluation of tactics, yes. Fundamental review of its core beliefs, especially its cozy relationship with big business, yes.

Business as usual or superficial changes like you have described? Only if you want an 8 year Trump presidency.

We must work to defeat Trump.

There are literally millions of people who supported our candidate who are immensely disappointed by the loss of what should have been a gimme (given the GOP shambles, clown parade and Trump) who want the Democratic Party to get back to its core principles, to get back to the party of FDR -- where people came first above everything else.

We supported the Party -- many, like me, for the past 44 years. The Party has failed us by moving to the center right over that time frame.

I am going to do everything I personally can to help move the Party back to the left. Get over it.

We need to get away from the oligarchs.

It is rare you hold for a third term...and you can not discount the primary which was bitter and divisive.

However, I am moving on. I am done with this fight which I consider a primary fight...we have a big tent party...there are many different viewpoints...we win by seeking unity and need to be loyal to not just a candidate we like but to the party as well...and consider the horror the end of your life will become if we elect Republicans...It is time to attack Republicans who elected a fascist scum bag...they have it coming...not fellow Democrats.

It's not possible to get back in in '20 by default.

Time to fight Trump...start at the grassroots for any reform...not at the national level...God knows we need to work on the states. We simply have no time to have a big fight and come together in time for 18 or 20. Trump is the enemy... not the Democratic Party.

But that can ONLY happen if the DNC isn't controlled by "Stay The Course" types who will use all their energies to block any change.

We can't ever win any additional votes just by keeping things as they are now.

BTW, nobody was trying to "burn down the party" in the primaries. We were trying to revive it in a time when it was(and is)slowly dying. The people are not going to return us to power in any future elections as a party of the insiders, a party of the status quo.

And consider we won the popular vote. The fact is populism is it...Personally, I am all in for coming up with a manufacturing and trade policy that is fair to Americans...trade has been a disaster for many. I don't need to search my soul. The Democratic Party is a big tent party always was...there are different viewpoints in this party and that is how it will be.

n/t.

That knife cuts both ways.

I have to put the bitterness and anger about this election behind me and move on...our kids are counting on us.

Republicans have more power than they've ever had. Whatever we're doing at the State level has been a monumental disaster. With the lack of good options at the State level, we have no bench of candidates for national offices.

is harder than using existing power structures and organizations.

The Dems need to explain what they did to prevent the working class being left behind. I'm fairly well read and follow politics more than the average Jane, but I'd have to struggle to do this.

Example # 1: What was done to prevent coal miners from being cut loose without benefits... as illustrated by this recent post on DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017412169

Dems have some 'splainin to do.

legislation, I agree with you there. The problem is that Obama, and Hillary by association, get blamed for what Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell do.

of just throwing their fucking hands up and saying "it's not our fault"?


Seriously, you don't see the fucking problem with this party? They roll over on every fucking issue. Obama spent his entire first term trying to undermine the party's platform and gut social security just so he could "reach across the aisle" and appear bipartisan.

People are all over the forum today complaining about the election results being hacked. We've had evidence of voter suppression and intimidation tactics from the GOP since W came into office. What have the Democrats do to address it? Absolutely nothing. Actually, they aided the Republicans by voting almost unanimously to defund ACORN because they were getting beaten up on Fox News over those doctored tapes.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think that this party is capable of doing anything nut servicing their big money donors and playing nice while the GOP kicks them (and the rest of the country) in the teeth over and over again.

He achieved a lot working within the executive branch, especially on climate. And in his first two years he passed more progressive legislation than we've seen in a generation or more. But with the GOP in control of the house, no progressive legislation was getting through, that's the reality.

The problem with the party has nothing to do with "rolling over." The GOP has had the votes in the house for 6 years, no amount of "fighting" could change that.

You are living in a fantasy world where the president rules by decree, and it's "big money donors" rather than congress who prevents things like a higher minimum wage from becoming law.

Losses every damn time,. Good post I agree 100%.

Because the non-white, non-male working class voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.

incumbent running for the Senate in Swing states win?

As for your "working class" argument, it was labor that elected Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter. The so-called "reagan democrats".

Why did they vote against their own interests?

Maybe they have some "splaining" to do

Those self-identifed progressives who refused to vote for Hillary sure do

"Those self-identifed progressives who refused to vote for Hillary sure do"

Your wrong.

