Lots of plain old common sense here. A couple additional notes: in terms of nonsense categories, “LGBTQ” is as nonsense as they get. This is really a “TQ+” contingent using “LGB” as cover to push an extreme, unpopular, agenda. Allied to this, re the observation that “Many Democrats protested this, saying that Harris took pains to not talk about such issues on the trail.” The problem is that gender identity ideology is well baked-in to the Democratic Party brand (see comment by Wikler, above). What Harris and Walz needed to do was break from that, and to do it out loud. As Bill Clinton said about Title IX athletics: we need to speak to it and say we won’t do it. (This issue has nothing to do with identity, BTW—it is about basic biology.) All of this I write as a longtime, progressive Democrat. The party has lost the plot completely on this stuff, and I don’t think it can win again until and unless it changes course dramatically.
The Democrats don’t seem to understand that the they/them issue is not about trans people but about (their) abuse of power. Nobody should have the power to take children away from parents who seek advice for a mentally-troubled teenager who thinks she’s a boy, or dismiss the opinions of parents of a girls volleyball team, or take away the meaning of a medal in a women’s Olympic swim team. Nobody.
I have often wondered who or what the “+” at the end includes. If it includes relatives and friends of people in the other categories, I would be one, but don’t endorse the means by which the movement is attempting to advance the interests of all Americans in equal treatment.
The "+" can be appropriated by any sexual minority group that isn't named by the other letters, such as "kink" or "poly." Pedophiles, exhibitionists and other unsavory characters are increasingly gaining access to use of the "+," with approval of at least some members of the other groups.
Today's Democrats are too smugly self-righteous and Woke to comprehend that winning coalitions are built upon shared tangible ideas and interests like the economy and security, not on some obscure moralizing feelings promoting diverse identity and shared grievance.
In short, when will this national Democratic Party tire of losing the support of a vast majority of Americans?
The Democratic Party has joined a religion that mimics in bizarre ways many of the basic elements of medieval Christianity. The core dynamic of the woke religion is the idealization of the Persecuted Ones and the condemnation of their Persecutors, all of whom are needed by the Saviors to secure their positions of moral superiority and political power over everyone else. Members of this kind of cult view "persecution" by hordes of unbelievers, infidels and heretics as confirmation of their own righteousness. They reject approval by the majority, who are seen as sinners wallowing in the errors of their ways.
Goes with the territory these days--one of my in-law's friends recently told me I hate all whites, legal immigrants and native-born citizens, 'patriotic Americans', and 'working people' when he overheard that I was a Democrat. (despite the fact that I now actively avoid talking politics with anyone save those people that I know can discuss the issues calmly and sanely)
People have been radicalized and mutual political cordiality has degraded to a level arguably not see since the 1850s. (as we know, good things did not follow from that)
The Democrats who align themselves with the woke cult (which is most white Dems) are very simple minded. They believe in their cult dogma, which claims that all the groups you listed are Holy Martyrs, and anyone who disagrees with their dogma is one of the Persecutors of these groups. The only people who aren't Persecutors are the members of the woke cult.
The DNC Chair in our state recently tweeted that Republicans literally want to kill children. They can't win a state-wide election and this is what they come up with?
Yet the Obama administration was when identity politics exploded and has only gotten more insane. So, for all of Obama’s talk about there only being one United States, he really didn’t seem to mean it. Just my .02. YMMV.
It's pretty silly to blame Obama for that. He wasn't any more or less engaged in identity politics than his predecessors and peers, and actively rejected it in most cases.
Any clear-eyed appraisal would see that it's social media that 'exploded' idpol, on both sides of the political spectrum. The evidence is pretty clear.
I would say that it is not social media that is the prime promoter of idpol, it is the users of those media, most of whom are young women and teenaged girls who identify as "progressive," "liberal" or "leftist."
Statistics say different—they show that social media use is widespread amongst all political affiliations, and your ‘gut feeling’ that it’s primarily populated by loudmouth activist leftists is exactly what the algorithm is misleading you into believing, because it is built to expose you to content that makes you angry and paranoid and deprioritize everything else. When left-leaning users log in, it looks as if the only people using social media are alt-right firebrands. That’s how you get a hyperpolarized electorate with political parties being held hostage by their most extreme members.
