Why did Democrats abandon the 50 state strategy?

[Mr.Phips]

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy helped Democrats win the House and Senate in 2006 and helped them pick up more seats in 2008.  When Democrats ditched the 50 state strategy in 2009, they lost everything they had gained and more. 

Here is what Democrats have lost since abandoning the 50 state strategy:

24 state legislative chambers
12 state legislatures
8 governorships
700 state legislative seats
63 House seats
6 Senate seats

When was the last time a party lost so much, so quickly?

[Mr.Phips]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  

its very possible that if Obama loses in 2012 the dems regain it in 2014.

That is actually extremely unlikely. Dems that say that have no idea what just happened on the redistricting front. While redistricting itself may have led to an equal if not slight Dem advantage vs. current numbers the change in the strength of GOP held districts is huge and unbelievable.

Now its been a while since I've seen this number posted(I believe some GOP benefiting changes have or will take place to it as well) so don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure the PVI for the median house district is about R+3.

What that means is that Dems will have to trudge through a ton of republican territory to take the last marginal district capable of giving them a majority. The hill is just too steep. And furthermore if they want a real governing majority(where very conservative Blue Dogs aren't the deciders of everything) they are going to need at least 10 more seats on top of that(personally I don't want control of the house unless I've got at least a 10 vote buffer) for that to happen you need to win 10 more seats that are R+3-4.

Let me give you a clue from a political perspective not going to happen in the reign the Queen D*ck.

There will be a TON of Republicans in seats that are R+5 or less, which will be ripe for taking in an anti- Romney midterm. 

[Mr.Phips]

There will be a TON of Republicans in seats that are R+5 or less, which will be ripe for taking in an anti- Romney midterm. 

The GOP wasn't able to make much progress in D+ territory in 2010, why do you think the Dems will fare any better?

Most of the seats Democrats picked up in 2006 and 2008 were in low R+ territory.  Here is a list:


2006:

1. AZ-05 R+4
2. AZ-08 R+2
3. CA-11 R+3
4. FL-16  R+3
5. IN-02 R+4
6. IN-08 R+9
7. IN-09 R+7
8. KS-02 R+7
9. MN-01 R+1
10. NY-19 R+1
11. NY-20 R+2
12. NC-11 R+7
13. OH-18 R+7
14. PA-04 R+3
15. PA-10 R+8
16. TX-22 R+14
17. TX=23 R+4
18. WI-08 R+4

2008:

1. AL-02 R+13
2. CO-04 R+5
3. FL-24 R+4
4. ID-01 R+18
5. MD-01 R+13
6. MI-07 R+1
7. NY-13 R+4
8. NY-29 R+5
9. OH-16 R+4
10 PA-03 R+3
11. VA-02 R+5
12. VA-05 R+5