So, in that pattern we get a middle of the country white state, an eastern white state, an eastern southern state with a large African American population, and a random labor state (Nevada Democrats are union workers in the casinos, and such), first, and thus, an early look at what some semi-representative parts of the nation think of the candidates.

But then, this year, right away, boom, Super Tuesday.

So, CBS has put together a poll on the standing of the candidates in all the Super Tuesday states plus the first states. And, it is rather amazing.

Here is the breakdown:

Tier 1
Biden 25%
Warren 20%
Harris 16%
Sanders 15%

Tier 2
Buttigieg 6%
O’Rourke 4%
Castro 2%

Tier 3
Everybody else, all under 1%

Now, we need to adjust slightly. Note that Texas is in this poll. That is why O’Rourke is in the second Tier, I suspect. And, good for him. If his candidacy could guarantee Texas it would be good. Klobuchar’s Minnesota, also a Super Tuesday state did not help here in this poll. Among the many Minnesota Democrats I hear from, the most widespread comment I get is “Amy’s great. Senator Amy is great,” and that’s about it. We may be keeping her home. I suppose California being in this group may be helping Harris. Note also how well Warren is doing. Mass is a Super Tuesday state but I would think New York Dems would be very big on her.

For this poll, I suspect that Warren is underestimated and O’Rourke is overestimated, but overall, these numbers are roughly as expected. Notice that as noted elsewhere, Sanders is a 16%er and that’s it. Not much more and not much less.

After your comments and more research by me, I’ll clean up and refine the list. Meanwhile, I’m doing an initial informal bracket poll on Twitter. Go ave a look.

Oprah Winfrey
Mayor Mitch Landrieu
Senator Sherrod Brown
Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Sen. Chris Murphy
Michael Bloomberg
Eric Holder
Terry McAuliffe
Val Demmings
Sheryl Sandberg
Maggie Hassan
Kirsten Gillibrand
Rep John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Martin O’Malley
Mayor Eric Garcetti
Gov. Steve Bullock
Tammy Baldwin
Mayor Mark de Blasio
Cory Booker
Hillary Clinton
Sen Jeff Merkley
Gov John Hickenlooper
Joe Biden
Tammy Duckworth
Claire McCaskill
Rep Tim Ryan
Gov Jay Inslee
Sen Chris Murphy
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Corey Booker
Kamala Harris
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Beto O’Rourke

THIS IS THE NEXT PHASE GO HERE NOW

From a current NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, regarding likely voters:

(Source)

It looks to me that more mobilization is needed. Groups you would think have the highest stakes in this year’s election have low numbers.

Related to potential Kavanaugh effects, from the same poll:

Women are smarter than men, people with college degrees are smarter than those without, younger is smarter than older. Oddly, Independents dislike Kavanaugh to a greater degree than one would expect given the previously graph. (I’m suspicious of the category “Independent,” however.)

Regarding who should control congress, this:

The Republican Party is the party of whites, men, and to some degree older folks, while the Democratic Party is the party of people of color, women, younger folks, and the better educated.

Most critical may be the fact that 50% of likely voters prefer Democrats nation wide, while only 41% of likely voters prefer Republicans.

This will not, however, translate into more Republican members of congress. Local tradition, local campaigning, election rigging, and gerrymandering, determine who wins a given Congressional seat. Sadly. As I’ve suggested before, it is highly unlikely that a Democratic leaning American electorate will actually elect a Democratic majority Congress, in either house.

Expect Mud

This happened. I was sitting on the couch watching a football game (go Vikings!) and a political ad for our local Democratic candidate for Congress, Dean Phillips, came on. It was a positive, informative, up beat ad. Nice. Then, a political ad for the Republican incumbent, the Trump Lapdog Erik Paulsen, came up. It was negative, disgusting, and full of lies.

So the person watching the game with me, asked about why that ad was so horrible and why do the Democrats have such different ads. I said, “The Democrats used to use negative ads too, both parties did. ”

“Why?”

“Because experts told all the campaigns that they worked, and they did seem to work, so everybody did them. But this year, Democrats, at least here, decided to do no negative ads. So you see Republican negative ads, no Democratic negative ads.”

“I think,” he said, “If you have negative ads, some people learn to hate the other candidate so you win, but more people hate the whole idea and just stay home and don’t vote, and that matters more.”‘

“Hmm,” I replied. “Pretty smart for an eight year old, since that is exactly how we lost this race two years ago!”

