Has the re-election of Bush made the democrats more determined to win in 2008?

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd have thought Democrats were determined to get Bush out in 2004 and in all fairness, Kerry did increase the total Democratic vote but it wasn't enough. The problem may well have been that 11% of Democrats voted for Bush against the 6% of Republicans, who supported Kerry

I actually did an analysis (in Political Debate Forum) as to whether had Kerry retained the same proportion of Democrats as Bush did Republicans (state-by-state) would he have won and I concluded that Kerry victory was possible but not probable

How are Bush's favourables among Democrats in Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana, where 32%, 30%, 28% and 21% voted for Bush? Clinton after all won those states, with the exception of Okahoma (and even there he came relatively close, undoutedly helped by Perot)

So, if the Democrats are to defeat the GOP in 2008, they need to nominate a candidate who can unite the liberal, centrist and conservative (yes, conservative Democrats could make all the difference in a close contest) wings of the Democratic Party - as well as performing better among independents -  and, who can solidify marginal blue states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin while taking the fight to red states - and should this happen then the Democrats can win in 2008. Even then, much may well depend on which direction the GOP takes when nominating their candidate

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

You also have a long term trend.  Since 1968, the Democratic nominee has gotten a majority of the popular vote precisely once.  Further, the one time in ten elections that the Democrats had a majority, they had a very small majority; IIRC, it was less than 50.5%.  Basically for the last 7 presidential elections, the GOP has had a majority of the popular vote in four, the Democrats a majority in zero.

And if that isn't telling the Democratic Party something then I'm at a loss to see what will. The GOP must be doing something right

Since the 1970s, the GOP has successfully trounced the Democrats on the issues of defence and national security - and for that the Democratic Party has only itself to blame. Why they ceased being the party of Wilson, FDR and Truman in this respect, beggers my comprehension - because, on the whole, it hasn't done them much good. Winning 3 of the last 10 presidential elections is anything but impressive. It's even worse now that they no longer control Congress

The Democratic Party needs a vision and a coherent programme of pragmatic policies designed to realise that vision

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

It really doesn't matter how 'determined' Democrats are to win in 2008 -if the Democratic Party doesn't learn to do more than just being anti-Bush and actually present alternative ideas with a coherent message that can be put into 30-second sound-bites, as well as distancing itself from far left elements like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, as well as moderating its social views to appeal more to Hispanics and rural America, it will never win another presidential election. 

In short, any Democratic presidential nominee must run a populist campaign, not just in rhetoric but also in substance and policy proposals.  Emphasize the economic aspects of the platform, moderate the social views, and put forth an alternative foreign policy that sets itself apart both from the antiwar movement and peaceniks and the irresponsibility of the current unilateralist Republican course we are on now.   

I'd basically agree with much of what you have said

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

MissCatholic,

Please stop listing Washington as a swing state.

It always, throughout the entire campaign, boringly polled at around 7 points to Kerry.

At least Maine polled close.

But it does look like the democrats have really focused on heavy populated areas.

Aye, there might not be so many blue bits (or red, as in Dave's map ) but a hell of a lot of people live in 'em

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

The Democratic Party needs a vision and a coherent programme of pragmatic policies designed to realise that vision

In the mid-1980's, I saw a someone who was intelligent, good on defense, and economic issues.  I watched him debate, not only other candidates, but people like Jean Kirkpatrick, and mop the floor with them.

I read a report he co-authored about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the US in the Spring of 2001.

His name was Gary Hart, and his political career was largely destroyed by a combination of the Press and elements of his own party.  These kind of people are the ones that the Democratic party has turned its back on in the last half of the 20th Century.  If you have new, good, ideas and you are a Democrat, expect to lose.

Well, as far as 1984 was concerned any Democrat would have been sunk by Reagan but as far as 1988 goes, I dare say Hart could have faired better than Dukasis. I doubt he would have won though since Reaganmania was still running rampant and ensured Bush the Elder his victory

Dave