Actually, I was referring to research findings of Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues, who have been studying relationships among reported mental illness in Gen Z people, number of hours of their social media use, and political affiliation of the users. They don't directly address "who promotes idpol" but "liberal or very liberal" is an approximation to that variable.
Obama avoided issues of race where possible. Trayvon Martin in FL and Michael
Brown Ferguson were used by activist groups to leverage power and influence to their own ends. Post presidency Obama has still spoken out against what he calls "wokeness" in that it accomplishes nothing.
Leaving aside any nitpicks about specifics, really it seems like it should be painfully obvious that when one starts speaking and using multi-syllabic acronyms whose meaning willl escape anyone not in advanced degree holding circles of the "The Groups" (i.e the Lefty college educated activist circles), e.g. “AANHPI” one is engaged in political malpractice.
I was sourly amused when my teenage son, who's otherwise quite the open minded and tolerant type - not a junior fascist or bigot - expressed his own short-hand irritation with the junior league version of the Groups, "the Alphabet Mafia" - as an expression of frustration and bafflement with such.
The sheer inside game-college activist domination is really terribly overweight - even when one can be broadly sympathetic to certain goals, it's necessary to recognise and call out self-harming dead-ending tactics and modes.
And blindness to the blindness of the college educated professional / white collar classes (of which I am certainly a part so hardly throwing stones here at others).
DEI has become the state religion in blue states, worshipped by mainstream churches, the medical care industry, schools and government. It's generational takeover by the young elite, and they are fanatical adherants. It won't be easy to sway them towards a new direction and undo the damage.
I didn't see working class in that list. Or union households. Guys, they are not listening to you. The end game of this is that they win and you lose. Probably also, the GOPe, who are the Republicans you should be hating, retake the party from MAGA.
Not only do the Dems see the world in terms of identity groups, they do not think in terms of crafting policies that will actually improve the lives of anyone in these groups, and certainly they never consider at all what is good for America. I've read several articles from leftist writers in which the underlying premise seems to be that the Dems need to "pander" (that was actually the term used in one article, multiple times) to what they perceive the interests to be of the various groups. Other articles recommend that Dem candidates essentially say what they think their more conservative voters want to hear, and then imply that once elected those Dems can vote as radically as they want and the dumb rubes back home won't notice. Pandering, lying, crafting policies they think certain groups want, presenting different policies to other groups, all snark and cynicism. A major problem with all this, for the Dems, though it's great for the rest of us, is the voters are finally seeing through the lies, after being lied to for decades, although it took disastrous consequences from failed progressive lack of governance for this to happen.
I appreciate that this Substack tries to recommend sensible policies for actually governing to the Democrats. But, as I think has been made abundantly clear with the Los Angeles wildfires, progressive Democrats have zero interest in doing the unglamorous job of actually governing, such as providing public services in a competent and efficient manner. Mayor Bass even seems to be somewhat surprised that anyone expected her to provide leadership or do the job. Newsom is blathering on about how it's not his fault, when much of it really is, since he was far more interested in chasing shiny objects like energy transitions, transgender, illegal immigration, and the bullet train than doing anything at all about fixing real problems. I can only hope that Californians have had enough and kick all of them out next election.
Excellent piece that gets it just right. I hope Wikler, if he wins, is aware the party must prioritize bread and butter issues over identity politics. Unfortunately, I don’t think identity politics is going away completely, but the more it’s diminished or those issues seen as secondary, the better off the party will be.
I think if the Dems nominate a no nonsense candidate in 2028 who isn’t afraid to push back against the party’s left flank, they will have a good shot. Lucky for them, they do have a good bench waiting in the wings. And I think Hakeem Jeffries is supremely talented and disciplined. I wish the Senate had someone other than Schumer leading the way, though.
A good bench? Like who? Gavin Newsom? Gretchen Whitmer? They are more of the same. And we all know that any candidate who recognizes reality will never get past the primaries, might not even get to the primaries, because the left wing rules in the candidate selection process.
Josh Shapiro, Jared Polis, Andy Beshear, Pete, Whitmer, Wes Moore—particularly the first three. And I get your point, but Biden did it in 2020. His mistake was governing too much from the left *after* he got the nomination.
Josh Shapiro (would Dems even vote for him?), Jared Polis (criminal illegals welcome in Colorado sanctuary state), Andy Beshear (nepo baby), Gretchen Whitmer (more unlikeable than Hilary if possible) and Wes Moore (governor in one of the most liberal states in U.S.) -- these are the people who can win the electoral college?
