No Democratic candidate has won the white vote since LBJ, so this isn't a new problem. And Clinton won among the working class. If working class whites have much different expectations than working class persons of color, one must consider why that is (hint: you shouldn't need a hint).

"The party should instead focus on opposing voter suppression and gerrymandering and boosting turnout among already established demographics: Black people, Latinos, Asian Americans, and young voters."

Yep.

we should expect to lose for every 8 years a democrat is in office.

every 8 years people who are in the age group of 18-25, and do not have a great memory of the last republican president , tend to believe that R and D are too similar. they end up voting third party to express said disapproval.

as long as we depend on the youth vote, we should factor this in.

In 2012 even, people who were 25-29 were stronger for Obama than 18-24 voters, because the former group are the ones who had to get jobs in the post crash economy.

Since GOP voters don't have as many young people in their coalition, this isn't as big a problem for them.

And they more easily buy into the notion that the 2 major parties are essentially the same, as LLP points out. Because millennials are such a large bloc at this time, some have gotten the impression that party loyalty is declining, but that isn't really the case. Plus, many fail to understand that the vast majority of "independents" are actually party loyalists (even more so than partisans were 40 years ago) who just like to call themselves "independent" (this is backed up by numerous studies).

... a mythical higher turnout doesn't sound like winning

If the guy knew what he was talking about...

* In the 60's, so many of these small towns and rural areas were doing SO much better economically than today. Many are now in very dire economic straights, and Trump's message of re-opening factories and attacking bad trade deals definitely resonated. No denying it.

* Obama won MANY of these working class voters that now went for Trump. So MANY do vote primarily on economics. We can't win all white working class voters back, but we can win many back with the right economic arguments and respect of their culture.

* The "either/or" argument is a load of horse shit. We are talking about boosting economic populism, not abandoning social progressivism. And, just because saying you agree with the right of legal and safe gun owners to hunt and target shoot is not abandoning progressive ideals in any way, shape, or form. A bleeding heart liberal can also be an avid hunter.

* We MUST return to our working class roots and stop being the party of corporate-lite!! And we need to be more than a party of liberal social issues. Those issues are important, but people MAINLY vote on ECONOMICS, not social issues. Any survey will tell you that JOBS AND THE ECONOMY is always the number one issue. People want something tangible for their vote.

* If we are to be the "party of the people" that means ALL the people EVERYWHERE, not only certain groups. Yes, we need to embrace all people and value all people, but that sure as heck doesn't mean ABANDONING white working class or ANY voters. Just writing them off is STUPID.

* This OP is a death knell for our party! It is this very kind of thinking which has hollowed us out at the state and local levels and has now led us to being the minority in the national government too.

* Sure we need to go after gerrymandering, but we can't do that without winning state majorities and that means we need a message for small town and rural voters too. We also need to bolster our traditional voting blocks including young people, and we do that with a powerful JOBS message too. We can not just win on identity politics and liberal social issues. We need a strong, compelling, CLEAR, working and middle class economic message too that we put FRONT AND CENTER!!

we have a huge problem outside of large cities, coastal areas, and college towns. In many of these states where the gerrymandering is at it worst, we can't hope to run the same candidates we run in NYC or Seattle or Miami, we have to run candidates that are as progressive as the local political climate - at present - will allow. That doesn't mean we get a pro-choice Klan member to run in Pigsnuckle, Arkansas, but it does mean that we may have to compromise on some finer points until such time that the locals realize progressives aren't the agents of Satan and we're actually going to HELP them. Once you start filling up the state houses with Democrats - some of them possibly at odds with certain DNC positions but fundamentally progessive in terms of government's role in improving the lives of those in need - well, then we can not only enact laws and policies that make a difference in average people's lives, but we can end the gerrymandering fiascos that have helped the GOP seize power with less than half the population's support.

Over time, the less progressive elected officials will either evolve or be replaced by more progressive party members. But we have to start someplace, and we can't expect the folks in Jesusland to jump from 1860 to 2016 overnight. It may take a decade or more, but we need to get to work. Some of them are just too stupid to evolve on their own. We can help. Some of them will fight. We should be prepared for that as well.

Clinton and Democrats already campaign on economics...to a far more substantial degree than Trump did. Trump spewed lies and vague gobbledygook. "We're looking at jobs--big league jobs." Um, okay.

Clinton campaigned on universal early childhood education, expansion of health insurance, 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, generating "enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term," a substantial increase to the federal minimum wage, equal pay for women, debt-free and more affordable college, free community college, "a $25 billion fund will support historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions," the development of new green industries, massive infrastructure investment, etc.

And Clinton won among the working class. If some (not all) white working class voters have much different expectations than the working class overall, it's not difficult to determine why.

Only a segment of the working class actually votes for Trump. He does not have the entire working class vote in his pocket. And that segment does so because they're racist. They cannot be won back, certainly not with an economic message. They aren't the reason we lose. It is a fool's errand to chase after them. Trump has them solidly in his corner. He has them along with all the rest of the GOP voters, including a lot of rich elites, the vast majority of whom are racists.

That isn't to say that Dems don't need to strengthen their economic message, but the reason isn't to win back these mythical voters we lost. They were never ours to begin with. The GOP, with Reagan destroyed our middle class. The Dems didn't do that. The vast majority of people in that class still vote Dem the way they always have. It's the same racists who vote GOP who always have. We shift to the right in a misguided attempt to win them, we damage our party.

I don't know why that's so difficult for some to grasp.

we are already the people of the working class, there is nothing to return to