As Trippi points out, Democrats can point to almost any explanation, from Russian hacking to Bernie Sanders to explain the 2016 loss, which means different factions of the party have very different views about what to do next. From the Hill:This is a theme I try to make from time to time when people argue over causes in general. The real world is complicated, and no single factor is likely to win every time. You have to evaluate how much many different factors may contribute, and you have to consider the errors in you estimates, and the extent to which factors interact.
Trippi also saw a danger for the party, in that virtually any explanation for why Clinton lost is plausible, given the narrowness of the margin.Trippi hasn’t come close to exhausting the possible explanations. Recall that Clinton communications strategist Jennifer Palmieri recently accused the Trump camp of winning because of appeals to the alt-right. Palmieri told her opposites in the Trump campaign, “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.”
“Everybody can point to something that went wrong — and they’re right,” he said. “It makes it impossible to know what the party really needs to do.
“The [Bernie] Sanders people believe, if only we had been more populist we’d have won, and they’re right. The Hillary people believe, if only Bernie hadn’t attacked her so hard in the primary we’d have won, and they’re right. Everybody’s right.”
So to win next time, what can the Democrats do? Any number of things. Nominating a candidate who's not corrupt and scandal plagued would seem a no-brainer; but can they find one? Not leaving their email vulnerable, and not putting stupid stuff into them would also help, but it might be too much to ask. Moderating your war on the largest ethnic group in the country? It might help some, but it will be offset by a certain loss in the minority community which is a strong part of your base.