And a majority of voters in both parties always back their nominee. But a majority of voters in either party is never enough to elect a President. Both Trump and Clinton start out with about 45% of the total vote licked in. The winning votes are found in the missing 10%, and those voters are much more reflective of the prevailing mood of the country.

In NY State for example he mostly didn't win the liberal big cities, but he won everywhere else.

Anyone running against her up here would have done similarly.

There was plenty of talk about it here at the time. Sometimes it took the form of asserting that Bernie was only winning with Independents but not true Democrats.

I'm not saying that's the only reason he did well, but it's certainly a factor. I personally know many people who refused to vote for her simply because she is a woman. There really is a giant culture difference between rural and urban areas.

Warren, Brown are the two most prominent examples.

... but in the case of Massachusetts at least the problem should be quickly self correcting with a special election shortly after Congress convenes. Until then Clinton could use her veto if we were one seat short of a majority in the Senate. The alternative could be Trump holding the veto pen.

If you can really pull the lever for Stein, Johnson or even stay home...you are a selfish care for nobody but yourself...and there is no moving those sort of voters...those who claim they won't vote for the lesser of the two evils...don't care if Americans are hurt or even die because of the evil that is Trump...there were a few of these sort of elections...Reagan vs Carter, Gore vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush...Most of these were all elections that mattered and they went the wrong way. Clinton vs BushI went for us and the courts were saved because of Clinton's win.The Greens are an irresponsible group that never try to build a progressive movement, but only tear down Democrats while inexplicably ignoring Republicans and they cost us big in 2000 and 2004 ...trying for a repeat in 2016...hopefully voters are smarter this time.

It's not literal "defectors" to the Left that the Democrats most have to fear this year. More of a problem will be Union member defections to the Right.

Hopefully Sanders push will get people more focused on the movement and less on the presidency. A lot of good stuff is happening at the local levels that gets ignored.

Having said that, I thought Clinton had a nicely populist message in the speech she gave after Sanders endorsement. I'm less worried about Clinton than I am about Kaine. But I think the top of the Democratic party will follow the base if the base gets organized (we've seen this before, and we're seeing this a bit now). And we'll have more decent populist candidates in 2024 if we get them into office now. So a lot more focus on the lower levels is going to go a long way.

are literal defectors and are de facto Trump supporters ...no matter how often they claim progressive status.

Once it is I don't intend to bad mouth it here if I am not pleased with it.

The campaign does not start to many Americans until the conventions. Let her make her national campaign
voice be heard before saying that there is no populist voice. It's premature to say that.

Additionally, a VP pick has to be thought out on many levels.

It make sense to me.

Hillary will get over 90% of the African American vote, over 75% of the Hispanic vote, and over 75% of the Asian and mixed race vote. With that as a base she will only need approximately 30-35% of the white vote. That is a low bar. Even McGovern in 72 and Mondale in 84 reached it.

She is betting there are enough white Americans, most of whom are women and/or college educated who will not take a risk on Donald Trump. They are too invested in the status quo to take a flyer on a mad man.

If the contrast between her and Trump at the top of the ticket isn't enough to make that point a VP pick to reinforce it won't make a difference.

the money.

Is "working people" another synonym for white people?

There is no racial message in my OP. Populists come in every color. And some are more compelling than others in how they sell that position.

and we work ~so we are the working class too!

Our candidate is brilliant and I trust her to pick her running mate. Many great choices. A good problem!

Heads are stuck too far into the sand

Starting an OP with lots of caps and explanation points. It might make you feel better.

Our presidential nominee is the establishment in a "strongly anti-establishment election cycle", and you're worried about the VP pick???

Wow.

Another pick could signal she's heard and taken seriously the issues raised during the primary. Apparently not.

He's as ESTABLISHMEnT as they come. A predatory capitalist, a liar, a racist, anti-women. A right wing chickenhawks.

Not a fan of Kaine but let's stop pretending Trump gives a shit about anybody but rich white people.

But then again I've never been a swing voter either.

That he is the 'change' candidate and the protector of the working class.

Seems our focus should be undercutting it with the actual facts when we GOTV and talk to swing voters

Additionally we should make the term 'Establishment' and 'Status Quo' meaningful again, rather than an amorphous smear aimed at other DU'ers we have 10% ideological differences with. Or progressive Democrats who didn't endorse our primary candidate. Quite frankly, the GOP platform is solidly establishment, Dem platform in most cases challenges the GOP status Quo.

How effectively we refute that framing. I am not making an amorphous smear. If feels a little like blaming a messenger. The public mood this election cycle relative to most other ones has been discussed extensively, both here and elsewhere. Call it whatever you want, anti-establishment, anti-status quo, wanting a change from business as usual, anxious, lacking confidence in our institutions, angry, the potential list can go on. The best way to effectively defuse Trump's false message is a legitimate topic for debate, and as is usually the case, more than one approach in combination most likely will be needed. And not the whole public is effected, nor reacting the same way. but there are some trends. Discussing how to best deliver the Democratic Party message is not defacto accepting Trump's framing.

Just to be clear.

And obviously we agree on looking for effective strategies for defeating Trump.

On edit: In my mind, Senator Warren's approach is very effective:

Elizabeth Warren On Trump: 'He Sounded Like A Two-Bit Dictator
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512277010