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

[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

[MissCatholic]

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.

Fair comment. It is interesting how the west coast has gone hard to the left.  Oregon is one of the most organised democratic states along with Minnesota and Wisconsin. It does get on my nerves though that we lose counties by a few hundred votes. But it does look like the democrats have really focused on heavy populated areas.

[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

[MasterJedi]

Yes although it doesn't mean they'll win the White House at all.

[J. J.]

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.

[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