All Republicans need to do to replicate the 2004 Bush coalition is to simply not act crazy

Perhaps, by the Obama coalition it is meant a solidified base with a high black voter turnout. The base, in composite, is progressive. Populist policies serve both goals.   Mrs. Clinton, the presumptive nominee, needs to take into account that which is enduring and that which in flux in the Democratic base.  It seems to me that she can manage, overall, not only to capture the base of 2012, but also, expand upon it.  

The notion that Rand Paul will erode the black turnout seems fanciful--there is so much for Rand to overcome, starting with his shallow and different understanding of civil rights, just as his non-interventionist foreign policy loses it gloss with further inspection.

A moot point, probably. A Rand Paul Republican candidacy seems unlikely. Perhaps, as a running mate to Bush, the more likely Republican presidential candidate. Although, given Bush family selections for veep (Quayle, Cheney)  Rand may be too normal.  I would go with Joni Ernst--less normal and a woman.  

Use the rigged board game analogy, dollars are just game pieces.

Or the sports metaphor -- would you play the Super Bowl without referees or rules? Then why do we allow the most powerful players in our economy to play this way?

I'm sorry, but because we insist on maintaining, like children who want to maintain a belief in Santa Claus, powerfully false notions about the type of currency we use and the ultimate implications of that currency's type (i.e., it is not factually possible, as it is not factually possible for the world to be flat, for the federal government to ever go financially bankrupt, nations sovereign in their own currencies never can), it seems to me that we are going to spend a lot of time divided, pissing into the wind, and then saying, "Gosh, why are my eyes burning so much?"

Simplify, amplify, demystify.

Sorry, I just think the entire political "reality" in this nation exists in bizarre state of denial where we as progressives seem to just accept, ho hum -- like we accept, ho hum, right wing economic paradigms as the de-facto starting point of economic "debate"-- that our obvious imaginative and creative strength over conservatives, so obvious and profound I think it scares us to use, means nothing. So we allow, limit ourselves merely to attempting to be better at someone else's game.

The left, or what passes for the left, the Dems, whomever, IMO, start all economic discussions from a position that, if we were using the same "logic" with global warming, would find us much more in line with climate change deniers.

Which is very, very odd to me.

And really sad, just sad. Because what it means is that we accept the notion that money matters more than people, that it is more real, more deserving of respect and care. Which is why we will fire people, throw them out of their homes, cut their "entitlements," make people suffer in any number of other ways, all in the name of saving money. We never make money suffer to save people. Ever. You know why? Because we can't. It's not a real thing. But we sure do treat it like it bleeds.

I'm pretty sure no one here has forgotten that article in the NY Times a while back that described Southern voter's reaction to the ACA, and, what, if anything, it would do to their voting pattern.

One example from the article stands out, and, pretty much tells the whole story. And, Democratic election advisors/analysts better take heed:

(Will have to paraphrase, but the essence is precise) A Southern woman was asked her feelings regarding the ACA ("Obamacare") She responded enthusiastically, "Oh, I just love it, it's wonderful! It's done wonders, not just for little Jamie here, but his two brothers back home, and their father, who is having his back problem, finally, being taken care of. And, me? (laughs) I've got a list a mile long for the Doc, can't wait to get started."

Then, comes the all-important question: "Does this mean you're going to rethink how you've been voting, and, maybe, just maybe, there's a teeny-weeny chance you might even vote for someone like Obama?" "No way!! Ooh, I just can't stand that man!! Nope, been voting for Mitch (McConnell) and don't see no reason to change now."

So, there you have it. Issues, shmissues, the republicans have done such a masterful job in molding the conservative vote that this woman, who just Luuuves Obamacare, would eat dog turds before she'd vote for the man who gave her this health insurance.

Once the social conservatives realize that the move toward marriage equality is irreversible, they will over time abandon politics as an organized political force....

The people who swooned over Barack Obama that year, were then many of the same ones who were so bitterly disappointed by 2010 that they stayed home, handing the U.S. House of Representatives to the GOP along with numerous state legislatures. That's the politics of the vicarious, the mercurial and the dilettante.

We need to realize that if we truly want progressive change, then we must become that progressive change ourselves. And that takes work. It takes sustained personal commitment on our part to not just the support of good presidential candidates, but also the advocacy for sound policy development, particularly in our own communities.

And that means further sustained personal commitment on our part to electing good progressive candidates down-ticket as well, all the way down to our state legislatures, city councils, and local school and village boards -- and then working like hell to ensure that such people remain in office.

We're never going to change things by merely seeking out others to first embody that change for us, and then leaving them to do all the heavy lifting while we recede back into our own respective little worlds until four years hence. No, we need to work for it and then keep working for it until we get it, and then work some more to keep it.

I've seen and heard plenty of people who talk a good game. They're a dime a dozen. Now, I want to see people who actually bring it, rather than offer yet another round of lame excuses why they can't or won't get involved. When we seek out and demand perfection, more often than not we do so at the ultimate expense of good.

It's our country, too. Either we make the effort to ensure that things happen for us, or others will make sure that things happen to us. The choice is entirely ours, and ours alone.

Who and what is the Democratic Party?  Does anyone really know?  Is there anyone in the so-called leadership who is willing to get honest and get real and assess whether there has been any real benefit in consensus politics?  Has bending over backwards to accommodate the GOP's ideas actually gotten us anything other than more GOP policy?  Is there anyone who is willing to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with these politicians and call them out for placing a higher priority on keeping their jobs and ensuring a financially rewarding return to the private sector than on advocating for the people who put them in those jobs?

Do you agree that republicans have a different problem,?

They can neither govern nor get elected as true blooded "Conservatives" if you include in that equation being a loyal fighter of the culture issues like abortion,gay marriage, immigration , etc...