Running the most disliked (even if it was manufactured dislike) establishment canadate in an anti establishment race cost us the presidency well as all the down ticket races. Not confronting this will only elect more knuckle dragging republicans...

They deserve exactly what they got

Rest of us don't though

Their actions resulted in a racist sexist bigot, and that speaks volumes about them

Oh by the way, winning the popular vote by over two million in spite of the lies and bullshit

That the fact that the dnc was conspiring to stop Sanders and foist Clinton onto the general turned off allot of people, progressive, independents and center leaning republicans. You can't argue that. Sure the FBI conspired with the fucking republicans and you know what - not a fucking thing will happen because of that. When will this party realize that there is no working with any one on the right and not prosecuting crimes begets more crime. Bush and co were let go in order to "work together on the future" how'd that turn out for us, the country, fuck the world for that matter. If there isn't serious soul searching within the Democratic party and we embrace Sanders positions we're just a half step away from the republicans.

the primary because of the so-called DNC "conspiracy"

I also vehemently disagree with your false equivalency that we are one step away from the republicans.

That is total bullshit

In fact that is the problem with those who refused to vote for Hillary, it was either all or nothing.

Let's just leave it at we are going to agree to disagree

"Let's agree to disagree"

In the gen pop mind the parties are one and the same on screwing over the poor and middle class for the most part, part of trumps tactic was to co-op Sanders positions which won him the disaffected white vote and branded Clinton as the establishment canadate. That's what I meant with one step away...

In fact the dnc did every thing they could to marginalize Sanders and thought they had this mother fucker in the bag. Didn't you hear BO say 'I went to every fish fry' basically calling out the Clinton camp for their weak efforts? Look were on the same team expert for looking at this honestly as what it is, a rejection of business as usual and we mistakenly ran the business as usual canadate. Perception is reality and you've got to know the other side. The Clinton camp was blindsided by their arrogance.

I strongly disagree with your analysis http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

because they are the ones that have shafted American workers left and right, and get none of the blame from the fucking media.

My main beef is why they don't fight and complain more about the fucking outrageous behavior of the GOP. Tired of them being "nice" and "polite".

If you relied on the MSM, you were definitely not given any of that information. She had some very solid plans on how to move to the next generation of workers.

Hacked election and the democrats won the popular vote. On that winning the popular vote where are the democratic senators and representatives? They are trying to get us to believe that we are a small minority. We are not.

I, for one, am tired of being the 1970s GOP and would like to get back to being Democrats again.

it's foolish to turn the party on its head to fight an election that's already over. The next election may have an entirely different set of issues. Those who are most loudly claiming we should change everything are often those who helped Trump win this thing. Their support was either tepid or not at all, and many continued to trash Clinton at every opportunity.

We HAD the right plans, but nobody heard them thanks to a variety of things including the media.

We need to act like it.

Basically, we lost on a technicality called the Electoral College. That's it. People agree with our policies and they will vote for us. We just need to go further, speak louder, and do even better.

we need to make it perfectly clear right now that stronger together included everyone. Her jobs program was well above Trumps. Everything she had would have benefited white working people as well as everyone else so I think it's counter-productive to say we had nothing for them.

This felt more to me like a "bring back Beaver Cleaver" election, triggered by stuff like BLM which is wildly unpopular with many whites who think it means they don't matter.

I sometimes think we, the average Democrats, could have done a much better job of praising her and discussing her plans. A lot of Hillary supporters went underground on Facebook during the primaries because of the Bernie supporters and never came back out. We volunteered for the campaign, we voted, but maybe we should/could have been more vocal and out there? With all the media saying she was unlikable, that people didn't trust her, that the only reason for people to vote for her was to be against him... I think that hurt the campaign a great deal. So many things went against her and I don't think all of it was coincidence.

Ousting DWS was a good start. We can't have the national head of the party basically deciding who the nominee would/will be, primary voters be damned.

