If the democrats survive a 2008 defeat...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[NDN]

So, what is the winning strategy?

It depends on what kind of party you want.

I think the Democrats could win on a western strategy, just not the one you outlined. Politically, it makes no sense for the Democrats to drop talking about healthcare when they have the most approval on that issue. They could emphasize a modest foreign policy (no nation building), fiscal conservatism (as in anti-deficits/pork),  better civil liberties, and stronger borders while keeping some of their sacred cow issues like being pro-universal healthcare or social security. The main thing keeping them from doing this despite broad support from both sides for such a platform is really the special interests. It's why Perot did so well with Republican in '92 despite being (by our standards) a flaming liberal. I think that Paul Hackett, Bill Richardson and (before he got smeared as an anti-semite) Dick Moran are in many respects is close to the ideological 'role models' that the Democrats should be embracing.

[NDN]

Yeah, if 2008 ends in defeat, we will probably never be out of Iraq anytime soon. The best way to deal with this issue would probably be to triangulate it...but how do we do that?

Easy, favor the Biden plan and focusing on the borders.

[NDN]

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest Dem candidates pass a liberal purity test, when such candidates are bound to lose in a general election.  Whats the point of advancing a progressive agenda when your progressive candidates have zero chance in winning the White House?    Makes no sense.

But but REPUBLICAN LITE.11

I agree, the 'experienced' Senator with a strong liberal (real or perceived) record is a sure loser. Also the Democrats could win if they didn't blatantly side with 'identity politics' types/special interests on hot button issues like education (see: vouchers; No Child Left Behind), gun control, being for laxer borders, etc. Those alienate a lot of independents who might otherwise vote for them. Overall, Democrats need to be more skeptical about the federal government and more supportive of local concerns/government. They also need to stop trying to use the military as some sort of giant Peace Corps like they did in the 1990s. That will win them the votes of moderates and even conservatives/libertarians.