The direction of the Democratic Party should Obama lose in 2012?

[Kevin]

If President Obama loses his bid for a second term next year what direction will the Democratic Party take politically? I mean since Obama and his supporters are from the liberal/left wing of the party, will the Democrats trend towards a more moderate populist Clintonsque stance that has played well with many constituencies in the past? Or will the liberals/left-wing factions reinforce their presence and take control of the Democratic Party? As even though these factions within the Democratic Party were in part responsible for the loss of the 2004 election, they did contribute heavily in terms of leadership in 2006 and 2008. Additionally, the Dem gains in the South and conservative parts of the Midwest have been reversed.

So what direction could the Dems take as a party if Obama loses reelection?

[freepcrusher]

we will just hope that the economy goes bad under the republican president and hope we pick up 70+ house seats in 2014.

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats will finally and rightly realize that "compromise" and being "conciliatory" with Republicans gets you nowhere.  Democrats should use the Republicans' 2010 strategy of just saying no to everything.  Filibuster everything in the Senate that doesnt name Post Offices. 

[Del Tachi]

Brian Schweitzer takes over the Democratic Party and it becomes one of libertarian-leanings, arguing for states' rights and reacting to the GOP's populist rhetoric with intellectual poise.

If Obama looses in 2012, there's a good chance the the GOP becomes the party of fiscal conservatism and economic populism, while the Democrats become known for their limited domestic policy ideas and foreign interventionism.

 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

the GOP becomes the party of fiscal conservatism and economic populism

Just like how the Democratic party will become pro-choice and pro-life?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

So what direction could the Dems take as a party if Obama loses reelection?

Win or lose, it needs to turn left or get out of the way.

[Napoleon]

the GOP becomes the party of fiscal conservatism and economic populism

Just like how the Democratic party will become pro-choice and pro-life?

Mitt Romney (D)?

[Lief 🗽]

Well whatever the Republicans do will only make Americans more miserable, so we'll probably just win in 2014 and 2016 again.

[Person Man]

Well whatever the Republicans do will only make Americans more miserable, so we'll probably just win in 2014 and 2016 again.

and then they will win in 2018 and 2020. By that time, we might not have much of a country left.

[Lief 🗽]

Well whatever the Republicans do will only make Americans more miserable, so we'll probably just win in 2014 and 2016 again.

and then they will win in 2018 and 2020. By that time, we might not have much of a country left.

Hahah, probably not. The next decade is looking pretty grim.

[izixs]

Democrats will finally and rightly realize that "compromise" and being "conciliatory" with Republicans gets you nowhere.  Democrats should use the Republicans' 2010 strategy of just saying no to everything.  Filibuster everything in the Senate that doesnt name Post Offices. 

Bingo. One of Obama's strengths in the '08 campaign was his ability to provide some sort of contrast with the Republican party in total. The contrasts that were the most effective are also probably the most shallow (change vs more of the same) but t'was plenty on the substance side as well (stimulus of some sort vs 'I don't know much about the economy'). How the Democrats governed since then was very compromising. In the first half of the decade the main complaint was that Democrats were playing Republican lite to try to get elected, and when they were in control their compromise or bust habits ended up with a return of this perception for 2010. Republican lite doesn't turn out base voters or get marginal folks excited about your candidates.

Basically, you have to be consistent between campaigning or governing.

The change in the party will also likely be attached to the style of campaign Obama runs and the end conditions he faces. If the economy still sucks and he's against Romney and yet only barely looses, then his campaign style will probably have a strong impact on what direction the party takes, both in messaging and what they pursue on policy. On the other hand if Obama looses badly against a Bachmann type character in a good economy, then his messaging and policy ideas will be avoided like the plague for a good long while.

These are the two major factors that will shape the direction of the Democratic party: Contrast is ideal in both campaigning and governing and the lessons learned from Obama 2012, what ever they may be.

Until we're a little further along we can't do much solid predicting with any credibility. So saying the dems will be more liberal or more conservative on your pet issue X is simply a fun fantasy.

[Del Tachi]

the GOP becomes the party of fiscal conservatism and economic populism

Just like how the Democratic party will become pro-choice and pro-life?

Economic populism and fiscal conservatism are not mutually exclusive.  That is what the Tea Party is.

Fiscal conservatism--Let's not spend money we don't have!
Economic populism--In of government spending and economic policy, let's do what the people (not Wall Stree fat-cats) want!

This is what happened in 2010.  Republicans were more populist than the Democrats in that year, the people wanted lower gov't spending.  So that is what the Republicans offered.  They took the idea of fiscal conservatism and gave it populist appeal...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Economic populism--In of government spending and economic policy, let's do what the people (not Wall Stree fat-cats) want!

Um. The Tea Parties are funded by Wall Street.

Their populism is phony.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Economic populism--In of government spending and economic policy, let's do what the people (not Wall Stree fat-cats) want!

Um. The Tea Parties are funded by Wall Street.

Their populism is phony.

[Del Tachi]

Economic populism--In government spending and economic policy, let's do what the people (not Wall Stree fat-cats) want!

Um. The Tea Parties are funded by Wall Street.

Their populism is phony.

Agreed.

But, as any serious political junkie should know, politics is all about perception.  And to the average conservative-leaning voter, the Tea Party is a populist, anti-Wall Street movement.  And LOOKING like a populist party, in terms of getting votes, is just as good as BEING a populist party. 

[fezzyfestoon]

Step 1: grow balls

[King]

Step 1: grow balls

This.  There is nothing wrong with the Democrats being left and the Republicans being right.  The problem that exists is the Democrats don't seem to be very proud of any of the positions they hold.