Furthermore, I think when a lot of low-info voters that put Trump over the top realize he didn’t bring prices down to what they were in his first term, changing course back to the Dems will look a lot more attractive (as long as they have a decent nominee, and I think they will).
Well, we’ll have to wait and see what the candidate offers. I especially think Shapiro, Beshear, and Polis will be very appealing on the economy and commonsensical on controversial issues like immigration—not too far left or right.
I do think characterizing Beshear as a nepo baby and Polis as a sanctuary city Dem is mistaken—Beshear won in deep red Kentucky, and people like him because he’s genuine, unpretentious, and works hard. Same for Polis—he may have countenanced Denver as a sanctuary city, but he pushed back when the border was a mess under Biden. Once people had access to vaccinations during the thick of Covid, he essentially said it was then up to them to make their own choices and did away with mandates. I think he and DeSantis had the best Covid policies in the country. And he won re-election by 15 points in purple Colorado (left of center, but by no means super liberal). Anyway, you get the idea.
As a proud 'selfish bastard' in Colorado who through my Holy Spirit showed me the folly of masking, and most things C19, Polis, IMO, will never be a factor in a national election.
Unless, Polis, Hakeem, Shapiro, whomever decides to dump identity politics (to embrace character over color), support meritocracy, denounce DEI, acknowledge secure borders are vital in reducing illegal activity, stop exalting how a minority of people have sex (just leave it alone), think abortion up to the day of birth, for any reason, as often as you like is ok (this means we have no red flags in CO to alert authorities to potential sex slave victims), and that 'gender affirming care' for minors is evil, the only way Dems will start winning again will be through shenanigans. Or if President Trump is unsuccessful, which is certainly a possibility, but I'll take his platform any day over what I've mentioned above. God bless.
The Democrats' fixation on identity is not just a matter of them talking too much about certain groups (most of which do not actually exist), it is that most of them have joined an authoritarian pseudo religion in which these fake group identities are turned into totems.
As an old white guy with centrist political views (including genuinely equal opportunities for all people) I
am searching for individual candidates and parties that represent those views. In that regard I have hoped to see the Forward Party emerge as a credible organization, but have been disappointed to note that they are adopting the practice of establishing “identity groups” similar to those of the Democratic Party.
I also happen to be a veteran, and care about the treatment of disabled veterans, but hardly regard that as my primary identity.
"most Americans, regardless of identity, basically want the same things: a general sense of overall stability, a strong economy, good jobs, safe streets and schools, affordable healthcare, and basic respect for their rights."
My wife and I agree. But there is something we believe carries the most weight with most people.
And something we believe, beneath the surface, hurt Harris.
Most people, if given a list of their priorities, would rank #1 having hope for their children and grandchildren. For everyone with children, that's why they get up in the morning and go to dead-end jobs, why they engage in child care. Why they live and die with how their children are doing. When talking with them, their eyes light up when the discussion is about children and grandchildren.
Pew research found Republican/Democrat differences in whether they have children. This difference could account for a lot of votes.
......and it was a silent killer for Harris because many people would not see her as being "like them" as worrying about their children's futures. You can argue all you want about how she can still "care" about the world, but that's a rationalization. It's not the same.
For people from all walks of life and from all "identity groups," their #1 priority, the reason they get up every morning, is their children.
Trump spoke to them better than Harris spoke to groups based upon their "identity" status.
To see what happens when interest groups take precedent over boring old kitchen table issues like competence, basic safety, economic realities, etc. please look at what is happening to these poor people in California. Bless them all.
I don't know what they are thinking, but until they give up representing a few to representing America, I'll happily keep voting for their opponents.
I think the plain lesson is that Obama, who has been the real head of the Democratic party since 2008, was totally lying about his "no red states and no blue states" rhetoric. Revealed preference over time has shown that Democratic leadership absolutely believes in Red and Blue America, and that they believe (like their team Red counterparts) that their opposites need to be dominated and reeducated into the proper worldview.