Here’s the thing. Right now, Republicans are going to double down on negative ads, and they are going to work. Or, just ads that lie. For example, Representative Sarah Anderson, of the Minnesota house, is famous for a) reducing funding for education and b) opposing heath care reform. Her opponent, Ginny Klevorn, is famous for a) being very pro education and also, knowing a lot about how the school systems in her district are run, and b) wanting to link the health care plans state legislators have to the average cost and availability of health plans for all the citizens of the state, so they know exactly what everyone is experiencing (currently, Sarah Anderson and her Republican buddies in the MN Legislature have really great heath care plans!)

The people who live in this district have made it clear that they want more attention paid to, and more money spent on, education, and they want health care reform. So, naturally, anti-education and anti-health care reform Republican Sarah Anderson has put out lies in all her lit and other ads, painting herself as the savior of the education system and the savior of health care. Erik Paulsen is putting out negative, lie-filled, hate ads against Dean Phillips, in the US Congressional race here. The Republican dweeb running for Governor, Jeff Johnson, has been putting out hateful, dishonest ads, in his effort to catch up with Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Time Walz. And so on.

That’s all expected. What concerns me right now is the fact, just reported by the New York Times, that while Democrats have been out raising Republicans in recent weeks, Republicans have way more money to spend on elections, starting now.

Republicans entered the final month of the campaign with more money in the bank than the Democrats, providing them with vital ammunition as they wage a furious effort to hold on to control of Congress.

The most recent round of campaign finance disclosures, filed Saturday, showed that Republican national party committees, candidates in key House and Senate races and their top unlimited-money outside groups, or “super PACs,” had $337 million on hand as of Sept. 30. Their Democratic counterparts had $285 million in the bank on the same date.

What I don’t know is if this is simply more false balance reporting by the New York Times, or good analysis. Democratic superpacs have raised piles of money, a few million more than Republicans, and the superpacs represent more than half of the total campaign budget. But, it could be that Republicans are going to play their usual trick, swamping media markets where they are about to lose with lies, negative campaigning, and fear, and so in the end pull out and win. I would like to hope, but I dare not think, the post 2016 American electorate is not quite so easily manipulated.

Here’s the data from that report:

Send money to a Democrat!

Over the last several days, I went over every one of the US House races. Scan upwards in my post-stream to see the alphabetical treatment.

Looking at every race conservatively, and calling a turnover when it is certain, I count a net of 12 turnovers. That moves the Republican majority from 47 to 23. Respectable, but not world changing.

There are probably three or four races that people will be able to make strong arguments about that I chose not to count as turnovers. And, for every one I count as a turnover, there is approximately 1.5 races that are close enough that a magical and very powerful blue wave would push into the Dem column. So, I could take my 12 turnovers, make it 15, then add that times 150%. That would be VERY optimistic. It would rsult in Democrats having about 11 more seats than Republicans. This is extremely unlikely.

Indeed, even though chances of the Democrats winning the Senate are very low, they might be, in my opinion, higher than the chances of the Democrats winning the house.

We need to win both. We are likely to win neither. There is a very small chance we’ll win one. Nearly zero chance we’ll win both.

Keep in mind that is has almost always true for every race in recent decades, the Republicans pull 2 or three points out of their hats at the last second, I believe not counting voter suppression. This just has to do with how people poll, vote, and act. It is actually possible that my estimate of 12 turnovers will turn out to be too large a number.

50 are Republicans. 64 are Democrats.

This year, Arizona is likely to see a Republican seat flip to Democratic. California will likely flip 2, R to D. Colorado will likely flip 1.

So, it is likely that the party count for these first states, alphabetically speaking, will end up being 46-68. If this shift happens at this level across the US, Democrats will come to within about 75% of where they need to equal Republicans in the house, numerically.

Arkansas 2nd

Incumbent French Hill is ahead of Democratic challenger Clarke Tucker (there is a libertarian in the race as well, with a crumb of support but enough to propel the Republican into a statistical safety zone should he get hit by a bus at an intersection lacking proper stoplights or pedestrian walkway markings). But while fivethirtyeight puts this race as close and leaning Republican, there has been virtually no polling here. A PPP Poll in April put Hill ahead by 5 points, and a Hendrix College poll in early September put Hill ahead by 9 points.

The district went for Trump by and Romney by 12.

There have been Democrats representing this district.

A blue wave effect in this semi-urban area, a semi-liberal island in a sea of redness, would have to be strong, but a Democratic upset here is barely possible.

There are three interesting races in Arizona.

