Amid the shock, fear, and gloom, it may be harder to see beyond to the opportunities that Trumps non-plurality election may create.
At a minimum, the election shows that the electorate is willing to consider a broader range of kinds of people as potential presidents. Indeed, the election of Obama and the nomination of Hilary Clinton, and perhaps even the success of Sanders, showed the same thing, albeit in a different way.
So perhaps, we should be thinking about what kind of a person progressive might be grooming to be a candidate, and thinking way beyond the traditional categories of governors, senators, and maybe mayors.
Maybe we should be thinking about people whose candidacy would be about their history with ideas and movements, rather than with power.
Maybe the feminist candidate should be someone who has run Emily’s list, not been a Senator. Maybe the equality candidate is someone who has promoted equality through projects and advocacy, rather than writing tax bills. Maybe the innovation candidate should be someone who has created not leveraged businesses, but whole new kinds of ideas that also work in the market. Maybe the authenticity candiate is someone who has spent a lifetime bursting bubbles of pomposity.
In any event, they should be people capable of communicating real ideas, grounded in understanding and direct experience. That would demonstrate authenticity far better than a rosy biographical video. They should also be capable of taking on Trump tweet for tweet, fact to lie, vision for fear, community against division, day after day, with equivalent attention. Al Frankin, time to go back to your roots.
A primary election between a number of such people might well yield a much stronger ultimate candidate and be a proving ground and launch pad for a cabinet of experts, rather than of plutocrats.
Lets start thinking about those kind of candidates, and how they should be positioned.
P.S. This would actually require that the DNC be ready to return to the structural organizing role that the RNC in fact played in this election, because such candidates would not necessarily have built up the needed organizatins themselves — and that, as we learned with the Clinton campaign, might be a strength.