General Discussion

It was written by two Dem-leaning journalists who were given access to the entire HRC campaign. It is 100x better than the current autopsy because it was not written by or for insiders. And it correctly focused on some dynamics which are still in place:

There is a kind of insularity which treats constructive criticism as disloyalty
There is a fear of open debate and gloves-off primaries which posits that such Dem-on-Dem battles weaken the eventual nominee
The damage of the Sanders rift has not been adequately healed. Lost opportunity to win back some swings
Message control by committee that delays or freezes responses and makes candidates seem stiff, calculated and inauthentic.

The way to do the autopsy in a more positive way would have been to focus more on the future and thus side-step the perceived finger-pointing and CYA. Going forward:

1. Frame and hammer 80/20 issues that break our way.
2. Update the media mix. Less TV. More social media. More trips to the "lion's dens"
3. Define the opposition candidate(s) is a negative but truthful way before they have a chance to define themselves. Hammer on their flaw every single time they show it.
4. Separate your opponent from their natural base. Use surrogates to do this. I have ten recent examples of this but they are all third rails and easily misunderstood here...Hmmm. Okay, Gore was called a phony on climate change because "he flies on airplanes." Obama was attacked by GOP surrogates for being "not Black enough" (makes your head spin). For 2028, you would look at why Vance voters like Vance and then amplify voices of those calling Vance a phony on those issues. So maybe that is "He pretends to be a 'hillbilly' but went to Yale. Sold out to Theil and you're a sucker if you think he is going to help working people." The idea with this tactic is not to win any voters over but to weaken support for the opposing candidate and suppress their turn out.
5. Um, another mine field... Stop attacking the oppositions' voters. Stay on the candidate instead. In 2016 this was "basket of deplorables" It may be true. It may feel good but it is a tactical mistake because it motivates your opposition's base. Try thinking about this dynamic if it happened outside of politics. Imagine you go to buy a car and the first dealership tells you "You are just too damned stupid to know a good car deal when it is right in front of you! I give up. You deserve whatever you get at the dealership across town you stupid SOB."
6. Advance a narrative that is all encompassing. We are a 'herd of cats' but we can find strength and build if there is an umbrella narrative that all of us sit under. "Hope and Change" was great for this. "I'm with Her" was not.
7. Listen to voters, including those who disagree with you. Then speak back to all using the words and phrases they used. Simple and highly effective because it makes people feel heard and it avoids language that is perceived as elitist or alienating.


ETA: since I mentioned it: