Direction of the Democratic Party if Obama loses

[morgieb]

Well?

[Miles]

It should move to the right; Obama has aliened a lot of conservative Democrats. The party should use an Obama defeat as a platform to make inroads again with those voters.

[Adam Griffin]

It will be freer to move to the left over the next few years, as the main reason the Democratic Party has remained so economically centrist the past few years is because we can't afford to have the first non-white President look like a welfare queen. Economically, Hillary Clinton was to the left of Obama and had the support of many working-class, white Democrats who supported ideas such as universal health care and redistribution economics *when she championed it*. The main problem right now when it comes to building a majority populist coalition with some of these people, unfortunately, originates mainly in their eyes from the messenger and not the message.

I think an Obama defeat would speed up the Democratic Party's ability to become the dominant party for the next generation. It would at least reduce the likelihood of voter fatigue regarding Democrats and prevent the Democratic Party from being attached to a two-term President that may or may not get much more done in a second term. We're going to be marginalized - regardless of demographic and voter gains - due to the redistricting that was done mostly by Republican state legislatures until 2020.

It's possible that the demographics in another four years will be favorable enough to us nationally to cancel out any voter fatigue should Obama win a second term. North Carolina will look more like Virginia does today, and both Georgia and Arizona should be fairly well in play at that point. This will give Democrats even more pathways to victory and the possibility to pick up a handful of new House seats.

[HappyWarrior]

It should move to the right; Obama has aliened a lot of conservative Democrats. The party should use an Obama defeat as a platform to make inroads again with those voters.

Well he has been a pretty conservative Democrat economically, socially he has been liberal however.  Nonetheless moving to the right would be foolish because frankly those conservative Democrats probably won't be coming back either way because most of the Southern and Appalachian Democrats aren't gonna want to come back to the party that nominated the first minority President.  Sadly it really is that simple.

[jocallag]

First there will be a lot of fingerpointing blaming the Obama team for the defeat. There have been a lot of Democrats holding their tongues on Obama and his all too arrogant team and they will finally have their time to settle scores.

As after 1988, many experts will go back to the idea that the Democrats need to run someone from the South or a moderate to win in future elections. This will probably not work as well as it did in 1992 because there are so few Democrats left in the South and Border states.

It is possible that the Democratic party may implode. It is largely composed of groups of voters who really dislike each other: Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Arabs, White Yuppie Liberals and Union members. They all have only one thing in common - they want to be subsidized by the government without regard to the fact that the country is up to its neck in debt.

The thieves may finally fall out over the spoils.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It should move to the right

Because we see how well that worked in the early 2000s, right?

[MorningInAmerica]

It should move to the right; Obama has aliened a lot of conservative Democrats. The party should use an Obama defeat as a platform to make inroads again with those voters.

Well he has been a pretty conservative Democrat economically, socially he has been liberal however.  Nonetheless moving to the right would be foolish because frankly those conservative Democrats probably won't be coming back either way because most of the Southern and Appalachian Democrats aren't gonna want to come back to the party that nominated the first minority President.  Sadly it really is that simple.

Ya hear that Miles? You're Racist™! 

[MorningInAmerica]

I'm obviously not a Democrat, but it's not rocket science figuring out where the Democratic party should go. Operating under the assumption Obama loses reelection, it'll seem pretty clear that the only long-term successful Democratic model since the 1930s would be Clinton-style DLCism. He left office with great job ratings and mediocre favorable ratings. Gore would likely have won had he embraced Clinton and his economic policies more fully in the midst the tech boom, when EVERYONE was riding high. So I agree with Miles. Obama's style of old-school LBJ liberalism just isn't working - again, operating under assumption Obama loses.

But of course, Democrats probably shouldn't take advice from Republicans.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The DLC completely ruined the Democratic Party. It needs to dry up and blow away.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The DLC completely ruined the Democratic Party. It needs to dry up and blow away.

The DLC and the subsequent 50-state plan gave us a majority in the House and an ongoing majority in the Senate. Of course, you wouldn't know the genius and effectiveness of the DLC, as your far-left hack goggles have fused into your eyes, altering your perception of reality.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The DLC and the subsequent 50-state plan gave us a majority in the House

Where's that House majority now?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The 50-state plan was pioneered by the very not-DLC Dean. The DLC's achievement has been the abandonment of New Deal economics to become the "me too" party as liberal Republicans were in the 1930's. Tell me, under which president did the rich-poor gap begin to widen more than ever, NAFTA sucked manufacturing jobs to Mexican slave plants, fundamental financial regulations were repealed, and welfare gutted in a way not even Reagan dreamed?

[RogueBeaver]

I think they'd be looking for a Schweitzer type- a populist who's socially moderate and a more aggressive personal style. There aren't any DLC types with the personality or skills to either charm the party or seize it by force.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think they'd be looking for a Schweitzer type- a populist who's socially moderate and a more aggressive personal style. There aren't any DLC types with the personality or skills to either charm the party or seize it by force.

Schweitzer seems more moderate than he actually is, which is exactly what we might look for if Obama, who seems more leftist than he actually is, loses.

[MorningInAmerica]

If Obama loses in 2012, I suspect that folks like Schweitzer or Mark Warner become prime candidates. If he wins, depending on how his second term goes, I could see Mario Cuomo or Deval Patrick at the top of the pack.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

Warren would be ripped open by the far right, but I could see a Schweitzer/Feingold ticket winning handily.

[MorningInAmerica]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

Not sure I understand this new found obsession on the left with Elizabeth Warren. She hasn't even been elected to anything yet, and still runs a fair shot of losing her only election this November. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

Not sure I understand this new found obsession on the left with Elizabeth Warren. She hasn't even been elected to anything yet, and still runs a fair shot of losing her only election this November. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Even if she loses, she'd be a good candidate in 2016.

[MorningInAmerica]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

Not sure I understand this new found obsession on the left with Elizabeth Warren. She hasn't even been elected to anything yet, and still runs a fair shot of losing her only election this November. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Even if she loses, she'd be a good candidate in 2016.

For President? After losing her one and only election 4 years prior? I personally doubt it.

[Comrade Funk]

If Obama loses in 2012, I suspect that folks like Schweitzer or Mark Warner become prime candidates. If he wins, depending on how his second term goes, I could see Mario Cuomo or Deval Patrick at the top of the pack.

Idk about Mario, but Andy maybe.

I think the Dems will go down a populist road. Definitly more left-wing economically. Schweitzer really could be a game changer for the party. I know we hype him up so much over here, but I honestly think he can be a major force in changing the direction of the Democratic Party if he wants too.

[Maxwell]

The direction of the democratic party has seemed to be more and more centrist, but maybe thats just me.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Same as if he wins.  Democrats are masters of political psychology and appealing to emotions (pathos), so they will be in excellent shape no matter what.

[後援会]

In retrospect, Biden seems like a terrible choice. If Obama had picked a competent (or at least semi-competent), relatively youngish vice president (ala Gore), there would be a clear 2016 frontrunner. If Obama loses, the 2016 Democratic presidential primary could be brutal.

[Talleyrand]

Any combination of Russ Feingold, Brian Schweitzer, or Elizabeth Warren would be almost unbeatable.

Not sure I understand this new found obsession on the left with Elizabeth Warren. She hasn't even been elected to anything yet, and still runs a fair shot of losing her only election this November. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html

Even if she loses, she'd be a good candidate in 2016.

No, she wouldn't. She'd look ridiculous after losing her only election in one of the nation's most Democratic states. Plus, her style and policies probably wouldn't appeal to the country. She'd lose heavily unless Romney is in a disastrous position.