The Direction of the Democratic Party if Obama loses...

[AltWorlder]

Don't worry about looking like the GOP-lite.  On one hand, many Blue Dogs already act that way, but their constituents don't care.  On the other, not making any effort towards a direction in the post-2006 victory is what makes you look GOP-lite.  As long as you don't pick up the fetishization of small government, Constitutional fundamentalism, irrational idealization of States' Rights, hawkish foreign policies, and the "screw you, I got mine" attitude of the Republicans, it's all golden. 

To be frank, you don't need to have a McGovern coalition to get fiscal liberal initiatives passed.  Ditch the academic idealogues and urban cosmopolitans- they'll vote for you anyways, and focus on winning the people in the Heartland and the South.  As long as Nader continues to eff up things for the third parties, not a single social liberal will vote for the Greens or stay at home when all they have to vote for are the Democrats.

[NDN]

Ditch the academic idealogues and urban cosmopolitans- they'll vote for you anyways, and focus on winning the people in the Heartland and the South.  As long as Nader continues to eff up things for the third parties, not a single social liberal will vote for the Greens or stay at home when all they have to vote for are the Democrats.

I don't agree that we should aim for the south. We've seen a lot of gains lately in the West and that area has far more Independents or moderate Republicans to convert than the former region. If we can make gains in the South that's great, but it shouldn't be one of our top priorities.

[Person Man]

Ditch the academic idealogues and urban cosmopolitans- they'll vote for you anyways, and focus on winning the people in the Heartland and the South.  As long as Nader continues to eff up things for the third parties, not a single social liberal will vote for the Greens or stay at home when all they have to vote for are the Democrats.

I don't agree that we should aim for the south. We've seen a lot of gains lately in the West and that area has far more Independents or moderate Republicans to convert than the former region. If we can make gains in the South that's great, but it shouldn't be one of our top priorities.

Agreed.

[The Ex-Factor]

Hasn't the "West" strategy been the basis of Howard Dean's talking points for the last few years? With Obama shown to be competitive in states like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, it could finally come to fruitation.

I remember reading about a book a few years ago where the author suggested that the Democratic party try to isolate the Republican party as the socially conservative party of the South (huh, that would practically be a near reversal of 100 years ago), which seems like a good idea in theory. The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush presidency should help turn some eyes of "small-government" Westerners that neither big party is really libertarian and/or small government as they would wish for. Hopefully gun control continues to fade away as an issue as well, would be nice if there were fewer of those single-issue voters out West screwing us over.

[Person Man]

Hasn't the "West" strategy been the basis of Howard Dean's talking points for the last few years? With Obama shown to be competitive in states like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, it could finally come to fruitation.

I remember reading about a book a few years ago where the author suggested that the Democratic party try to isolate the Republican party as the socially conservative party of the South (huh, that would practically be a near reversal of 100 years ago), which seems like a good idea in theory. The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush presidency should help turn some eyes of "small-government" Westerners that neither big party is really libertarian and/or small government as they would wish for. Hopefully gun control continues to fade away as an issue as well, would be nice if there were fewer of those single-issue voters out West screwing us over.

"Whistling Past Dixie"? Sounds like a plan.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hasn't the "West" strategy been the basis of Howard Dean's talking points for the last few years? With Obama shown to be competitive in states like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, it could finally come to fruitation.

I remember reading about a book a few years ago where the author suggested that the Democratic party try to isolate the Republican party as the socially conservative party of the South (huh, that would practically be a near reversal of 100 years ago), which seems like a good idea in theory. The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush presidency should help turn some eyes of "small-government" Westerners that neither big party is really libertarian and/or small government as they would wish for. Hopefully gun control continues to fade away as an issue as well, would be nice if there were fewer of those single-issue voters out West screwing us over.

"Whistling Past Dixie"? Sounds like a plan.

Don't forget that the south has change significantly and some of those policy position put forward to go for the West will have significant appeal in the south as well. Fiscal responsibility, dump gun control, atleast tone down the rhetoric on Abortion and you could easily see North Carolina and Arkansas slide back into the Democratic collumn. As well as narrow the margins of the GOP in GA,SC,MS,TX. AL,TN,KY,WV, LA would require a more Populist approach as opposed to Libertarian. 

Take as my proof Virginia. For 200 years the state was dominated by the rural South and Central areas of the state. Now more and more the Northern Suburban area is getting more influence. Another example is the GOP Presidential priamry in Georgia. Mitt Romney came in 3rd with 29% but he was only down by 4%inspite of all of his support coming from the Suburbs of Atlanta and Savannah. He won not a single one of Georgia's rural counties yets still got almost 30%. 10 years ago that would only have yielded Romney 15% or maybe 20%.