This needs to happen at the state level too. Here in Wisconsin, our state party apparatus has become totally dysfunctional. The strategy has been: motivate the base and turn out everyone in Milwaukee and Madison (the only true urban areas of the state) and literally ignore everyone/ everywhere else. That's how you lose Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Pennsylvania. We have to expand the base. I know lots of people in and around the small WI city I live in who voted Trump, and they aren't all racists and rednecks and uneducated rubes. Some Trump voters are those things, and they will always vote R. But many others are simply people who never felt that Hillary spoke to them- hence, they believed the lies being told about her. She would have been a good President, and maybe even a great President, but she was a horrible re-tread candidate who ran another crap campaign.

of whether they were right or not. An outsider had the nerve to run in the democratic primary after 8 years of Obama, after the passing of Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, the repeal of DADT, the appointment of judges that protect Unions/LGBT folks, etc, screeching that the Democratic party did not care about working class people. Now that vulture has shown up once again surprised that some people actually listened to his lies. The Democratic Party needs to continue giving progressive voices a seat at the table, as it has done before Sanders, it does not need to become his own personal policy shop because he can not be trusted. You're giving the GOP a lot of credit for work that Sanders did during and after the primary.

There's a winning strategy.

folks that we lost, did I? He was out showing his ass the day after the election before the corpse of the Democratic party was even cold. I don't care if it's a winning strategy or not. He will not and should not profit off of disharmony that he sowed and created because he couldn't take the fact that voters of color rejected him during the primary. I am glad that he has been aged out of the presidency and I hope they we can actually get a progressive Dem that doesn't want to burn down the party to run for the seat in VT in 2018.

Fine. I'm sorry that I criticized the pathetic vulture that you love and nothing absent glowing praise for that footnote is good enough for you.

Sanders busted his ass to get Clinton elected.

If we refuse to learn from this election, we are doomed as a party.

If there is one thing we should learn, it's that primaries and the things that one says during them after they've lost matter. How do you think Bernie would have faired if Hillary spent weeks after losing a primary writing op eds and telling everyone that she could find that Bernie's tax raising policies were unrealistic or that he didn't focus on minority issues as much as he could? He would have lost as well.

But Clinton and Sanders were very civil and supportive of one another after the primary. Frankly, it inspired me to support her, especially after she adopted his platform.

I guess we all take different things away from life.

what he wanted which was well after the last primary. There are op. eds out there. I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

If it means develop new leadership with new ideas, then I would respectfully disagree with your statement. If it means being true to long-standing progressive principles, l would disagree. The Democratic Party strayed away from its core principles decades ago ... and has been paying the price ever since.

The Democratic Party has failed at the national level and, in too many places, at the State and local levels. If that isn't a wake up call about the failure of leadership and principles, I don't know what is.

This election was a gimme for the Democratic Party -- and it blew it badly. It should have been a slam dunk! Do I think it needs to be blown up and rebuilt? If that means new leadership and a return to basic party principles and different ideas, YES.

But lets not get hung up on the "blown up and rebuilt" phraseology. Besides blaming the Republicans, what changes, if any, do you see as needed? I noticed you didn't offer any. Do you really think doing the same thing its been doing will be successful in the future?

Your post strikes me somewhat as denial. Sorry.

The party has some problems, but "not progressive enough" is certainly not one of them.

There is definitely room to improve in tactical areas, communication, etc. And Hillary was not a strong candidate (I say this as a supporter of hers), she just didn't have the same charisma as Obama or Bill Clinton, and she had been damaged by decades of GOP attacks.

The party has done little to bolster the economic well-being of middle America over the past 35+ years. Progressive on social and equality issues is not and has not been enough.
The Democratic Party needs to come to grips with the notion that globalism and robotics can be managed policy-wise in a way that doesn't destroy middle America. It hasn't done that well. Nor has it done enough on the finance/capital markets front to bridge the widening gulf between haves and have-nots.

Blaming those things on the GOP is disingenuous. The Democratic Party has been complicit in many instances. Heck, re: public concern about jobs being lost overseas via trade agreements, Obama's response was "the horse has already left the barn on that one."

Obama passed ACA and Dodd-Frank, two very progressive pieces of legislation. And he pushed for a lot more than that, but was blocked at every turn by the GOP congress.

This insistence on blaming Obama for Paul Ryan not passing progressive legislation is really bizarre. The way the government works, congress writes the laws. The Dems need to work on messaging in order to do better in elections, but given that Hillary ran on a highly progressive platform, it's illogical to think that "not progressive enough" had anything to do with her loss.