[Vermin Supreme]

Step 1: grow balls

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You know, until after Nixon the Democrats were just as...ball-y as the Republicans. I mean, LBJ is a perfect example of a Democrat with balls, and so is Truman (exemplified by the fact that he looked like someone who was beat up in school for his Star Trek lunchbox)

[Mehmentum]

If President Obama loses his bid for a second term next year what direction will the Democratic Party take politically? I mean since Obama and his supporters are from the liberal/left wing of the party

Stop there.  Obama's biggest detractors within the Democratic party are from the left wing of the party.

If anything, Obama being defeated will lead Democrats to become more aggressive, disciplined, and liberal (though  to a lesser extent than the Republicans have in the past few years, since there are far more moderates in the Democratic party than in the Republican party).

[Kevin]

If President Obama loses his bid for a second term next year what direction will the Democratic Party take politically? I mean since Obama and his supporters are from the liberal/left wing of the party

Stop there.  Obama's biggest detractors within the Democratic party are from the left wing of the party.

If anything, Obama being defeated will lead Democrats to become more aggressive, disciplined, and liberal (though  to a lesser extent than the Republicans have in the past few years, since there are far more moderates in the Democratic party than in the Republican party).

Going further to the left and becoming more ideological isn't going to solve things for the Democrats. Especially if they have any aspirations of taking back the Senate or making gains elsewhere in this scenario, since many of the states the Dems picked up/defended seats in during the 2008 election were deeply Blue or light Blue Atlas color states. If the Dems moved further left they are going to turn the table in the favor of the Republicans for instance in the case of the Senate, since incumbents in places like North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas etc will be left vulnerable to Republican challenges.

Additionally, such moves would scare off centrist voters, suburbanites, Reagan Democrats, and pro-business voters.

So in short a left-wing version of the Tea Party would do more harm to the Democrats then good at least in the short term.

The Dems would be much better off moving towards more centrist/populist platforms and themes like those seen during the Clinton years.

[Username MechaRFK]

The Democrats need to be a left-wing party instead of becoming Republican lite. In the future, Southerns will become more tolerant with the country leaning toward atheist/agnostic. Most developed countries in the world have some left-wing party that dominates their political system. Dems are between DLC members, right-wing blue dogs and progressives/liberals(AKA what the party should be about). At least the Republican can have the conservative base, where the Dems have the left-wing base. The centrist can be allow in both parties but won't have much influence on the select party they choose to represent.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Step 1: grow balls

This.  There is nothing wrong with the Democrats being left and the Republicans being right.  The problem that exists is the Democrats don't seem to be very proud of any of the positions they hold.

[Person Man]

the GOP becomes the party of fiscal conservatism and economic populism

Just like how the Democratic party will become pro-choice and pro-life?

Economic populism and fiscal conservatism are not mutually exclusive.  That is what the Tea Party is.

Fiscal conservatism--Let's not spend money we don't have!
Economic populism--In of government spending and economic policy, let's do what the people (not Wall Stree fat-cats) want!

This is what happened in 2010.  Republicans were more populist than the Democrats in that year, the people wanted lower gov't spending.  So that is what the Republicans offered.  They took the idea of fiscal conservatism and gave it populist appeal...

In a way on economic issues, being a populist conservative was what the original Democrats were about....and definitely what elected 19th century Democrats were about-  

"Were the party of the people and we don't want our money and land taken by the follies of the rich. No to a national bank and infrastructure spending!"

Someone can be a populist and a conservative even if those policies mean that many people will vote against their interests.  By "against their interest", I mean that their populism is chasing them out of the fuedal bondage of the public estate and their conservatism is fooling them into selling themsevles into the fuedal bondage of various massive private estates. Many try to reason that if private estates had more power, they would be more encouraged to build their own estate and become rich and powerful themselves. Those with this reasoning then conclude that this sums up their God-given entitlement to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". You know what I call that? Gambling.

Then again, maybe this isn't voting against one's interest at all. Maybe private estates have become so powerful, that they have, as I warned, have comprimised at least our naton's economic sovreignty. Therefore, any attempt by the Public Estate/Government to allow their workers/charges to advance into a state of economic self-ownership (the Middle Class) will fail because there is no longer any way to support the programs and insittutions that would make such a thing possible.

It could be that  the only way to become "Middle Class" would be try to establish your own estate and to fail to become wealthy. Maybe instead of the "Middle Class" being a position of simply working as a protected tradesman, professional or bureaucrat for the government or a business, perhaps it has become more of a "bronze metal" of economic achievement for "free" men and women. (The Silver Metal being having a million and a half in assets (the top two percent) that is said to be needed to be "rich" and the Gold Metal being the seven and a half million (the top one or two per-1000) that is said to be need to be "really rich".)


This means that perhaps that if Obama loses, perhaps the direction of the Democratic Party would be to not be a voice of workers, but to be the voice of the new little guys- small businesses, independent professionals and generally to advocate for leveling the playing feild for the new kids on the block.  Terms such as "Dilluting The Variable Cost Burden" and "Increasing Industry Competition and Consumer Choice" could soon be our new euphonisms for "Universal Health Care" and "Employee's Rights".

These new strategies could work better simply because it would reonate and help an increasing amount of people and be done in a way that will not exert direct force over the internal functioning of these large private estates.
It appears that the Blair-esque strategy of being a liberal in a conservative's world might be a way to go....and in fact, you probably could push even further to the left than you can now or even did before.