So I don't get how it would be "Whistling Past Dixie" on the contrary I would think it would divide the South into two groups and not the old two division either(cotton states vs border states), provide the Democrats with 3 or 4 states they currently can't get and ruin the GOP base of power. That might just be the smartest campagin strategy the Democrats have used since the New Deal Coalition.

[Person Man]

Well, I think that could be a good idea, though there has been some suspesion that the "tone down rhetoric" strategy on social issues doesn't work. The rest of it looks great, though. I think we could probably retake Virginia and North Carolina...and maybe Arkansas and Florida. But, the goal should be to focus on Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana. That's 32 votes that could be closer to 40ish by 2021.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well, I think that could be a good idea, though there has been some suspesion that the "tone down rhetoric" strategy on social issues doesn't work. The rest of it looks great, though. I think we could probably retake Virginia and North Carolina...and maybe Arkansas and Florida. But, the goal should be to focus on Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana. That's 32 votes that could be closer to 40ish by 2021.

Sure the West would be the prime target but the same policy postions just as easily work in the South. I didn't count Virginia, Florida or Missouri cause they are already within reach. Many of the Southern states will gain electors two. Georgia(+2) Florida(+3 or 2) North Carolina(+1 or 2). The good thing is that they would not have to put much money into the effort since the DNC already has a 50 state strategy. The Future of Demcoratic party lie in the South, Mountain West, and South West.

[AltWorlder]

I brought up the South is because I thought that they (along with the Great Plains folks) would be more receptive to populist approaches to health care and other concerns, as opposed to the pseudo-libertarians of the Empty Quarter.

[Person Man]

Then again, how will we be able to hold the coasts if we pander too much to ex-dems?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

And you support Obama?

I've got nowhere else to go.  McCain's too conservative for me; and the other candidates are nuts.  So Obama '08.

A move back to the type of Democratic Party you want would be best served by a Obama loss.

Perhaps, but I can't stand the idea of 4 more years of Bush's policies.

[Person Man]

So far, pandering to either the bland center-right or the left-wing hasn't worked. Maybe it would the appropriate time to simple focus on building the party from the bottom up while waiting for something really bad to happen that we can blame the GOP on.

[pragmatic liberal]

Honestly, I don't think the fundamental direction of either party will change much no matter who is elected in November.

In 2004, many people would have thought that Democrats would have shifted to the right in 2008, yet Obama is running an arguably more liberal campaign than Kerry ran in '04.

The truth is that both parties are defined more by broader underlying trends that have been going on for the past two decades and are nowhere near exhausted.

If McCain wins, it will be a victory based in two things: (1) McCain's personal popularity and (2) "doubts" about Obama be them racial or something else.

Ultimately, the base of the Democratic Party will, in 2012, still reflect the kind of base that the party has in 2008, a base the party has been acquiring throughout the '90s and '00s. That base is comprised of working-class voters, immigrants and non-whites, and middle and upper-class secular progressives (whether they call themselves "liberal" or "independent"). The last two groups have been growing as a segment of the Democratic Party and they will continue to grow. The party in 2012 will likely nominate someone who is acceptable to those groups, meaning it will be someone probably in the middle of the party -- an establishment, moderate liberal just like Obama, Clinton, Kerry and Gore all were.

Both parties, frankly, are moving away from laissez-faire, neoliberal economics. The Republicans have moved away from it in practice, but rhetorically retain it. Long-term, I see the Democrats evolving into a 21st century version of the Eisenhower and Rockefeller Republicans, with the Republican Party evolving into a socially-conservative populist party -- kind of an American twist on a European Christian Democratic party, with a base of middle-class religious voters (evangelicals, Mormons and religious Catholics) that supports high levels of social spending and middle-class entitlements.

2012 may delay or accelerate these trends but it won't effect the basic outcome. If McCain wins, I see the 2012 Democratic nominee (Hillary Clinton most likely, Barack Obama possibly and someone else like Mark Warner or Brian Schweitzer maybe) winning a hard-edged race against Sarah Palin in 2012 based on the same basic coalition that is trying to carry Obama to victory this year.

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

[Person Man]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

The bottom line: We need to do business in a radically different way. Not just for our sake....but for the country's sake....if not the world's sake.

[J. J.]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

Don't think liberal, think libertarian.

[Person Man]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

Don't think liberal, think libertarian.

Libertarian? How could a libertarian movement possibly grow out of these outrageous happenings?

[Democratic Hawk]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

Don't think liberal, think libertarian.

Exactly. Libertarian elitism

[NDN]

Exactly. Libertarian elitism

That's almost an oxymoron. Well, except for all the idiots who pat themselves on the back about being 'rugged individuals' when they got where they are now on student loans or the military.

[Person Man]

Exactly. Libertarian elitism

That's almost an oxymoron. Well, except for all the idiots who pat themselves on the back about being 'rugged individuals' when they got where they are now on student loans or the military.

Or subsidies and corporate welfare...I live with some of the biggest welfare whores in the world!