She had problems as a candidate: baggage from decades of GOP attacks, and lack of charisma. In the future, we need to pick candidates that are natural politicians like Obama or Bill Clinton. It's not enough that Hillary would have been a great president, you also have to be a great politician to win elections.

the Party lost many folks long ago as a result of straying from its core principles. Obama included. He appointed Wall Streeters to key economic positions. He pushed the TPP. He originally supported the Keystone Pipeline. Yes, he's done some fine things -- in fact, he's the greatest President in my lifetime. But again, that's all relative.

It's not just about charisma. It's also about being genuine about core principles. The Party has not done that well -- at least relative to the FDR tradition. That includes the two natural politicians (Clinton and Obama).

Keep in m ind that Trump is not viewed by many as a natural politician.

And, yeah, Hillary doesn't come off as genuine. She never found her public voice. She was an intellectual running in an anti-intellectual country.

But none of that has anything to do with where the Democratic Party is on the political spectrum. It has nothing to do with "not progressive enough." It has to do with the personality qualities that are necessary in order to win an election in today's US.

Obama is evidence that "not progressive enough" has nothing to do with Hillary's loss. Obama's policies were about the same as Hillary's, which is to say very progressive. But Obama was an amazingly gifted public speaker, which is why he won two convincing elections. If Obama's twin brother was our nominee, we win by 10 points.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that moving to the left would improve the Dems' electoral prospects. Yes, there are always going to be some people further left than whoever is the nominee for president, but what evidence is there that that had anything to do with Trump's win? Issues were barely discussed in the general election. There wasn't even a single global warming question in any debate. And every time an issue was actually discussed, Hillary was well to the left of Trump on it.

Trump campaigned on massive tax breaks for the rich and deregulation and Hillary campaigned on a higher minimum wage, debt-free college, and raising taxes on the wealthy. It wasn't hard to figure out who was (much) more progressive. And Trump won.

The Dem party doesn't need to be burned down, but it definitely needs to be rebuilt. For too long, we allowed neo-liberals to be owned and operated by corporate money. Terrible trade deals that sent jobs overseas. Terrible trickle-down economics that never trickled.

Obama raised taxes on the wealthy and hugely expanded the social safety net. The opposite of trickle-down.

Buzzwords like "neo-liberal" and "corporatist" are all the rage on lefty blogs these days, but that's got nothing to do with reality.

What Obama did was insufficient -- and not just because of the GOP, partly because of economic philosophy/positions. Those positions are grounded largely in what is described as neoliberal economics. Reaganism and neoliberal economics have dominated economic policy for 40 years. What Obama did is small potatoes and, frankly, indirect relative to the economic changes that have occurred over those 40 years.

If neoliberal principles have nothing to do with reality, what does? What would you change to improve the economic well-being of middle America?

Poo-pawing others without articulating your own solution/s is unproductive.

On every issue, Obama wanted to go farther, but the GOP blocked him. He wanted more stimulus. He wanted a public option. He wanted to raise the minimum wage. This wasn't secret, he talked about it all the time, in speeches and interviews, everywhere. Where's the "neoliberalism"? It's not there. What was there is Paul Ryan and McConnell.

What would I do to improve the economic well-being of middle America? Everything that Obama and the Democratic Party have been talking about for years. Increase the minimum wage. Huge spending on infrastructure and green energy. Expand Medicaid in all states and add a public option to ACA. And so on.

The ideas are there, but the votes in congress aren't.

voted for the last 40 years for republican tax cuts, trade deals, sweetheart tax subsidies for Exxon, and foreign wars.

Obama's Democratic party was/is very progressive.

and stop tacking Rightward the second someone disagrees with them.

Given the Democratic party election track record of the last eight years, your recommendation of just needing someone with more charisma to run and not needing to rebuild is wrong. Very wrong. Dangerously wrong.

If the party is in such good shape, why has it lost so many representatives, senators, governors and state elected officials? Because we didn't have a charismatic head this election? Naive! If you are in a position of actually recommending actions to the DNC, please stop. I am tired of losing.

The Democratic party has abandoned the working class, white or otherwise for far too long. Decades long. This is why the Democratic party is in decline. The party of the working man and woman morphed into the party of the Wall Street financier, the party of the attorney, the party of the DC policy wonk, the party of the superdelegate and the party of identity.