Lots of plain old common sense here. A couple additional notes: in terms of nonsense categories, “LGBTQ” is as nonsense as they get. This is really a “TQ+” contingent using “LGB” as cover to push an extreme, unpopular, agenda. Allied to this, re the observation that “Many Democrats protested this, saying that Harris took pains to not talk about such issues on the trail.” The problem is that gender identity ideology is well baked-in to the Democratic Party brand (see comment by Wikler, above). What Harris and Walz needed to do was break from that, and to do it out loud. As Bill Clinton said about Title IX athletics: we need to speak to it and say we won’t do it. (This issue has nothing to do with identity, BTW—it is about basic biology.) All of this I write as a longtime, progressive Democrat. The party has lost the plot completely on this stuff, and I don’t think it can win again until and unless it changes course dramatically.
The Democrats don’t seem to understand that the they/them issue is not about trans people but about (their) abuse of power. Nobody should have the power to take children away from parents who seek advice for a mentally-troubled teenager who thinks she’s a boy, or dismiss the opinions of parents of a girls volleyball team, or take away the meaning of a medal in a women’s Olympic swim team. Nobody.
Great comment!
I have often wondered who or what the “+” at the end includes. If it includes relatives and friends of people in the other categories, I would be one, but don’t endorse the means by which the movement is attempting to advance the interests of all Americans in equal treatment.
The "+" can be appropriated by any sexual minority group that isn't named by the other letters, such as "kink" or "poly." Pedophiles, exhibitionists and other unsavory characters are increasingly gaining access to use of the "+," with approval of at least some members of the other groups.
Today's Democrats are too smugly self-righteous and Woke to comprehend that winning coalitions are built upon shared tangible ideas and interests like the economy and security, not on some obscure moralizing feelings promoting diverse identity and shared grievance.
In short, when will this national Democratic Party tire of losing the support of a vast majority of Americans?
The Democratic Party has joined a religion that mimics in bizarre ways many of the basic elements of medieval Christianity. The core dynamic of the woke religion is the idealization of the Persecuted Ones and the condemnation of their Persecutors, all of whom are needed by the Saviors to secure their positions of moral superiority and political power over everyone else. Members of this kind of cult view "persecution" by hordes of unbelievers, infidels and heretics as confirmation of their own righteousness. They reject approval by the majority, who are seen as sinners wallowing in the errors of their ways.
yep - I was recently told that since I'm a Republican I hate all Blacks, immigrants, Hispanics & gays.
Goes with the territory these days--one of my in-law's friends recently told me I hate all whites, legal immigrants and native-born citizens, 'patriotic Americans', and 'working people' when he overheard that I was a Democrat. (despite the fact that I now actively avoid talking politics with anyone save those people that I know can discuss the issues calmly and sanely)
People have been radicalized and mutual political cordiality has degraded to a level arguably not see since the 1850s. (as we know, good things did not follow from that)
The Democrats who align themselves with the woke cult (which is most white Dems) are very simple minded. They believe in their cult dogma, which claims that all the groups you listed are Holy Martyrs, and anyone who disagrees with their dogma is one of the Persecutors of these groups. The only people who aren't Persecutors are the members of the woke cult.
The DNC Chair in our state recently tweeted that Republicans literally want to kill children. They can't win a state-wide election and this is what they come up with?
Yet the Obama administration was when identity politics exploded and has only gotten more insane. So, for all of Obama’s talk about there only being one United States, he really didn’t seem to mean it. Just my .02. YMMV.
It's pretty silly to blame Obama for that. He wasn't any more or less engaged in identity politics than his predecessors and peers, and actively rejected it in most cases.
Any clear-eyed appraisal would see that it's social media that 'exploded' idpol, on both sides of the political spectrum. The evidence is pretty clear.
I would say that it is not social media that is the prime promoter of idpol, it is the users of those media, most of whom are young women and teenaged girls who identify as "progressive," "liberal" or "leftist."
Statistics say different—they show that social media use is widespread amongst all political affiliations, and your ‘gut feeling’ that it’s primarily populated by loudmouth activist leftists is exactly what the algorithm is misleading you into believing, because it is built to expose you to content that makes you angry and paranoid and deprioritize everything else. When left-leaning users log in, it looks as if the only people using social media are alt-right firebrands. That’s how you get a hyperpolarized electorate with political parties being held hostage by their most extreme members.
Actually, I was referring to research findings of Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues, who have been studying relationships among reported mental illness in Gen Z people, number of hours of their social media use, and political affiliation of the users. They don't directly address "who promotes idpol" but "liberal or very liberal" is an approximation to that variable.
Obama avoided issues of race where possible. Trayvon Martin in FL and Michael
Brown Ferguson were used by activist groups to leverage power and influence to their own ends. Post presidency Obama has still spoken out against what he calls "wokeness" in that it accomplishes nothing.