Arizona 02 was represented by Republican Martha McSally, who is now running for US Senate. Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick is running against Republican Lea Marquez Peterson. If Kirkpatrick sounds familiar to you, it is because she reprersented Arizona’s 1st district in the past. Kirkpatrick has also run (not successfully) against Senator McCain.

There has been only one poll here, one of those New York Times/Siena polls that seem to be mainly a way for the NYT to sell newspaper subscriptions. But maybe it is a good poll, and it shows Kirkpatrick ahead by 11 points. It is generally expected that this will be a turnover.

Arizona’s 6th and 8th districts are very likely Republican keeps, but there are viable Democratic challengers there, so there is a barely possible turnover in each of those districts, if the Blue Wave is big and strong and reaches the desert.

For a state with one gazillion house districts, California has only a handful of races that might produce a turnover.

California 39th. The seat is currently held by Edward Royce, but this Republican is leaving in what some might consider an anti-Republican or anti-Trump protest. Fivethirtyeight suggests that the race is a tossup, leaning towards the Republican. One poll shows Democrat Gil Sisneros ahead by one point, another poll shows Republican Young Kim ahead by 10. Both polls were taken about the same time, but the Cisneros favoring one, by Berkeley IGS, a little later and overlapping with the Kavanaugh Outrage Event.

For this reason, I’m going to say that this race will probably go Republican (and thus not be a turnover) but with a medium blue wave, Democrat Sisneros can win. By the way, the Democrat is a man, and the Republican a woman. If that had been reversed, perhaps the Kavanaugh Outrage Effect would be stronger.

California 45 is currently represented by Republican Mimi Walters, but Democrat Katie Porter is favored by 538. This race was much closer until the Kavanaugh hearings developed, after which Porter has run away. This is a very likely turnover.

Republican Darrel Issa is bailing from his seat in California’s 49th district. Democrat Mike Levin is well head (in two polls) of Republican Diane Harkey. This is a likely turnover.

The 10th, 25th, and 48th districts in California also have close races worth watching.

In Colorado, Republican incumbant Mike Coffman is showing poorly in polling (entirely by NY Times/Siena) against Democratic challenger Jason Crow. This is likely to be a party turnover and unseating of an incumbent Republican.

Florida’s 6th district is especially interesting. The seat was held by a Republican, who is no longer running. The current candidates include Michael Waltz, the Republican, and Nancy Soderberg, the Democrat. Nancy is actually the sister of my close personal friend John, with whom I worked for several years at the University of Minnesota. Soderberg is one of those women Rachel Maddow has mentioned who come from the security community, many of whom are running this year for Congress, as Democrats. If I recall correctly, and I’m sure I’ll have some of this wrong, Nancy Soderberg was staff for Senator Ted Kennedy. She served in the Clinton White House key staff on the National Security Council, and later, as ambassador to the United Nations. She ran for Congress in 2012, lost, but did well.

Unfortunately, Republican Waltz is projected by 538 to win this race. However, the most recent polling, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (a Democratic Partisan source) puts them at even. Soderberg can win with a medium to strong Blue Wave, but I’m not going to put her in the turnover column at this time.

Elsewhere in Florida, 26th District incumbent Republican Carlos Curbelo is being seriously challenged by Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. The two are essentially neck and neck in polling, though Curbelo has been consistently ahead. This is a race that will be won by the Democrat if a normally uncounted faction, such as female millennials, show up to vote in larger numbers.

But that’s just me talking. All I have to offer is experience in campaigns since the 1970s. What you really want to do is listen to Rachel Maddow, who has a whole staff and a big brain. She says different. I hope she is right and I am wrong. (For the record, we rarely disagree.)

Whatever.

Now, the California state Democratic party has had an endorsing event. You will see the following FALSEHOODS promulgated because of it:

• Now that Berniebots/Progressives have added their own candidate to the race, the Democrats can’t win, this race
• Progressives are going to throw Diane Feinstein out despite her great power and service and wondrfulness
• Other similar things.

But, the truth is, the way the system works in California, there are exactly two people running in the general election for Senate: Feinstein and de Leon. There are no Republicans, do the Democrat will win.

Also, given that Feinstein cleaned de Leon’s clock in the primary, you can bet that she’ll win the general election as well. But, who knows, either one could win.

There is relevance to what is happening here. Within the California Democratic Party, progressives have suddenly developed a significant power base, quite possibly displacing both centrists and labor. If that is a bad thing, don’t worry. Given the primary system in California, they can’t do too much damage. If it is a good thing, then this is a real good thing, in my opinion, because we actually need to have more progressives, and we need to drop the centrist, incremental, line and be more strongly true to our values.

