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

[Person Man]

Seriously, if the democrats can't pull it off this election, what chance will they ever have again and under what circumstances and win? Perhaps the Democratic Party will implode or have a very nasty cleansing. Then again, perhaps if November is bitter-sweet and the Democrats are close to 60 and have well over 240 seats in the house, despite losing, perhaps the issue will turn on Obama's campaign and biography. Perhaps the entire debacle will be blamed on Clinton, or perhaps on the fact that America simply is "racist" (how else do explain losing in the most favorable year for you in 30, if not 75 years?) Then again, this could be just a replay of 1928, but then again, no party has fu cked up so royally and got a way with it. Perhaps Obama's waffling will be blamed. Perhaps he will be accused of "Not being liberal enough" or even "Too liberal" or "too young".  Perhaps the base of the party will be changed. Then again, this election could just be another part of the Democrats transition into a permanent minority party with the Democrats doing nothing. I imagine that the democrats could go with a more mainstream candidate, but all of the truely "in touch" democrats are not ambitious enough to become president. Perhaps there will be more recruiting for public office amongst the private sector. I am sure Dean would love to get his hands on CEOs, Generals and Pro-Atheletes. Then again, the fundamentals of American politics would likely change. Roe may be overturned by the end of McCain's first term. We may have a percieved war of national survival in Iran or even a new Cold War, or something else that cannot be percieved at this time. How would this effect the insurgent democrats?  Mark Warner may be the next president of the United States, but if he loses, we may simply be leaderless. What is your take? There are so many variables. I mean, this is not 2004, where the landscape was 50/50 and only a handful of people were pissed off...and the democrats had a mediocre candidate.

[Person Man]

Less minority focused, less progressive but more socially permissive. The party becomes liberal as opposed to progressive. Basically the anti-smoking, gun control, health nazi(transfats, sin taxes), pro-war on drugs wing of liberalism(Yes, they exist), eco-puritan(basically the entire green agenda minus endangered species/alternate or nuclear power) issues all get dropped.

That actually sounds like a platform that I would really like, but would it be any more electable than what we have now? Are there enough "Left-Libertarians" to make this coalition a possibility. What would a map look like?

[Person Man]

Stop. Now.

You've said this only about 20 times already.

Yeah sure you can mock me now, but whatever alternatives are there? At any rate, it will be interesting to see what the GOP thinks they will be able to get away with.

[Person Man]

Seriously. What do you think?

[Person Man]

Ummm...how does the stopping of being democrats make us more democratic?

That sounds like a good tactic when it comes to sumptuary laws against cigarettes and guns, but we do need civil libertarians to be competitive in the West and Northern Midwest.  I don't think that trying to pander at everyone at a time has been working, but trying to make the only difference between us and the GOP Universal Health care and maybe taxes will only work as well as putting abortion as the only difference between us. I think Straha's idea is the best. Instead of insisting we know what's best for Americans, we should leave that job to the Republicans and claim that we know that ordinary people know what's best for them but that we can make their interests reality.

[Person Man]

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. Perhaps we should work only on Universal Health Care and abandon the Social Security and/or "Rich Tax Cuts" complaints. ...and I am willing to give up on unions since they have been unable to deliver since 1964. Also, we could  use the SCOTUS ruling from last year to campaign on leaving Affirmative Action up to the states.

[Person Man]

If our best (or the GOPs worst) isnt enough, we need to make a new type of Democratic Party. One that is totally different than what we have now, but won't be GOP-lite.

[Person Man]

What should we do then? Seriously. I mean, letting the GOP finish destroying this country is actually looking like a good option...its the only thing that has worked for us before.

[Person Man]

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.

Polls show that this is one of the few areas the Democrats are really popular in. While I think younger Democrats would be open to scaling back Social Security and/or Medicare given the enormous costs (and decreased benefits for them) that fact is undeniable.

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.

Well, that seems pretty reasonable, though we should only moderate on abortion if Roe is repealed by John McCain (his justices)...and at that point, we should moderate on it, but have it as a deal breaker if someone won't allow it for rape, incest, maternal life, or if it is more likely than not that  fetal defects or permanent maternal disability will be involved in forcing a birth....and allow for public funding for open adoption and adoption counciling if they are otherwise anti-abortion.