What happened in this election was that an orange haired (billionaire?) buffoon con man was a able to figure out that "its the economy stupid" and talked to people that are hurting and that don't feel represented. Many people that had voted Democratic for years voted Republican ticket this time. Why did they vote this way? We can claim that Trumps followers are indeed mostly a bunch of deplorables and that they are mostly misogynistic, homophobic bigots, but those same people that swung the vote to Trump this year had, in earlier Presidential races, voted for Obama, so if we want to go on calling them names such as bigot, go ahead. You won't win elections, but it might make you feel better about losing. We have all heard by now that 53% of white women voted for Trump. Give me your "deplorables" reason for that.

Maybe it would do the party good to go look at pictures of the towns that these folks live in. Many are but shadows of their former selves. Many are in decay and falling apart. Their major cities are decaying and their rural areas are drying up and blowing away. The best they hear from either party is 'globalization, globalization, globalization". They held their nose and voted for the only person they felt may actually bring a job back or help them out. They voted what they perceived was their self-interest. They sure as hell felt the impact of Ford and Carrier and so many others moving plants to Mexico thanks to NAFTA, they are impacted by illegal immigration effects on local wages, they are affected by abuse of H1B visas, even if they don't know what an H1B visa is.

My take is that these people are hurting so much, they have no hope left. Obama didn't help. The Bushes didn't help. Bill Clinton didn't help. Yes, around the edges we can talk ACA or Medicare part D, but the areas they live in are still dying. As far as having a good job and a growing vibrant place to live, tell me how the Democrats have helped these areas in the past eight, or even twenty, years?

Trying to win by cobbling together those that are focused on race, focused on sexual orientation, focused on religion, focused on gender may give you a bunch of volunteers that are vocal, but it is not going to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, it is not going to work in the South and it is not going to work in the Plains states. Having the power base of the Democratic party based out of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms isn't going to win elections.

The Democratic party needs to represent a rising tide for the American people of all religions, colors and orientations. If we show results, not just plans, in rebuilding of our country while showing voters by example of how to be inclusive, we will win elections. There is low hanging fruit in the areas of trade, wages, taxes, but nothing will happen while Goldman and the superdelegates of the third way are in charge.

We need to rebuild the Democratic party. Now.

The party is in bad shape because the GOP obstructed Obama mercilessly, and then blamed Obama for the consequences of that obstruction.

Trump voters are, in fact, deplorable. No, it's not a good political tactic to call them that, but it's a correct assessment.

On the other hand, the idea that the Democratic party is "based out of Goldman Sachs" is a total fantasy. The Dems passed the strongest financial regulations since WW2. When you look at actual policy issues, the Democratic party under Obama has been extremely progressive.

I agree that there is a perception problem. A lot of it created by GOP propaganda about "liberal elites." And, yeah, both Obama and Clinton are "liberal elites." They are highly intelligent, have Ivy League law degrees, and when they talk they sound erudite, they don't sound like your average Joe. So there's a perception that they are "out of touch" with non-college working class people, even though their policies are helpful to those same people.

And, of course, Hillary's lack of charisma didn't help. Nor did her being a wealthy long-time Washington insider. But that also has nothing to do with progressive policies, it's all about perception. What she actually ran for, and what the Dems have been fighting for for many years, is highly progressive.

Men can be look like something the cats dragged in, like Sanders, or be boring to the point of tears, like Obama, or they can be stark raving lunatics like Donald Trump. That is okay because they are all MEN.

Women have to be a thousand times as good to be seen as just as good.

A lot of us said the same thing about Kerry in '04. And Gore in '00. And Dukakis and Mondale, back in the day.

Between 2009 and 2011 the Democrats held three branches of government. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority leaders Byrd then Inouye. Remember them?

What progressive policies were enacted that helped the American main street?

I understand how Goldman was paid 100% by the American taxpayer during that time for their losses in AIG. Where was the help for the homeowner under water? Where was the help for the person that needs to file bankruptcy to get out from under student debt, but can't because that is illegal now? Wonder why that is?

The Democratic party goes into overdrive to help the corporatist. Show me the progressive works done on behalf of the American people. I would love to read about it.

Financial reform? You are kidding, right? Exactly who was punished for the crimes committed by Wall Street and the con jobs perpetrated on the American people. No one? Wonder why that is? Maybe it has to do with how close the Democratic party is to Wall Street. The Democratic party was able to push through a hugely watered down Dodd-Frank. Capitulation. Wonder why that is?