Personally, I’d like to see Feinstein stay to continue the fight against Trump. Personally, I’d like to see de Leon win, because we need to be shifting towards a more progressive landscape. Personally, I’d like to see the Republican lose this race, and that is going to happen for sure because there is no Republican in this race.

So everything in California is good. Stop whinging, y’all!

(The exact details and numbers are not important.)

Feel free to suggest revisions. I’ve already got a few.

Hillary hatge is a typo, but I’ve also updated it: Hilary Hate (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)

Also, the Democratic Baseline is actually larger than the Republican Baseline, but the suppression effects of Democratic turnout are typically larger than on Republican turnout, who just show up no matter what. So I’ve adjusted that.

I seriously doubt Donald Trump will be re-elected president in 2020, but not because he will lose to a Democrat. Rather, he’ll be replaced on the ticket before that (he may not know it but he doesn’t automatically get to run as a Republican) or he’ll be removed from office by force of law, by illness or death, or some other means before then.

The person who will be elected in 2020 will be a Republican. Why? Because the Democrats are going to hand the presidency to the Republicans in 2020, and every election year after that, until a generation of Democrats has grown old and died off.

And no, I’m not talking about millennials. Well, some of them I assume, but I’m really talking about Democrats of all ages and stripes, and not all of them, but a percentage of them. About half on a bad day but no less than about 20% of them.

I’ve done this experiment a number of times and it never fails. Name a possible candidate and float the idea. At first that candidate may get some support, nice things may be said, but it won’t take long before naysayers jump into the conversation and start whinging and whining about the candidate, and promulgate the idea that this candidate is unacceptable, and if this candidate runs they’ll vote for the Republican or move to Lithuania or whatever.

Not just “I prefer someone else” or “this or that thing is problematic” but rather, this candidate did or said something once that makes them so bad that we might as well not even have an election if they are running.

Almost all the time the reason for the hate, if you trace it to its origin, is not based on logic, reason, or good information. Sometimes there is a grain of truth, or even a real difference on an issue. But the complainer never seems to realize that it is a simple truth that not one of us has a clone, a doppelganger, a perfect duplicate of wonderful, wise, and perfect selves out there anywhere, let alone one that is running for office. And, most of the time, the issue difference is one or the other of these things: 1) not important or 2) imagined.

Among these naysayers I believe there are two types. One is the growing number of the seriously engrumpled, often older Democrats who have gone over some kind of edge of senility, or sometimes the are younger and ignorant, but in all cases they are very selfish individuals who have put the affectation of hate before party, politics, people, and civilization. The other type is the Russian operative, or someone who is so enthralled by such an operative, or perhaps paid off, that we get the same result.

An example of the former: I approach a small gaggle of old timey Democrats at a fund raiser. I know these folks, and I know they are loyal party members, who will be happy to argue hard about issues and candidates, but who will always support the final outcome of the party process and fight to the end to get the candidate elected. The issue of Hillary vs. Bernie comes up and it turns out that they supported Bernie in the earlier stages of the primary, but that part of the primary is over, and he isn’t going to be the candidate. Instead of shifting to get behind the party goals, they tell me that they are going to throw the party under the bus and who knows who they are going to support (the conventions have not happened yet but it feels like they are planning to vote for Trump.) Understand, now that over the previous ten years, these are the same people that were at every party event, organizing, selling bratwurst, running a silent auction, helping to set up meetings and events, all of it. Not the level of operative that convenes a meeting or acts as a chair, but not occasional volunteers either. Perennial fixtures. Perennial fixtures gone, suddenly and alarmingly, bad. Ever since then, they have been regular and habitual naysayers of this or that or some other thing to the extent that one might prefer they just take off and become Republicans because they can do their psychological damage over there, to them, and not over here, to us.

An example of the latter: A widely respected leader in a particular political area, highly influential and generally liked by his followers, is suddenly advising people to come out against a Democrat running for a key office, one of those races that Democrats needed to win to show the world that we are going to stand up to Trump. He privately notes that his organization is going to come out with material attacking the Democrat in the race. Soon after, that in fact happens, and literature that was apparently created by left leaning organizations that no one ever heard of before is being distributed everywhere, in a widespread effort to disgruntle Democrats and make them stay home in that race. I am as certain as I can be without being absolutely certain that this was paid for by the Russians, though perhaps indirectly, in part because it is exactly the same scenerio that happened in cases where we now know the Russians were involved, and partly because of the nature of the thing. I could be wrong, of course. And, the effort failed partly because it was too late, and partly because the braggart let the cat out of the bag too early and the appropriate parties were warned in advance that it was coming.