Then again, by trying to be vaguely center-right, in opposition to a right wing GOP will just cast us as a bunch of people that just meet to get someone elected...and WILL make us a permanent minority.

We need to offer stark contrasts while meeting the needs of a more globalized United States. Perhaps we are getting somewhere when I talk about replacing age-based entitlements and race-based entitlements with universal health care and class-based assistance to produce mobillity and national reconciliation.

Then again, we should support center-right candidates like Ritter and Casey Jr. when they are up against not Right-Wing, but Far-Right opponents in centrist states.

[Person Man]

Yes, but we haven't been able to build a permanent majority on center-right principles. We need to stand out...that doesn't mean we push to the left, but it definately means we need an original platform. We need to be original, but comfortable. Simple as that, though easier said than done. ...though I agree that we need to get rid of issues that just don't work, like guns, though we need to be careful with racism...with the surge on undocumenteds and a minority candidate, we could be on the verge of active racism (at least the word "n" being "taken back" in most places outside of majority-minority neighborhoods...its already OK in red states east of 100W) becoming part of the center-right governmening principle of this country.

[Person Man]

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.

If we just copy our rivals, it will be interpreted that way. What we need is to be original. That means that we actually need to think beyond trying to comprimise with people who are not willing to comprimise and trying old, failed policies and platforms. Changing the party will not occur by recycling old ideas.

[Person Man]

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.

I agree with you on guns, smoking, food and staunch conservationism (inner cities aren't delivering), but we need our social issues that appeal to upper-midwestern and western suburbs.

[Person Man]

I mean, perhaps we need to develop the principle that we beleive in "Humble, but Reliable Government".

[Person Man]

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.

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

Exactly. Perhaps, we need to start taking cues from the pragmatists in the state capitols west of 100W.  Dave Freundenthal, Bill Richardson, Janet Neopatanio(sp?), Brian Schwitzer  and Bill Ritter should be the future of the Democratic Party. We should be humbled, but principled.

[Person Man]

What the hell is 100W?

100 Longitude- it basically divides the country in half.

[Person Man]

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.

Agreed.

[Person Man]

Hasn't the "West" strategy been the basis of Howard Dean's talking points for the last few years? With Obama shown to be competitive in states like Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska, it could finally come to fruitation.

I remember reading about a book a few years ago where the author suggested that the Democratic party try to isolate the Republican party as the socially conservative party of the South (huh, that would practically be a near reversal of 100 years ago), which seems like a good idea in theory. The fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush presidency should help turn some eyes of "small-government" Westerners that neither big party is really libertarian and/or small government as they would wish for. Hopefully gun control continues to fade away as an issue as well, would be nice if there were fewer of those single-issue voters out West screwing us over.

"Whistling Past Dixie"? Sounds like a plan.

[Person Man]

Well, I think that could be a good idea, though there has been some suspesion that the "tone down rhetoric" strategy on social issues doesn't work. The rest of it looks great, though. I think we could probably retake Virginia and North Carolina...and maybe Arkansas and Florida. But, the goal should be to focus on Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Montana. That's 32 votes that could be closer to 40ish by 2021.

[Person Man]

Then again, how will we be able to hold the coasts if we pander too much to ex-dems?

[Person Man]

So far, pandering to either the bland center-right or the left-wing hasn't worked. Maybe it would the appropriate time to simple focus on building the party from the bottom up while waiting for something really bad to happen that we can blame the GOP on.

[Person Man]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

The bottom line: We need to do business in a radically different way. Not just for our sake....but for the country's sake....if not the world's sake.

[Person Man]

Basically, McCain victory = GOP moves to the cente. 

I once thought that but now that John McCain has capitulated to the radical right and socially conservative base of his party and selected Saintly Sarah, like a wuss who didn't have the balls to go with say Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, thereby effectively giving his party a veto, I don't now

Republican moderates are dying breed

Still, if McCain wins; hopefully, the Democratic Congress will be a check on any radically regressive excesses on his part

Dave

Don't think liberal, think libertarian.

Libertarian? How could a libertarian movement possibly grow out of these outrageous happenings?

[Person Man]

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.

Or subsidies and corporate welfare...I live with some of the biggest welfare whores in the world!