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

[NDN]

I fear that the move toward the center would keep the Republicans calling the shots; we need to abandon some issues and push hard on others in a way that keeps what's left of us together. Perhaps pushing on "negative issues", such as the end of government subsidies to large companes and the oil industry, the protection of choice and gay rights should be emphasized and the entire gun control and other restrictive policies should be dropped.

I honestly think the Democrats emphasize Abortion WAY too much still. That should not be a deal breaker. Gay Rights are trickier although with Gen X, Y and Z replacing the Greatest Generation, Silents and Boomers that will happen anyway (thankfully). Other than that I agree with this. Really the Democrats should emphasize a more anti-pork, fiscally Conservative position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As pro-business as I am I wouldn't necessarily 'give up' on them although the party should really avoid endorsing actual protectionism.

Also, we could  use the SCOTUS ruling from last year to campaign on leaving Affirmative Action up to the states.

You want to risk losing our most reliable base? If we moderate at all on affirmative action, it should be to tout more class based programs.

[NDN]

I don't think the 'center-right' is necessarily a bad place to be given that the American electorate is so heavily to the right compared to virtually every other country. If the Democrats tout bread & butter issues (healthcare, education, infrastructure), leave social issues more to the states, promote fiscal discipline, and advocate a humble foreign policy (ie not neoCon)  they will do very well.

[NDN]

The problem isn't that we've had center right principles, it's that we've had no real principles. The Democratic Party right now is incoherent and hasn't really managed to enact any of the agenda it promised in 2006. If it did we would have a real majority.

[NDN]

We didn't copy our rivals in '06 though.

My point is that the Democrats had a winning strategy a couple years back, but their total inability to actually enact any of it blew it. If we drop loser social issues in favor of moderate economic policies and a foreign policy that sharply differs from the neoCons we'll do fine. What we should really be doing is trying to win over the West and parts of the midWest.

[NDN]

I support this but at the same time we must still affirm that we are socially progressive at the same time.

Social Issues have their place but we've let the GOP make them the focus of the national debate lately. How much of 2004 was spent discussing gay marriage, guns, or something else along those lines? I'm not saying we should all be social conservatives obviously. And in some areas such as civil liberties we could actually be more 'liberal' than we are currently and potentially gain votes. But we need a big tent, and we need to drop/avoid certain issues.

[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.

[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.