Those two groups of people are going to reduce the heft of each and every Democratic candidate that comes from the usual sources, including existing elected officials everywhere. Between long standing and still in place voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the fact that nearly half of Americans are right wing yahoos anyway, this absolutely guarantees a loss in a presidential race against any Republican candidate. Even a clown like Trump. Like actually happened. Remember?

This is why it is interesting to see everyone jump on the Oprah bandwagon when she gives one good speech and has not indicated she is running for anyone. We are so desperate for bigness we’ll take any large scale celebrity. This is illustrated in the diagram below. Take any candidate and subtract the damage caused by this senseless and ubiquitous hate. What you get is a candidate diminished sufficiently to guarantee a loss to a Republican candidate. Alternatively, take any large celebrety, who is much larger than any politician because that is simply the way it is with celebrities. Subtract the same hate, and what to you get? A winner.

So, here is my statement to anyone who nay-says Oprah or any other celebrity. You may be right to say not to this person, but is it also the case that you have participated in prior acts of senseless and stupid cannibalism of more typical candidates? Because if the answer to that is yes, then time for you to shut up and live with the situation you created.

Let’s just hope we get a good celebrity.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is the first in a series of books that are metaphorical of the central theme of politics and society in the Western world. Voldemort represents purity of race and racism, the good Witches and Wizards of Hogwarts represent the struggle of self aware consensus around the idea of fairness. The key protagonists — Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ron Weasley, together with a few others — succeed because of the diversity in ability they collectively represent.

One of the key moments in J. K. Rowling’s book is the solution of the potions challenge on the way to the hidden room containing the Sorcerer’s stone. There are several challenges and problems, and each one is met by a different protagonist. Harry has the ability to make Hagrid reveal his poorly kept secrets, so among other things the three students find out how to control Fuffy, the giant three-headed hound. He is also a skilled Seeker, and can thus grab the flying key. Hermione is the one that notices the trap door. Ron for all his failings is a master at Wizard Chess. The theme here is obvious. The three students often fail to understand each other and often do not see eye to eye, but by combining their different strengths and working together, they accomplish what no individual Witch or Wizard could do. The part about the potions challenge is a notably extreme case of this.

Voldemort and his death eaters, and the Slytherin such as Draco Malfoy and his father, as well as Snape, resent the half breeds and muggle-born. They wish to see those who are not pure removed from their society, by any means. The historical fact that Voldemort himself is a halfbreed, a thinly veiled reference to Hitler’s Jewish connections, is beside the point. But it is the muggle-born Hermione who solves the potions puzzle using a Muggle capacity rarely found in Wizards. Wizards, we are told by Rowling, have magical minds, not logical minds. Among the Muggles we find those like Hermione, who probably spent hours with brain teaser books as an eight year old, who are capable of solving complex logical problems, problems that seem impossible but in fact have only one solution. When Hermione and Harry reach the potions challenge, where drinking all of the liquids but one will cause a horrible outcome, but that one potion will open the next door, her Muggle mind comes into play. Harry does not understand how Hermione has solved the problem, but he trusts her with his life.

It is very unfortunate that this scene was left out of the movie version of the story, even though it is alluded to after the fact. As far as I can tell, the scene was never shot (correct me if I am wrong). To me, this is a key message in Rowling’s book. The fact that it was not transferred into the movie version, and that commentary on the book vs. movie differences tend note it but do not lament it, is a bit disappointing.

Death Eaters, Good Witches and Wizards, Republicans, and Democrats

Ask yourself, what is the message of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, other than racial purity and a high degree of intolerance? There is only one, revealed by Voldemort himself, and others including the Sorting Hat, in a few places throughout the story. The only thing that really counts is power. There is no good and evil. Just power.

That is a simple message, easy to understand. You don’t have to be smart, or learned, or thoughtful, to get this point. It may be untrue, but if you say it enough times, and live by it, it becomes true to the faithful. Professor Quirinus Quirrell is a prescient example of how this can play out, that character written almost as though Rowlings had a crystal ball allowing her to see the future of politics in the four largest Anglophone countries. Quirrell is like a working class Tea Party faithful. It does not matter how much pain he will suffer to serve his master, he will remain faithful, and he will keep repeating the message, and in this way, he will continue to believe the message.

