If the democrats survive a 2008 defeat...

[Person Man]

well?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Option 1

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Option 2.

I'd hate to see the Democratic Party become a socially conservative yet an even more economically socialist party in nature. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Option 5
Go away.

[Person Man]

Option 5
Go away.

....and what will the republicans become "The Party"?

Say, are you running for or against the party?

[Person Man]

Option 2.

I'd hate to see the Democratic Party become a socially conservative yet an even more economically socialist party in nature. 

I agree.  I would love to see a more West-friendly Democratic Party.  The South needs to be ignored for a while by both parties.

For reals...theres a reason I have my sig.

[Beet]

Out of these... option 2 I guess.

[Frodo]

Try to build into the west by deemphasizing health care and taxes, but focuses on civil liberties, property rights and the end to the war...this way they can emphasize the GOP's neo-con leanings while trying to build a antithesis to it.

Could you expand on the part regarding property rights?  For some reason, I can't see Democrats going back on their environmentalist constituency in favor of ranchers, farmers, and other landowners. 

[Person Man]

Try to build into the west by deemphasizing health care and taxes, but focuses on civil liberties, property rights and the end to the war...this way they can emphasize the GOP's neo-con leanings while trying to build a antithesis to it.

Could you expand on the part regarding property rights?  For some reason, I can't see Democrats going back on their environmentalist constituency in favor of ranchers, farmers, and other landowners. 

ahem, global warming and energy development hurts farmers, ranchers and sportsmen....also, developing a program that allows land owners to get in on clean energy might come over quite favorable.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Democrats should ignore the Deep South altogether.   Why would the Democratic Party want to dumb themselves down to appeal to a constiuency that would never vote for them anyway in a national election?   The West is best.

[Person Man]

Democrats should ignore the Deep South altogether.   Why would the Democratic Party want to dumb themselves down to appeal to a constiuency that would never vote for them anyway in a national election?   The West is best.

That's what I have been saying. That strategy is maybe good for picking up a COUPLE of unreliable congressmen, but it doesn't really work on a level above that. I really don't know how McCaskill pulled it off.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Democrats should ignore the Deep South altogether.   Why would the Democratic Party want to dumb themselves down to appeal to a constiuency that would never vote for them anyway in a national election?   The West is best.

That's what I have been saying. That strategy is maybe good for picking up a COUPLE of unreliable congressmen, but it doesn't really work on a level above that. I really don't know how McCaskill pulled it off.

Missouri I don't consider "Deep South".  A centrist Democrat can easily pull off an electoral victory here.     Or a Democrat as described in Option 2.

[The Hack Hater]

Option 2. Option 1 is crap, the Dems have no credit there right now. Option 4 is crap, and is too offensive to people that are more moderate. Option 3 doesn't sound bad, but might lead to declines later if there doesn't appear to be enough of a contrast.

[War on Want]

Option 1. Who gives a sh**t about Gay Marriage besides gays, really? Economy is what people really vote for.

[The Hack Hater]

Oh, but people in the South care, they think it's an "abominable sin" that one should be gay.

[War on Want]

Oh, but people in the South care, they think it's an "abominable sin" that one should be gay.

Exactly why the Democrats should de-emphasize it for a while. It costs us votes, that could be easily gained.

[The Hack Hater]

Oh, but people in the South care, they think it's an "abominable sin" that one should be gay.

Exactly why the Democrats should de-emphasize it for a while. It costs us votes, that could be easily gained.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the majority of the voters there. to change mid-stream though. Things might change, but I'd think they'd take a while.

[Person Man]

I mean, what if a majority won't vote for us under any circumstances yet will see us as having no contrast if we don't stand for what we believe.

[Alcon]

Option 1. Who gives a sh**t about Gay Marriage besides gays, really?

People who don't base their morals solely on what impacts them most?

[NDN]

These are all losing strategies, except for number 1 which is unpalatable to me. But the problem isn't ideology. Voters generally don't care that much about that, and in fact if you look at the polls the public is actually closer to our party than the GOP. The problem is really incompetent, spineless leadership which doesn't really do anything to stop a few radical special interests from framing the debate (or worse indulges them). The Democrats are just the good cop to the Republicans' bad cop right now. I don't care for the jfern faction of the party but they have that much right.

[Beet]

These are all losing strategies, except for number 1 which is unpalatable to me. But the problem isn't ideology. Voters generally don't care that much about that, and in fact if you look at the polls the public is actually closer to our party than the GOP. The problem is incompetent, spineless leadership which doesn't really do anything to stop a few radical special interests from framing the debate (or worse indulges them). The Democrats are just the good cop to the Republicans' bad cop right now. I don't care for the jfern faction of the party that much but they pretty much have that much right.

Which radical special interests?

[NDN]

The PNAC types, religious right, supply siders (the various right wing think tanks like Club for Growth), contractors, big pharma, agribusiness, etc. Basically the people that actually run Washington. We don't have a two party system anymore.

[Хahar 🤔]

Option 1. I don't want to see the Democrats become a libertarian party; being populist is much more preferable. If this means having the South rather than the West, so be it.

[NDN]

Option 1. I don't want to see the Democrats become a libertarian party; being populist is much more preferable. If this means having the South rather than the West, so be it.

Option 1 I'd agree is actually the most electable. But mostly because ignoring healthcare in favor of civil liberties at a time when people on both sides are more concerned about it than ever is a retarded strategy... Even if I view the latter as even more important.

[Person Man]

So, what is the winning strategy?