But he didn’t say “this is wrong, this is not us”.
Leaving aside any nitpicks about specifics, really it seems like it should be painfully obvious that when one starts speaking and using multi-syllabic acronyms whose meaning willl escape anyone not in advanced degree holding circles of the "The Groups" (i.e the Lefty college educated activist circles), e.g. “AANHPI” one is engaged in political malpractice.
I was sourly amused when my teenage son, who's otherwise quite the open minded and tolerant type - not a junior fascist or bigot - expressed his own short-hand irritation with the junior league version of the Groups, "the Alphabet Mafia" - as an expression of frustration and bafflement with such.
The sheer inside game-college activist domination is really terribly overweight - even when one can be broadly sympathetic to certain goals, it's necessary to recognise and call out self-harming dead-ending tactics and modes.
And blindness to the blindness of the college educated professional / white collar classes (of which I am certainly a part so hardly throwing stones here at others).
No sign of change in blue state public school directives for identity-focused instruction: https://www.doe.mass.edu/csi/dei.html
DEI has become the state religion in blue states, worshipped by mainstream churches, the medical care industry, schools and government. It's generational takeover by the young elite, and they are fanatical adherants. It won't be easy to sway them towards a new direction and undo the damage.
true but they are not enough to win national elections -- the American electorate just proved that by electing a very flawed man as president
I didn't see working class in that list. Or union households. Guys, they are not listening to you. The end game of this is that they win and you lose. Probably also, the GOPe, who are the Republicans you should be hating, retake the party from MAGA.
Not only do the Dems see the world in terms of identity groups, they do not think in terms of crafting policies that will actually improve the lives of anyone in these groups, and certainly they never consider at all what is good for America. I've read several articles from leftist writers in which the underlying premise seems to be that the Dems need to "pander" (that was actually the term used in one article, multiple times) to what they perceive the interests to be of the various groups. Other articles recommend that Dem candidates essentially say what they think their more conservative voters want to hear, and then imply that once elected those Dems can vote as radically as they want and the dumb rubes back home won't notice. Pandering, lying, crafting policies they think certain groups want, presenting different policies to other groups, all snark and cynicism. A major problem with all this, for the Dems, though it's great for the rest of us, is the voters are finally seeing through the lies, after being lied to for decades, although it took disastrous consequences from failed progressive lack of governance for this to happen.
I appreciate that this Substack tries to recommend sensible policies for actually governing to the Democrats. But, as I think has been made abundantly clear with the Los Angeles wildfires, progressive Democrats have zero interest in doing the unglamorous job of actually governing, such as providing public services in a competent and efficient manner. Mayor Bass even seems to be somewhat surprised that anyone expected her to provide leadership or do the job. Newsom is blathering on about how it's not his fault, when much of it really is, since he was far more interested in chasing shiny objects like energy transitions, transgender, illegal immigration, and the bullet train than doing anything at all about fixing real problems. I can only hope that Californians have had enough and kick all of them out next election.
Excellent piece that gets it just right. I hope Wikler, if he wins, is aware the party must prioritize bread and butter issues over identity politics. Unfortunately, I don’t think identity politics is going away completely, but the more it’s diminished or those issues seen as secondary, the better off the party will be.
I think if the Dems nominate a no nonsense candidate in 2028 who isn’t afraid to push back against the party’s left flank, they will have a good shot. Lucky for them, they do have a good bench waiting in the wings. And I think Hakeem Jeffries is supremely talented and disciplined. I wish the Senate had someone other than Schumer leading the way, though.
A good bench? Like who? Gavin Newsom? Gretchen Whitmer? They are more of the same. And we all know that any candidate who recognizes reality will never get past the primaries, might not even get to the primaries, because the left wing rules in the candidate selection process.
Josh Shapiro, Jared Polis, Andy Beshear, Pete, Whitmer, Wes Moore—particularly the first three. And I get your point, but Biden did it in 2020. His mistake was governing too much from the left *after* he got the nomination.
His mistake was being senile when he was elected.
Father Time catches up to us all, I suppose.
Josh Shapiro (would Dems even vote for him?), Jared Polis (criminal illegals welcome in Colorado sanctuary state), Andy Beshear (nepo baby), Gretchen Whitmer (more unlikeable than Hilary if possible) and Wes Moore (governor in one of the most liberal states in U.S.) -- these are the people who can win the electoral college?
