I am trying to debate about the big picture here

which to me and Obama comes down to playing a role in government by having a seats in elected office or being relegated to shouting in frustation from the outside to get any attention.

Lets remove policy from the debate and just look at strategy. Is a pragmatic candidate more often going to win vs. one running from a more ideologial perspective? Absolutely. In other words for an ideologial stance to have the advantage requires some unusal imbalance in the country to be able to capture the majority. That imbalance will happen (must happen) but hopefully only infrequently and hopefully the severity will be limited. If you disagree with that hopefully part then that is where we differ.

To review what I think are the facts:
The Democratic party lost the debate over economic policy in 1980. The GOP took advantage of that rather masterfully. They funded think tanks, lobbyists, and media and affected public opinion and votes. And they poured it on year after year, distorting the facts and muddying up the debate and distracting people from the real issues. They used wedge issues to divide the country. Maybe this list can be added to?

As a result the Democratic party determined through our normal process what strategy to use to win elections. To win votes. Prior to 1992 we had lost 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. Since then we have had the advantage winning 4 of the last 6. And we could further look at the two houses of congress which I am sure would paint a similar picture.

How to describe that new strategy in the fewest words? I think it can be described as less ideological and more pragmatic. It simply looked at public opinion and crafted a winning strategy. It was heavy in positive messaging and not angry rhetoric.

We now see what it took for the laissez-faire believers and champions to be truly stymied. It took a lot more than words. It took more than predictions by experts. It took more than principled candidates from the left like Kucinich, and many others. It basically took a financial collapse and 8 years of solid leadership to turn enough public opinion around on trickle down to remove that as strong position to take in an election for the pukes. Polls show the Democratic Party is more liberal now than 8 years ago. I am thrilled that we can finally take more liberal positions and have a high probability to win elections as I am sure that vast majority of Democrats are.

Our primary this year pitted the pragmatic view vs. a more ideological view. In actual policy positions, not a huuuuuge divide. More divide on strategy and rhetoric. With the greatest dislocation of the financial crisis behind us it appears the Democrats are going again with the pragmatist.

Ok enough facts
What were the consequences other than winning elections? We often hear or see arguments that it resulted in a poorer chance to turn back public opinion and to make real change. But in order to make real change you must win elections. This is a chicken or the egg argument, it is really just a waste of time.

The other lesson I think is that in our rather stable system of government it takes time and major imbalance for people to forget what they think they know about complex things like the economy. This predicts that if we move forward with some measure of carefulness this could be the beginning of a long period of more and more liberal policy.

Thomas Perez Sec. of Labor on MSNBC for Hillary

Interviewed by Chuck Todd

He is doing a pretty good job talking about how Hillary has always been for shaking things up, in response to Chuck Todd's question about whether Trump could take advantage of the young voters that want change. Pointed out that as a young lawyer she went out and fought the establishment for young people of color, then fought for universal healthcare...

Prior to that he quickly dismissed concerns about Sanders demands for changes to platform saying there will be party unity that both candidates have broad agreement on the issues.

Truth and Trumpism | Krugman - NYT

Truth and Trumpism
Paul Krugman MAY 6, 2016

How will the news media handle the battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? I suspect I know the answer — and it’s going to be deeply frustrating. But maybe, just maybe, flagging some common journalistic sins in advance can limit the damage. So let’s talk about what can and probably will go wrong in coverage — but doesn’t have to.

(snip)

This isn’t a new phenomenon: Many years ago, when George W. Bush was obviously lying about his budget arithmetic but nobody would report it, I suggested that if a candidate declared that the earth was flat, headlines would read, “Shape of the Planet: Both Sides Have a Point.” But this year it could be much, much worse.

(snip)

Finally, I can almost guarantee that we’ll see attempts to sanitize the positions and motives of Trump supporters, to downplay the racism that is at the heart of the movement and pretend that what voters really care about are the priorities of D.C. insiders — a process I think of as “centrification.”

(snip)

In fact, there was never a hint that any of these things mattered; if you followed the actual progress of the movement, it was always about white voters angry at the thought that their taxes might be used to help Those People, whether via mortgage relief for distressed minority homeowners or health care for low-income families.

(snip)

Complete Article NYT

This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest | Jill Abramson - The Guardian