The Democratic Party after the 1984 elections:

[hopper]

What was the feeling of the party?. Did they go into panic mode after losing 2 of the last 4 elections in 49 state landslides or did the say ok we got routed we have to re-examine our policies?

I mean you lost 2 49 state landslides in a span of 12 years and the other Presidential Election in 1980 you only win 6 states except for the 1976 Carter victory. In my opinion you took a butt whopping in 3 of those 4 Presidential Elections you had your whopping if you will. Its like the Buffalo Bills losing 4 Super Bowls in a row.

It seemed like McGovern was way ahead of his time in 1972 for the coalition that the Dems enjoy now and in 1984 the candidate(Mondale) was still running on policies from the "New Deal" in the mid 1960's.

[Vega]

In the 1984 presidential election the Democrats had nominated Walter Mondale, a traditional New Deal-type liberal.

When Mondale was defeated in a landslide, party leaders became eager to find a new approach to win the presidency, you see.

Also, you have to keep in mind that the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives all throughout Reagan's tenure as President; and had the Senate for the last 2 years of his presidency.  So they still could "win".

[dudeabides]

I would argue that between 1992 and 2004, the party as a whole moved closer to the political center. This was because of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign - Clinton ran as socially progressive, fiscally centrist. Al Gore tried to portray himself as a moderate during the 2000 campaign, and I'd argue he was successful in that effort.

The 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary is what began moving the party closer to the left. Howard Dean, who had actually been a moderate Governor, brought his anti-war crusade nationally. As a result, the other candidates began moving to the left. In the general election, as expected, John Kerry tried to move back towards the political center - but his record spoke for itself, and President Bush made sure the voters knew Kerry's record. By 2006, the Democrats became as left wing as they had been during the George H.W. Bush administration, and Obama's election as President moved them to the left to an extent not seen since the LBJ era. Obama's efforts to paint himself as a moderate have failed, he won re-election running as a liberal.

[Heimdal]

The idea of the Democratic Party clinging to the New Deal and big government liberalism during the 1970s and 1980s is a misconception. Carter campaigned on turning welfare into workfare and cutting government bureaucracy in 1976. In his second State of the Union address he stated that “government cannot solve our problems, it can’t set our goals, it cannot define our vision. Government cannot eliminate poverty or provide a bountiful economy or reduce inflation or save our cities or cure illiteracy or provide energy.” Walter Mondale has been derided as being some sort of old fashioned tax-and-spend liberal. Mondale actually declared that the overall goal of his administration would be deficit reduction.

There is a notion that the Democratic Party was in the grip of European style social democrats and left wing activists like Jesse Jackson, before Bill Clinton and the DLC saved the day. That is however incorrect.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems after 2004 became the populist party. After Kerry's defeat, it was time to redefine liberalism as well as Clinton did after 1992. The term of being a liberal changed during the 2008 election due to Occupy Wallstreet. Being a liberal, like Obama campaign on can offer middle of the road solutions. Now, being a true liberal is being opposed to Wallstreet bailouts.

[Person Man]

The Democrats had this huge Dynasty in the House in the 60s, 70s and 80s but that was largely because a lot of those Southern Democrats were Reagan allies and eventually became Republicans or were replaced by them as the Democrats found a new direction with  Clinton and then eventually with Obama as these Southern Democrats composed less and less of the party.

In a way, we had 3 parties in the Reagan era- Democrats, Reagan Democrats and Republicans. You also have to consider that the Republicans were in as bad of shape  in the Depression and WW2.

Republicans didn't give up because they knew they had a future after the existential crises we were facing and voters would give then a chance again and Democrats knew that they needed to moderate their liberal wing, allow their liberal wing to become acceptable and let the conservative wing join the Republicans.

[Heimdal]

It might be. Depending on where the Democrats go the next few years, economic policy might become a schism within the party. It seems to me that the current democratic coalition is based on cultural liberalism, and a moderation in regards to taxes and fiscal policy. Opposition to abortion and gay marriage is obviously not going to stage a comeback within the party. However, there are obviously elements in the party that would favor a far more populist economic policy. If that issue gains saliency, it might drive a wedge between the DeBlasios and the Cuomos of the party.

[old timey villain]

It was just a rebuilding period. Political parties are like brands and eventually your brand becomes stale and old fashioned. People can't easily define you and instantly know what you're about, so a competing brand takes your place.

It's like the coke and pepsi wars. Both are old, established brands that constantly compete with eachother. They each have a loyal base but compete for those consumers in the middle who could buy either one. Coke and Pepsi both take turns winning over these folks for certain periods of time through things like exciting new products or catchy advertising.

The Democrats were just in their "new coke" phase in the 80s.

[Person Man]

It was just a rebuilding period. Political parties are like brands and eventually your brand becomes stale and old fashioned. People can't easily define you and instantly know what you're about, so a competing brand takes your place.

It's like the coke and pepsi wars. Both are old, established brands that constantly compete with eachother. They each have a loyal base but compete for those consumers in the middle who could buy either one. Coke and Pepsi both take turns winning over these folks for certain periods of time through things like exciting new products or catchy advertising.

The Democrats were just in their "new coke" phase in the 80s.

This.

Though it will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few years. On one hand, it seems that Republicans have enough small Southern and Rural states and congressional districts to hold to do very well in Congress but Democrats seem to have enough Urban and Suburban states to be at a good advantage for Presidential races. I think, if anything, the next two cycles will determine whether Democrats campaign as a hard liberal party or social liberal party in the not too distant future. I don't think they will try to go back to try to win back traditional blue dogs if they won't even vote for Pryor or Landrieu. 

[pbrower2a]

Realignments happen under the cover of blowout losses. The winning coalition in blowouts eventually gets people with interests diametrically opposite each other; this creates rifts that the Other Side can then exploit.

One of my favorite techniques is to contrast two elections to show what states one nominee won to what another one won. Example: Bill Clinton won a raft of states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast that Carter lost in a bare win in 1976 -- states that Democrats have largely won since then.