Furthermore, I think when a lot of low-info voters that put Trump over the top realize he didn’t bring prices down to what they were in his first term, changing course back to the Dems will look a lot more attractive (as long as they have a decent nominee, and I think they will).
And what happens if you’re wrong? What are you offering to the voters except the same tired idpol?
Well, we’ll have to wait and see what the candidate offers. I especially think Shapiro, Beshear, and Polis will be very appealing on the economy and commonsensical on controversial issues like immigration—not too far left or right.
I do think characterizing Beshear as a nepo baby and Polis as a sanctuary city Dem is mistaken—Beshear won in deep red Kentucky, and people like him because he’s genuine, unpretentious, and works hard. Same for Polis—he may have countenanced Denver as a sanctuary city, but he pushed back when the border was a mess under Biden. Once people had access to vaccinations during the thick of Covid, he essentially said it was then up to them to make their own choices and did away with mandates. I think he and DeSantis had the best Covid policies in the country. And he won re-election by 15 points in purple Colorado (left of center, but by no means super liberal). Anyway, you get the idea.
The first three, certainly. The last three less so. And against the backdrop of the Republican Party’s worst elements, absolutely.
As a proud 'selfish bastard' in Colorado who through my Holy Spirit showed me the folly of masking, and most things C19, Polis, IMO, will never be a factor in a national election.
Unless, Polis, Hakeem, Shapiro, whomever decides to dump identity politics (to embrace character over color), support meritocracy, denounce DEI, acknowledge secure borders are vital in reducing illegal activity, stop exalting how a minority of people have sex (just leave it alone), think abortion up to the day of birth, for any reason, as often as you like is ok (this means we have no red flags in CO to alert authorities to potential sex slave victims), and that 'gender affirming care' for minors is evil, the only way Dems will start winning again will be through shenanigans. Or if President Trump is unsuccessful, which is certainly a possibility, but I'll take his platform any day over what I've mentioned above. God bless.
The Democrats' fixation on identity is not just a matter of them talking too much about certain groups (most of which do not actually exist), it is that most of them have joined an authoritarian pseudo religion in which these fake group identities are turned into totems.
As an old white guy with centrist political views (including genuinely equal opportunities for all people) I
am searching for individual candidates and parties that represent those views. In that regard I have hoped to see the Forward Party emerge as a credible organization, but have been disappointed to note that they are adopting the practice of establishing “identity groups” similar to those of the Democratic Party.
I also happen to be a veteran, and care about the treatment of disabled veterans, but hardly regard that as my primary identity.
"most Americans, regardless of identity, basically want the same things: a general sense of overall stability, a strong economy, good jobs, safe streets and schools, affordable healthcare, and basic respect for their rights."
My wife and I agree. But there is something we believe carries the most weight with most people.
And something we believe, beneath the surface, hurt Harris.
Most people, if given a list of their priorities, would rank #1 having hope for their children and grandchildren. For everyone with children, that's why they get up in the morning and go to dead-end jobs, why they engage in child care. Why they live and die with how their children are doing. When talking with them, their eyes light up when the discussion is about children and grandchildren.
Pew research found Republican/Democrat differences in whether they have children. This difference could account for a lot of votes.
......and it was a silent killer for Harris because many people would not see her as being "like them" as worrying about their children's futures. You can argue all you want about how she can still "care" about the world, but that's a rationalization. It's not the same.
For people from all walks of life and from all "identity groups," their #1 priority, the reason they get up every morning, is their children.
Trump spoke to them better than Harris spoke to groups based upon their "identity" status.
Oh dear god they need to abandon IdPol! Read the room, Dems! Just completely incapable of self-reflection!
Great article!
To see what happens when interest groups take precedent over boring old kitchen table issues like competence, basic safety, economic realities, etc. please look at what is happening to these poor people in California. Bless them all.
I don't know what they are thinking, but until they give up representing a few to representing America, I'll happily keep voting for their opponents.
I think the plain lesson is that Obama, who has been the real head of the Democratic party since 2008, was totally lying about his "no red states and no blue states" rhetoric. Revealed preference over time has shown that Democratic leadership absolutely believes in Red and Blue America, and that they believe (like their team Red counterparts) that their opposites need to be dominated and reeducated into the proper worldview.