Matt Yglesias rightly scolds Democrats for focusing solely on Hilary versus the Republican mess while ignoring the vast majority of government outside the Federal Executive Branch. Democrats don't really have a plan in the US Congress nor one at the State levels. One exception may be in Louisiana, where Democrat John Bel Edwards may have a chance to beat Republican David Witter for the right to reverse Bobby Jindal's destructive policies in the November 21 run-off.
At the very least, the stakes are crucial for access to health care. Edwards will accept the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, which will instantly provide basic insurance to thousands of Louisianians at NO EXTRA COST. The taxes are already being paid to the federal government, but we're refusing the benefits - straightforward insanity brought upon solely by the crass ambition of Jindal. In addition, Edwards wants to support the safety net charity systems which have been gutted over the past decade.
Of course, Louisiana Democrats aren't made like coastal Democrats. Edwards has strong ratings from anti-abortion groups and from the NRA, per Vote Smart, and has separately said he'd oppose legalizing marijuana. These are his political indiscretions. Indiscretions by his opponent, on the other hand, include undying allegiance to the three pillars of modern American conservative movement: anti-Obamaism, cutting taxes for the rich, gutting social safety networks.
The difference in health care alone should be decisive in choosing Edwards over Vitter. But to return to the meta-discussion on American politics, quality of life won't improve simply by electing Hillary. She'll still have to deal with the obstinacy of the likely Republican Congress she'll inherit. It will only improve one-city-at-a-time and one-state-at-a-time. And in Louisiana, this means focusing on electing John Bel Edwards over David Vitter.