Are you happy with the state of your party?

[Democratic Hawk]

John Kerry ran as a populist, and it got him nowhere in rural areas. In fact, it actually hurt him by alienating suburbanites. The best possible Democratic strategy would be to move in a libertarian direction.

Populism implies social conservatism or at least social moderatism-- and Kerry's support of gay civil unions, gun control, and partial birth abortion couldn't have helped in the suburbs.  Kerry ran as a pure liberal, and if the Democrats ever nominate a pure liberal again, their results will get lower and lower.  The liberal had more votes in 2000; in 2004 the result was considerably different.

I agree. If the Democrats select a liberal in 2008 - unless Bush and the GOP mess up big-time - then they're toast and I'll be totally and utterly disillusioned

America, as a whole,  is clearly becoming less liberal. It's time for Democratic moderates to become the standard bearers. I'd like to see see the moderate (and liberal) majority setting the agenda. As I've said before an ideologically polarised election favours the GOP

Moderate Democrats can win and that's what we need to hammer home. I'm proud to support the Democratic Party - but I don't want to see it breaking my heart as it did with Zell Miller by moving permanently out of the mainstream and into the periphery

I can understand why many Democrats, especially red state Democrats, feel frustrated. The Democratic Party should be reaching out to moderate evangelicals not alienating them. The GOP are welcome to the 'Talibangelicals', however

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Miller is one scary Democrat, though. 

While he's more conservative than most, if not all, his former Democratic Senate colleagues, he was a pretty good Democratic governor - I even heard Howard Dean say that

I'd have happily voted for him as a Democrat and I still think there is a place for moderare populist conservatives, like Zell, in the Democratic Party. My liberal fellow Democrats might not agree with me on that though

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Dave, Scoonie's comments are a bit overkill, but it brings to mind the important phenomenon that, among US voters, "social" issues are very important.  This must be borne in mind when discussing US politics and US politicians.  I tend to forget that too, as these issues don't much affect my vote, but I suspect that scoonie, for example, doesn't forget that.  That said, yes, he's "moderate" by the standards I'd expect you consider, but because of his general weirdness, volatility, and positions on "social" issues, many American voters will consider him a right-wing democrat, less desirable than many republicans.  This is what I meant by "scary"

Thanks, Angus

I was of the opinion that Zell's endorsement of Bush was more a question of defence/national securirty than conservative social issues. I don't doubt he is socially a right wing Democrat. Perhaps, if Zell were a Republican he'd be less conspicuous in the eyes of most Americans - but as a Democrat, he stands out from the most conservatives

On social issues, I'm probably a shade to the right of most Forum Democrats - but my politics are more economically determined

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

As a member of the Labour Party I am rather happy .

Ditto

Dave