Why did Democrats abandon the 50 state strategy?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's not as stupid a question as you three seem to suggest, tho the idea that the loss of those seats was due mainly to the abandonment of the 50 State strategy is fairly illogical.  While the Democrats are necessarily playing defense right now, that doesn't require focusing only on defense.  Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.  Plus abandoning areas they are currently weak in will only help to insure they remain weak in them in the long term.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thing is Wonk, no matter what strategy the Dems use, I can't see them regaining the House before 2016 at the earliest.  So at the House level, thinking long term is the smart thing for them to do right now.  The Senate's different.  The Dems have a slim chance of retaining their majority if everything goes well for them, and the Republicans have a slim chance of gaining a filibuster proof 60 seats if everything goes well for them.  That combined with the fact that the Republicans have a decent chance of reaching 60 seats in the 2014 elections means that the Dems need to play short-term defense in the Senate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Dems aren't going to be able to pass major partisan legislation for quite some time Wonk. It's going to be at least twenty years before they have absolute control all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency. (Assuming the filibuster is kept in the Senate.)  Nor do I see them being able to prevent the Republicans from achieving absolute control at least once in the next twenty years.

As for Obama losing in 2012, unless the GOP nominates an utter incompetent, that would be a good thing.  We cannot afford four more years of gridlock right now unless the alternative is electing a nincompoop as President.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Nah.  Even without the redistricting arguments that Wonk gave, I don't see the Republicans as being able to do themselves sufficient political damage in only two years to reverse the political tide that far.  Not unless the Tea Partiers take far more seats than I expect them to.  Pretty much everyone agrees that Social Security and Medicare need some serious reforms to bring the Federal budget back into whack in the long term.  So long as the Republicans can avoid reforms that are seen as being the next worst thing to eliminating them, they'll only lose some seats as is typical for the party in power during a mid-term election, but not the whole House.  Plus the Dems will have to concentrate on defending the Senate seats they won in 2008 in an attempt to keep the Republicans from gaining enough seats there to get a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

  Pretty much everyone agrees that Social Security and Medicare need some serious reforms to bring the Federal budget back into whack in the long term.

Manufacturing Consent?

No, because while almost everyone agrees there is a problem, there isn't much agreement on the solution, whether it be to increase the taxes that go into the trust funds, scale back the benefit levels, increase the age of eligibility, means test drawing benefits from the trust funds, increase the premiums paid to get Medicare, put money into the trust funds by non-payroll taxes, etc.   However, unless the Democrats lose the ability to filibuster in the Senate, I don't see the GOP being able to pass a plan that could backfire so spectacularly as to let the Dems retake the House in 2014.