What will the democrats do if they lose in 2008?

[Person Man]

well... This is getting old....so this time, I am assessing all the options.

[Хahar 🤔]

Weasel, stop. The Democrats aren't going to change based on this election.

[Lief 🗽]

Weasel, stop. The Democrats aren't going to change based on this election.

^^^^

[True Democrat]

I'd like to hope something different, but they won't change their behavior at all.

[Beet]

I'd like to hope something different, but they won't change their behavior at all.

Errr, what would you hope for?

[True Democrat]

I'd like to hope something different, but they won't change their behavior at all.

Errr, what would you hope for?

I would like them to move in the direction of Bill Clinton economically, favoring free trade and cutting deficits.  Socially, I don't mind the Democrats being socially liberal, but I just wish they would do it in a less radical fashion.  Liberal democrats still don't understand that they piss off a lot of people with talk about abortion.  You can be pro-choice and still want towards ending abortion.  Finally, on foreign policy, I'm obviously a hawk, so we should move towards a more interventionist foreign policy.

[Beet]

I'd like to hope something different, but they won't change their behavior at all.

Errr, what would you hope for?

I would like them to move in the direction of Bill Clinton economically, favoring free trade and cutting deficits.  Socially, I don't mind the Democrats being socially liberal, but I just wish they would do it in a less radical fashion.  Liberal democrats still don't understand that they piss off a lot of people with talk about abortion.  You can be pro-choice and still want towards ending abortion.  Finally, on foreign policy, I'm obviously a hawk, so we should move towards a more interventionist foreign policy.

Well, I agree with you on most of that.

I think the long primary season and the necessity to pandering to liberals on the part of both Clinton and Obama has caused them to emphasize their protectionist rhetoric more than they would otherwise, as well as on economic issues in general. That has been the trend of the country in the past few years, and not all of it is coming from the Democratic party (see, Lou Dobbs). A large part of the new economic populism seems to be driven by insecurity that is a result of rising costs and inequality. In that sense, passing things like expanded health care coverage may actually decrease aversion to free trade, for example, because people will feel more secure ("If I am forced into a different job, at least I will still be covered.") However the candidates may be flexible on economic issues, a part of the base is not, which is unfortunate.

On abortion, I don't see that much extremist rhetoric coming from most liberals. Personally, I'm more of a stickler on Roe (which can be amended) than on abortion itself... there are serious moral issues to consider with abortion and they ought to be balanced against one another. So I can respect the pro-life position. On the other hand the real Roe decision was not Roe but Griswold, and overturning Griswold would have far-reaching legal consequences. The assault on Roe must fail because it is a hypocritical political attack in the guise of a legal argument, and if it succeeds there will be only more politicization of legal issues.

Finally, on foreign policy, I guess it depends what you mean by "hawk", but here again both candidates have had to pander to a left which sometimes stoops to using war issues as a wedge issue. Obama was able to hammer Hillary hard on Kyl-Lieberman, even though it was basically a resolution with little consequence. But even earlier on, you had Obama positioning himself as more hawkish in some areas, such as Pakistan. That rhetoric has now died down. Had the primary season ended long ago and the general election season started, the dynamics may have started to shift by now. As it is, we will see how the eventually nominee can emphasize his/her moderate credentials when the general begins.

[Sasquatch]

I personally wish the Dennis Kucinich wing of the party would break free and join the Greens or something. It seems like the party wants to be GOP Lite.

[Person Man]

I am actually getting more split responses now.

[J. J.]

Continue to use the slogan, "Wait 'til next time."

[go85bucks10]

If the Democrats loose, even though they will still pick up a little bit in the house and senate, they will have to graciously loose and do everything to help McCain get out of Iraq. They could help the country get better and take a lot of credit for it. McCain will try to help the Republican Party by  fixing some issues but he will be viewed as being different than the average republican, therefor as everyone has a damaging view of the republican party the Democrats and McCain will look good. The Dems will establish themselves as America's majority party as they along with John McCain tackle energy/climate issues and foreign policy issues (in a different way than Bush and the republican image politicians did). Maybe beat McCain in 2012.

  This situation is similar to the 1990's situation where Clinton (a moderate democrat) was liked but the public still placed Gingrich and his republicans as the majority in congress due to the political tide still moving in the conservatives' favor. 

[YRABNNRM]

Nominate Hillary Clinton, unfortunately.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Continue to bash Republican leadership without offering an alternative and cross their fingers in 2012.  The real question is what happens if they lose in 2012 and/or 2016.

[NDN]

Continue to bash Republican leadership without offering an alternative and cross their fingers in 2012.  The real question is what happens if they lose in 2012 and/or 2016.

They do offer an alternative, the problem is our leaders lack resolve and when they do follow through they get vetoed.

[NDN]

I would like them to move in the direction of Bill Clinton economically, favoring free trade and cutting deficits.

Obviously I would view that as mostly good (though NAFTA needs reform), but the party is essentially already there. Certainly, all of their Presidential candidates have been the last 16 years. And it's not really a vote getter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see much 'radicalism.' It's only been in the primaries that we've seen Democratic Candidates take a vocally pro-Choice stance. Otherwise the bulk of the party has been emphasizing prevention more. If anything the Democrats are mostly protecting the status quo on social issues as opposed to proposing outright reversing some of the changes of the last 30+ years like the Republicans.

Personally I can't say most social issues matter to me that much other than Civil Liberties though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than Iraq the vast majority of Democrats are not offering any plans for withdrawal or scaling back the military (unfortunately IMO). In fact, quite the opposite we've seen calls for more military funding consistently as well as a more aggressive position on Afghanistan and Pakistan from the presumptive nominee. So I don't see how they could possibly become more hawkish other than abandoning their stance on that issue. Which coupled with all the other changes you propose would essentially just make them a more moderate wing of the Republican party.

[King]

As long as they still control Congress, there won't be much change within the party.  Once they lose that, the idea of the Republicans being in control of Washington from 2000-2020 or something like that will cause radical changes.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Option 3: Move towards the Blue Dog Coalition.

[Хahar 🤔]

Option 3: Move towards the Blue Dog Coalition.

Uh..why?