If the democrats survive a 2008 defeat...

[© tweed]

they are still going to have both houses of Congress under control (likely by a larger margin in each than at present, too) so the party will "survive."  and, arguably, hold more power than the Republican Party for the next two years.

and I can't see the party of a 74-year-old President McCain doing so hot in 2010 so...

[Beet]

The PNAC types, religious right, supply siders (the various right wing think tanks like Club for Growth), contractors, big pharma, agribusiness, etc. Basically the people that actually run Washington. We don't have a two party system anymore.

So basically you are so far to the left that you won't give Democrats support unless they become as far left as you and hence unelectable? I love this.

[Colin]

While I would be much more willing to vote for a Democratic Party that goes along the path defined in option 2, option 1 is a much better winning strategy. Economic populism and social conservatism is a winning combination. I don't get why none of the parties have yet to embrace this. Not only would you win the South but you'd get the Rust Belt and, probably, the Great Plains. The economic leftism will make sure that your party would do well among working class and some middle class voters in the Northeast. Besides losing the Pacific Coast I can't see any real downsides to either the Republican or Democratic Parties pursuing this strategy. For the Republicans all they need to do is embrace a less Jesusy Huckabee approach, for the Democrats embrace the Byron Dorgan/Ben Nelson wing of the party.

[Person Man]

Byron Dorgan is still relatively with us on social issues ... I would say if he was up for the job, we should nom him to be at least VP.

[Хahar 🤔]

While I would be much more willing to vote for a Democratic Party that goes along the path defined in option 2, option 1 is a much better winning strategy. Economic populism and social conservatism is a winning combination. I don't get why none of the parties have yet to embrace this. Not only would you win the South but you'd get the Rust Belt and, probably, the Great Plains. The economic leftism will make sure that your party would do well among working class and some middle class voters in the Northeast. Besides losing the Pacific Coast I can't see any real downsides to either the Republican or Democratic Parties pursuing this strategy. For the Republicans all they need to do is embrace a less Jesusy Huckabee approach, for the Democrats embrace the Byron Dorgan/Ben Nelson wing of the party.

A less Jesusy Huckabee I'd seriously look into. If populism in the Republican Party lost its religious connections and became mainstream, you could be seeing this 35 times a day:

[NDN]

So, what is the winning strategy?

It depends on what kind of party you want.

I think the Democrats could win on a western strategy, just not the one you outlined. Politically, it makes no sense for the Democrats to drop talking about healthcare when they have the most approval on that issue. They could emphasize a modest foreign policy (no nation building), fiscal conservatism (as in anti-deficits/pork),  better civil liberties, and stronger borders while keeping some of their sacred cow issues like being pro-universal healthcare or social security. The main thing keeping them from doing this despite broad support from both sides for such a platform is really the special interests. It's why Perot did so well with Republican in '92 despite being (by our standards) a flaming liberal. I think that Paul Hackett, Bill Richardson and (before he got smeared as an anti-semite) Dick Moran are in many respects is close to the ideological 'role models' that the Democrats should be embracing.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Populism, socialism, wealth-distibution, whatever you want to call it, is a failed ideology.   It is an economic failure.    It has failed everywhere where it has been implemented, which is why option 1 is not feasible either.

[War on Want]

Populism, socialism, wealth-distibution, whatever you want to call it, is a failed ideology.   It is an economic failure.    It has failed everywhere where it has been implemented, which is why option 1 is not feasible either.

How is it a failed ideology? It has taken over many countries along the world. the New Deal Coalition which is arguably the most successful political Coalition in American history was built around it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Populism, socialism, wealth-distibution, whatever you want to call it, is a failed ideology.   It is an economic failure.    It has failed everywhere where it has been implemented, which is why option 1 is not feasible either.

Or, for another example, the post-war consensus built by the Attlee Labour government.

[War on Want]

Byron Dorgan/John Edwards 349 EV's
Mark Sanford/Charlie Crist 182 EV's

Pretty much a realignment scenario in 2016, after McCain gets two terms, and Sanford, McCain's VP, is selected.

Same scenario, with more Small Government Democratic Party:

Janet Napolitano/Brian Schweitzer 270 EV's
Mark Sanford/Charlie Crist 268 EV's

[Colin]

While I would be much more willing to vote for a Democratic Party that goes along the path defined in option 2, option 1 is a much better winning strategy. Economic populism and social conservatism is a winning combination. I don't get why none of the parties have yet to embrace this. Not only would you win the South but you'd get the Rust Belt and, probably, the Great Plains. The economic leftism will make sure that your party would do well among working class and some middle class voters in the Northeast. Besides losing the Pacific Coast I can't see any real downsides to either the Republican or Democratic Parties pursuing this strategy. For the Republicans all they need to do is embrace a less Jesusy Huckabee approach, for the Democrats embrace the Byron Dorgan/Ben Nelson wing of the party.

