You may have lost the White House, but you're totally getting one over them on video games.

Needs a horn that plays "Dixie" just sayin'

Hey, dude, we're looking! It isn't obvious.

One very plausible side says the disasters of 2016 teach us that we have to be a party for the whole country again: less emphasis on identity issues and campus politis (pronouns, speech codes, safe spaces). We have to want victory enough to moderate.

An equally plausible side says triangulation got us into this mess as no one knows what the Dems stand for except a comfy low-level corruption; it's time to be idealists again. The few victories we have seen have been where the idealsits came out on top, like Corbyn in the UK (though worth noting Labour's still in the minority). We have to want victory enough to be principled.

Both make total sense to me, and it's not an either-or answer, it's through a human filter: a very weak field of national candidates right now, since the leadership is compromised and really really old, while being out of power everywhere means fewer rising stars. Which is a damn shame because the demographic trends in America should be moving us toward a multi-ethnic, humanistic polity -- but do we have the leadership?

Update: Gillespie just lost. He lost BAD. :-) And now other Republicans will hopefully think twice before they throw away what principles they have left to go full Trump.

Maybe... it's okay for Dems to have both a liberal wing and a moderate wing. Maybe we can work TOGETHER. Maybe PRESERVING THE UNITED STATES OF FUCKING AMERICA might just be worth a little collaboration.

Don't let yourself get too optimistic. Virginia's always going to swing blue for the foreseeable future. Even with this, the Democrats are still in a bad place.

No shit we're in a bad place! We're a few breaths away from WWIII. Let's take progress where we can get it.

Lesson one: Democrats do better when they work together to win instead of tearing down the wing slightly less pure / moderate than themselves.