Remember the health care push? Remember the total cave in on universal health care day one? Was ACA the best for the American worker or best for big pharma and big health care? Wonder why what was best for the American people was never given even the smallest of debate?

We STILL don't negotiate drug prices under Medicare part D. Wonder why that is? Because the Democratic party supports the little guy/gal so much? Maybe because of the money big health sends to the superdelegates.

How about the TPP? It took a orange orangutan (R?) to kill it. President Obama (D) was pushing FOR it. Why? Because it is best for main street or best for Wall Street?

Show me all the progressive actions taken by the Democratic party and screw the "we have plans" or "pity us we were obstructed" BS. We have held the Presidency and the Congress before. Show me the actions. Show me the results.

We need to rebuild the Democratic Party. Now. We need to take it back from the third-wayers, the corporatists and the superdelegates.

The first two years of Obama were the most progressive in many decades. He accomplished a huge amount, and improved the lives of millions.

Your post is riddled with falsehoods, and goes to show that the problem is communication, not policy. For example, the government didn't pay any money to Goldman, it gave a loan to AIG which was later paid back. I would have guessed that most people would understand the difference between "loan" and "payment", not to mention "AIG" vs "Goldman", but I guess we need to work on that.

Also, the AIG loan was made in 2008, when Bush was president, but here you are blaming Obama for it. Again, I would have thought people understood that Obama was inaugurated in 2009, but I guess we need to work on that too.

And so on.

The facts are, Obama's Democratic party was highly progressive.

I specifically mentioned ACA. Where was universal health care? - a real progressive approach. Who in the Democratic party really pushed for that? Can't tell me? Didn't think so.

Where were the teeth in Dodd-Frank? I see criminals "settling" with the government for their crimes, but tell me about all the screwed over homeowners that got help, the real progressive results. Can't? Didn't think so. Show me all the criminals that have been jailed due to Dodd-Frank. Can't? Didn't think so.

As to the "It was all Bushes fault" on the bail out of corporations, but not the people. Are you really uninformed or purposely slinging misleading bullshit to deflect? Here you go if you haven't read up on it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28618062/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/obama-team-urgent-need-bailout-money/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-agrees-to-obama-bailout-request/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99385376
http://www.wsj.com/video/obama-team-pushes-for-bailout-money/39DE5A39-7BA9-4571-A620-C6DB121D67A6.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/obama_team_extends_tarp_bailou.html
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1011/bailout.html
http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2009-02-08-voa11-68767327/359254.html

And those were just a few off the top. Do your homework next time before posting a bullshit reply to me.

We need to rebuild the Democratic party now. No more third way corporatist agenda. Let's help the people of the United States and win some elections.

on Obama.

ACA was indeed a huge progressive accomplishment. It could and would have been better if it weren't for the GOP and Joe Lieberman, but still it was a big step forward.

Dodd-Frank is another huge progressive accomplishment. It has a lot of components -- CFPB, derivative clearing, liquidation authority, etc. -- but all in all it is the most significant piece of financial regulation since WW2. What you don't seem to understand is that Dodd-Frank was not enacted until after the financial crisis, so it could not be used to prosecute people or firms for things that happened in the run-up to 2008. Again, I would have thought this was self-evident, but I guess not.

As far as the bailout, your specific example of AIG occurred under Bush. I don't know why you decided to pick something that happened under Bush in your anti-Obama tirade, but you did. Yes, Obama continued TARP, because without it the financial system would have collapsed leading to a depression. I guess some people out there would rather have seen a second great depression than to extend loans to banks, but I'm not one of them, and thankfully, neither was Obama.

Obama has nothing to do with "Third Way," which is an obscure think tank that nobody cares about except for leftist bloggers. Unless you've decided to redefine "Third Way" to mean "not a second great depression", in which case I'm all for it.

You want a continuation of the current system. You very much like it in fact.

You a Wall Street guy?

BTW - Obama pushing TPP, not indicting Wall Street thugs, no universal healthcare push - , all third way talking points.

It is time to rebuild the Democratic party and take it away from the third (loser) way.

..focusing on a positive economic message that would energize working class voters would also benefit all Americans of all colors and religions and sexuality who are counted among that working class, and that the things need not be mutually exclusive.

Oh wait.....

Let's have a bullshitter elected.

