Why don't Democrats try and purify their party of moderates?

[Username MechaRFK]

Moderate is an undefined word. What makes one a moderate? Am I a moderate? Is Obama? What about conservatives such as Joe Manchin or Ben Nelson? I'd start by getting rid of those types and try to pick up voters based on social issues.

Well according to wikipedia Dan Boren is considered to be "moderate" even though he has the voting record of a standard southern Republican.

Though I have to say that strategically speaking an ideological purge on social issues would be worse than one on economic issues.  I mean that is unless you want to tell AT LEAST 35% of the party to go f*** themselves and make South Boston a swing district.

Actually it would help in the future with issues such as environmental and gay rights issues. Sure, it will hurt in the South and Mid-West but do ok around the Southwest area.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If we're going to purge, we must realize that the easiest and most logical Democratic base is the Rustbelt and the South. We should be breaking 70% in Mississippi, and West Virginia's current political situation should apply to presidential elections as well. Once we purge the party of corporatists, we can once again reclaim our mantle as progressive populists.

[Napoleon]

If we're going to purge, we must realize that the easiest and most logical Democratic base is the Rustbelt and the South. We should be breaking 70% in Mississippi, and West Virginia's current political situation should apply to presidential elections as well. Once we purge the party of corporatists, we can once again reclaim our mantle as progressive populists.

No, then we would be Republicans. Get rid of the Midwest and South outside of FL MN VA and IL.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I never said to adopt social conservatism, just to focus on economically left-wing policies. The parties are defined by economics, with social issues being something of a bonus, and I'd rather be the party of assisting the poor, working and middle class than the party of upper-middle class ski resort towns, the party of Dave's Hardware (made-up name) instead of Starbucks and Google. Social issues, while nice for red meat, won't attract many new voters that we don't have already.

[Napoleon]

I never said to adopt social conservatism, just to focus on economically left-wing policies. The parties are defined by economics, with social issues being something of a bonus, and I'd rather be the party of assisting the poor, working and middle class than the party of upper-middle class ski resort towns, the party of Dave's Hardware (made-up name) instead of Starbucks and Google. Social issues, while nice for red meat, won't attract many new voters that we don't have already.

Not only are those states right wing, people don't understand economics enough to base their vote on it. That's why its so easy for people to cheer on or whine about tax cuts, its one of the few fiscal issues they can even begin to comprehend.

We had a left wing President like you're describing. And he destroyed the party and the country. Kids, mostly black, sent to die in a quagmire called Vietnam. Social programs fumbled or ignored entirely. Spending allowed to get out out of control. A decade of stagflation. After LBJ's win in 1964, we won one election until 1992.

Clinton focused on social liberalism. Instead of blaming technology for killing jobs, we utilized it to create jobs. We reformed welfare. We expanded the map to dominate the Northeast and the West Coast. Now were taking over the Upper Southern Coast and the Southwest.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

That horrible president also sharply reduced poverty, passed landmark civil rights legislation, enjoyed strong approval ratings before Vietnam went to hell, and created the closest thing we have today to national health care. As I've said before, my ideal president would be Hubert Humphrey, who opposed the war but stated his opposition far too late to win.

Also, social liberalism under Clinton? The one who gave us DADT as the weakest compromise in political history until 2009? And I have no problem with technology, as long as we make sure it creates new jobs to negate the ones it eventually replaces. It goes hand in hand with manufacturing; we have to make those precious iPads somewhere, and I'd rather see them made under good conditions in Detroit or Pittsburgh than sweatshops in the Philippines.

Also, I toyed with the electoral map a little bit; if we shut ourselves out of the entire central portion of the country (I even gave you NC, as well as AZ, PA, and MT), by 2010 electoral numbers our effective ceiling is 311. To follow Howard Dean's strategy, remember that there are Democrats in every state. Why not put them to use?

[Napoleon]

We could still win states like WI which elected Feingold and maybe Baldwin though I don't think so. CA didn't get an R wave because the untapped stoner vote came out for Prop 19. Rove mobilized anti-gay evangelicals in 2004 that hadn't voted before. There are groups we can mobilize but so far haven't.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The only group which voted in favor of Prop 19 were white men, who IIRC voted for Whitman and Fiorina. As for Wisconsin, that liberal vote came from organized labor, which you seem to be writing off.

[Username MechaRFK]

The only group which voted in favor of Prop 19 were white men, who IIRC voted for Whitman and Fiorina. As for Wisconsin, that liberal vote came from organized labor, which you seem to be writing off.

And were independent/libertarian republicans if they vote for someone like Whitman and Fiorina. I wonder how many so called liberals oppose Prop 19? Most so called libersls can be the anti liberal when it comes to porn and strip clubs.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd say feminists in particular.

[Username MechaRFK]

I'd say feminists in particular.

If that the truth then why weed of all things?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Eh, in that case I was talking more about prostitution and pornography.

[Username MechaRFK]

Eh, in that case I was talking more about prostitution and pornography.

True but I'm well aware of the anti prostitution/porn of the feminists. Now I wonder anti weed liberals and the demographics that is part of that crowd.

[freepcrusher]

I for one have been impressed at what the democrats have been able to accomplish in Colorado. The politican terrain of the state made it possible for this to happen:
1) fast growing state with lots of newcomers
2) strongly independent streak (huge percentage of voters are DTS)
3) highly educated population (something like 65% of electorate has 16+ years of education)

The democrats have picked up both senate seats, the governorship, the state senate, and have achieved near parity in the state assembly. I for one have believe that Colorado is the model in which the democratic party will base their future strategies on. The question is to figure out which states have a similar demographic to Colorado and try it out there as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That horrible president also sharply reduced poverty, passed landmark civil rights legislation, enjoyed strong approval ratings before Vietnam went to hell, and created the closest thing we have today to national health care. As I've said before, my ideal president would be Hubert Humphrey, who opposed the war but stated his opposition far too late to win.

Also, social liberalism under Clinton? The one who gave us DADT as the weakest compromise in political history until 2009? And I have no problem with technology, as long as we make sure it creates new jobs to negate the ones it eventually replaces. It goes hand in hand with manufacturing; we have to make those precious iPads somewhere, and I'd rather see them made under good conditions in Detroit or Pittsburgh than sweatshops in the Philippines.

Also, I toyed with the electoral map a little bit; if we shut ourselves out of the entire central portion of the country (I even gave you NC, as well as AZ, PA, and MT), by 2010 electoral numbers our effective ceiling is 311. To follow Howard Dean's strategy, remember that there are Democrats in every state. Why not put them to use?

Well, Clinton was certainly no social liberal, but he was more socially than economically liberal.
For example, Clinton signed NAFTA, repealed Glass-Steagall, and lowered long term capital gains rates for the rich.  Of course all of the Presidents of the last 30 years have been right of center on economic issues.