The thumping of the Democratic Party last week was sweeping and historic.

It should be a time for soul searching–but it isn't. As Kimberley Strassel observes in today's Wall Street Journal the Democrats seem prepared to double down. She writes:

What Democrats should realize, because everyone else does, is that voters rejected both their policies (which have undermined middle- and low-income families) and their governance (which has fueled rage at a power-hungry federal government). Hillary Clinton proposed more of the same. Coal workers said no. Blue-collar union workers said no. Suburban moms said no. Small businessmen, drowning under Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, said no.

Instead Democrats think last week was an accident. Mrs. Clinton tells donors that she only lost because of FBI Director Jim Comey.Barack Obama faults Hillary’s tactics—she didn’t spend enough time in the right states. Michael Dukakis says Democrats only lost because of the Electoral College. Rachel Maddow blames third-party candidates.

All this denial has cleared the field for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the leading voice now calling on the party to recognize it has erred and needs change. She is telling the masses, however, that Democrats lost because they didn’t go big enough. They didn’t spend enough. Didn’t regulate enough. Didn’t socialize health care enough. Her prescription: Double down.

My guess is that they will try to pay a lot more attention, much of it condescending to the voters who derailed them and that they will try to do what Democrats do: offer them taxpayer-supported goodies. In other words, they will woo rust belt working people the same way they woo all their constituencies.  

They probably won't succeed, however, because it is an understanding the dignity of –you know–work that defines the people who brought them low. I love it that the Democrats are talking about this group of stalwart citizens in such condescending terms. Ironic, since they delivered a decisive blow to the policies of dependency.

The vote tallies, wherein Donald Trump made slight inroads into the black and Latino vote, indicate that constituencies that automatically gave programs that support dependency their support might be beginning to question this.