A less Jesusy Huckabee I'd seriously look into. If populism in the Republican Party lost its religious connections and became mainstream, you could be seeing this 35 times a day:

Oh I'm not saying lose its religious connections, that's a losing strategy all around, just make them less visible. Basically Huckabee toning down the "preacher talk". Religious connections are essential to American populism. See Bryan, William Jennings.

[War on Want]

While I would be much more willing to vote for a Democratic Party that goes along the path defined in option 2, option 1 is a much better winning strategy. Economic populism and social conservatism is a winning combination. I don't get why none of the parties have yet to embrace this. Not only would you win the South but you'd get the Rust Belt and, probably, the Great Plains. The economic leftism will make sure that your party would do well among working class and some middle class voters in the Northeast. Besides losing the Pacific Coast I can't see any real downsides to either the Republican or Democratic Parties pursuing this strategy. For the Republicans all they need to do is embrace a less Jesusy Huckabee approach, for the Democrats embrace the Byron Dorgan/Ben Nelson wing of the party.

A less Jesusy Huckabee I'd seriously look into. If populism in the Republican Party lost its religious connections and became mainstream, you could be seeing this 35 times a day:

Oh I'm not saying lose its religious connections, that's a losing strategy all around, just make them less visible. Basically Huckabee toning down the "preacher talk". Religious connections are essential to American populism. See Bryan, William Jennings.

Pretty much. I like William Jennings Bryan a lot though, so I wouldn't really mind that...

[Person Man]

What are some of the 2012 candidates we should realistically look at?

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

What are some of the 2012 candidates we should realistically look at?

Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Vilsack.   Possibly Ed Rendell.   Only because he strikes me as a tough, no-nonsense old school Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Truman.   He can get the white male vote, as can all the others I've mentioned.

I would say Brad Henry, too, but he looks too goofy.   Shallow?   Yes, but little stuff like that matters ya know.

[Person Man]

What are some of the 2012 candidates we should realistically look at?

Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Vilsack.   Possibly Ed Rendell.   Only because he strikes me as a tough, no-nonsense old school Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Truman.   He can get the white male vote, as can all the others I've mentioned.

I would say Brad Henry, too, but he looks too goofy.   Shallow?   Yes, but little stuff like that matters ya know.

Warner Sebelius and Rendell would probaby be the big three going into 2012.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Its quite unfortunate about Elliot Spitzer, too, because he would have made an incredible VP choice for Warner in 2012.   The gentleman from Virginia and the "fcuking steamroller" would have torn the GOP a new bunghole, and would have been a kick-ass ticket.

[opebo]

#4, except that #4 is inaccurately phrased - we cannot 'keep' moving left, as we have been moving right for the last 30 years.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Every time the Dems field a leftist candidate, it always ends in utter disaster, so option 4 is not feasible.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time.

[Sasquatch]

Option 1: Would the south be more willing to vote for them just because they downplay some issues? The GOP already has a solid reputation when it comes to those issues. Also the Dems would lose a lot of the left.

Option 2: I don't think Dems would want to let go of those issues.

Option 3: Isn't this already happening? Republicrats anyone?

Option 4: In my ideal world this would be the best option, but sadly, the democrat party is where progressive ideas go to die. The Kucinich's of the party would never be accepted by majority of voters, nor would they be accepted by the Democratic party puppet masters.


So none of the above would work. Best bet is to hope the GOP screws up, so you can squeak out a 50% +1 victory.

[Smid]

In Australia, the Opposition Leader defeated the conservative Liberal Government by emphasising his "Christian credentials" (my phrase). He specifically labelled himself "an old-fashioned Christian socialist" and Deitrich Bonhoeffer as a hero:

Just before he became Opposition Leader:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753915.htm

Just after he became Opposition Leader:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930265-2702,00.html

So he reassured the socially conservative middle and lower classes that he wasn't going to be too leftist/radical on social issues.

Then he moved on and labelled himself an "economic conservative" because the economy was our strong suit:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-radical-thought-8212-lets-all-be-conservative/2007/11/16/1194766958576.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5866

Here's what option 1 looks like in reality:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22754161-7583,00.html

[Person Man]

So basically Option 1 would basically just be us coming together to have a guy run?

[Smid]

No - he's a right-wing face on a left-wing party. He just made sure that the leftists in his party didn't spook the horses. His deputy PM was a member of Socialist Forum as recently as a few years back.

[Person Man]

So, a stealth progressive?

[Smid]

My thought on him is "All style, no substance" but then again, I'm pretty partisan. His opinion polls are pretty good, although the PM always goes up following the election. He's done a few things that would be considered progressive (very first thing he did after becoming PM was sign Kyoto - although that has no impact because we were already on target for that and then saying sorry).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22865700-601,00.html - Kyoto

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=379056 - Sorry
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/13/2161227.htm?section=justin

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Note to Democrats:

The whole point of presidential elections is to win them.