You are basically making a sexist statement because few women actually have this trait called "charisma." Certainly Elizabeth Warren doesn't have it. Neither does Michelle Obama.

Probably the last woman who had "charisma" was Diana, Princess of Wales, and look what happened to her.

Michelle Obama may, but she isn't out speaking on issues as much as Sen. Warren or Sec. Clinton. so I don't have an opinion one way or another. Michelle Obama does have class and style. I hope she gets into politics in her own right. I think she would do well.

On another note - I think your immediate offense at the posts above are a reason for our losses. It immediately jumps to an identity issue, in this case, gender.

We couldn't hold a class war if we wanted, it seems we have too many of our own to fight first.

Trump will have spent four years being a horrifically militarist president. People who WANT us to keep sending in the Marines or the Delta Force aren't going to vote against him...nor are people who want us to keep trying to re-arrange the Arab/Muslim world by force.

We are only going to win if we offer at least something of a break from perpetual war.

You need to stop this.Notice, I am not mentioning a different candidate...done with that. I am putting this behind me ...made up my mind. Can't change the past...time to join together and to defeat Trump...we certainly have to be perceived as strong on terrorism.

The party needs work. Especially after the DNC mess over the nomination process. That increased the anger and division. The enthusiasm Sanders brought for the young people was never created by the Clinton campaign. She was a flawed candidate no doubt. But she was not appearing in the Midwest very much. Huge mistake. Legitimate offense vs. over the top butthurt overtook the party. Racism, sexism, homophobia and other discrimination need to be fought but there needs to be an adjustment in approach. She paved the way for the first woman President though. But the next candidate needs that passion in speaking with the people and needs to be approachable. The elitist bs is such a roadblock. That needs to be addressed.

Every time we lose an election we get those calls for burning down the house and throwing the baby out with the bath water. The fact is she did win and is still winning and despite that, the man will still get the office because of the electoral college and the number of states that vote red. It is a problem that has plagued us ever since the founding fathers, to keep the peace and a more perfect union, went along to get along with the south's insistence on slavery. That decision still haunts us and is reflective in the politics of today. The dem's focus has been largely on the states they knew they could win (up to now) until DEan came along and showed us we could participate in all 50 states.

There were many, many factors which contributed to DT being given the WH, maybe too many to count, but we all know what they are. If you want to know how the dems do when the Con obstruction is made irrelevant consider California where after Arnuld put them in a huge deficit, like DT will do, they now have a huge surplus and is doing just fine. It's the same situation Obama faced. Dems need to be given a free hand and thus we need to get back to the 50 state strategy.

Pointing the finger at 'identity' politics and so forth is short-sighted and my suggestion to Senator Sanders is, if he's serious about change he needs to walk his talk and join the dem party for real. No more sitting on the sidelines and criticising everything and everyone else. He too has a share of the responsibility for how things turned out.

"Charisma" is a trait often found in CULT LEADERS. I don't want somebody who is a bullshitter-in-chief.

Tons of it.

Definition of charisma (Merriam-Webster)

1: a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (as a political leader)

2: a special magnetic charm or appeal <the charisma of a popular actor>

I don't see "bullshitter" in the definition.

There are going to be a lot of disaffected Americans, including ones who may even have voted for Trump or Johnson because they wrongly associate our party with Nanny Statism, who want things like an end to the drug war... the growing numbers of non-religious who don't like the takeover of the government by the religious right, etc.

By adopting a strong across the board pro-individual freedom approach on personal choice issues we can marginalize the GOP.

The DNC has done a terrible job these last eight years...especially at the state level. The house is gerrymandered and if we don't get some governorships and legislatures back, we are going to have ten more years with the house under GOP control. It is vital that we come together and beat the GOP. The House not being subject to the will of the people has turned our Republic on its head. It has led to a congress that cares nothing for the opinion of voters and fears primaries more than elections.

I strongly agree with the OP. There is no need to rebuild the Democratic Party

We need to work hard on restoring voting rights, un-forming the most gerrymandered districts, and get rid of caucuses during the primaries, for starters.

We need to examine the Electoral College and how it's beginning to fail us. We need to continue to try and get dark money out of politics.

I think the system failed us. The elected candidates are not the will of the people. Checks and balances have broken down. Many of the institutions set up to protect us are not doing so.

I am not willing to sacrifice what our party stands for because of some razor-thin margins in a few electoral districts.