Now ask yourself, what is the central theme for the the rest of the Witches and Wizards? There really isn’t one. I’ve alluded to consensus, and there is that. Fairness too, a theme we see played out, naturally, in the sports related manifestation of the greater metaphor, on the Quidditch field. But really, they are all over the place. They vary greatly in approach, what they think is important, what they are good at, and what they like to do. They are like Democrats.

Rowling’s three main protagonists, Harry, Hermione, and Ron, have differences that could and occasionally did interfere with their camaraderie. They couldn’t be much more different in background, proclivities, and abilities. Harry is rich, Ron is poor. Harry and Ron are not particularly intellectual, Hermione is an egghead. Harry throws himself into danger, the others are more cautious. And so on. Often, they annoy each other. This is seen in the early days of their relationship and comes to a head later in the series more than once. But when a task that requires multiple approaches is set before them, they manage to succeed by using these differences. Their power does not come merely from fetishizing power, it comes from piecing together a battery that is stronger as a whole than the sum of its parts. Again, they are like Democrats.

The 2014 Election

During the 2014 election, and this has happened before, many Democrats ran against their leader, President Obama. A Republican strategy would have been different. Keep the message clear; our leader is the greatest ever and we are all on the same page.

A large scale, if imperfect, overhaul of the country’s health care insurance system was badly needed and totally undoable, yet President Obama did it. Democrats fell into the trap of over acknowledging the imperfection, and many with other important agendas (like addressing climate change) decried the health care reform effort as a distraction. Well, the Affordable Care Act certainly is imperfect, and climate change action may have suffered from the distraction, but Republicans would not have used these points a razor to cut their own wrists. Democrats did. Democrats acted like Harry, Hermione and Ron over-bickering and failing to get through the challenges set to keep them from the Sorcerer’s Stone. Had the three young wizards acted like Democrats usually act, Voldemort would have succeeded in his plan to seize power before the second book was written. Had Democrats, in the 2014 election cycle, acted like Rowling’s characters actually did (fictionally) act, this may not have been a midterm washout.

What Democrats Need To Do

Democrats need to be more thoughtful about when they go about the important business of eating their own young. American politics has a two-stage configuration, conveniently divided by Primary Day. Before Primary Day we fight within parties, and after Primary Day we fight between parties. Or at least, that is the theory. But that is not how Democrats often do it. With a simple message that is usually not muddled at any stage during this process, Republicans can be in lockstep as they advance their political agenda (gaining power). Democrats see this as a deficit. There is no real conversation in the Republican party. A small number of loudmouths yell out the marching orders and everyone marches. The few who do not are fallen upon and devoured quickly. Democrats recognize that this approach does not solve problems. Republicans recognize that this approach wins elections.

What Democrats need to do is to take a page — one page — from the Republican playbook. They need to recognize what it takes to win elections, and go win some. This does not mean failing to have the conversation, failing to try to solve problems. It can be accomplished, rather, by doing a better job at dividing up the process into its proper stages. Democrats have compensated for their failure to come together the day after Primary Day by getting very good at the technical aspects of getting out the vote, that sort of thing. But Democrats who don’t think the Republicans won’t figure this out and get just as good at it are deluded. Having a great database and a great call center to get out the vote is necessary but not sufficient over the long term. Democrats have refined the medium, now they must refine the message.

Today is the day after election day, and we see Democrats already fighting about what went wrong. That is probably helpful, that is an important conversation to have. Democrats need to shift quickly into fighting about the solutions to our nation’s and our world’s real problems (at the local level too) and pretty quickly start fighting about who to put up for election next term. Fight and bicker and whinge but try to keep the conversation productive. Then, on Primary Day, put on the marching boots and the big girl and boy pants and all head in the same direction and act like a team. No, don’t act like a team, be a team. If your favorite candidate and your favorite issue failed to emerge as everyone else’s favorite, acknowledge that you are not the only person on the planet, suck it up, and get on board. It only seems like our election cycles go on forever. In truth, it is only a few months between Primary Day and Election Day. Everything you do that is off course during those months is self harm. Stop doing that.

Then, win.

Then, start up again with the bickering and consternation, conversing and cajoling, until the next cycle. Rinse, repeat. The Democratic Party represents a larger share of the American Public than does the Republican Party, yet it is not in the majority. This is not because Republicans win more. It is because Democrats lose more. Stop doing that.