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

[Colin]

The way for either party to win is by moving towards the populist side of the spectrum, I have said this before and I will continue to say it. Both parties have people they can rally around that would fit this mold, though I would say the Democratic contingent is larger. Whoever dashes for the populist corner of the spectrum will be the dominant party for at least the next 15-20 years. This has the opposite effect of moving the opposition party towards the libertarian spectrum however a libertarian coalition of the wealthy and corporate interests, suburbanites, Westerners and social liberals, groups of which there is much overlap, will not have enough of a base behind it for any sort of political success for at least 15-20 years. At that point you'll see a major socially liberal trend and more general success for the non-populists, or anti-populist, party.

Complete and utter speculation though I will stand by my point that populism, that combination of social conservatism and economic leftism, is a winning mix in the current America, and has been a winning mix for much of its history.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

[YRABNNRM]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

And you support Obama?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

And you support Obama?

I've got nowhere else to go.  McCain's too conservative for me; and the other candidates are nuts.  So Obama '08.

[YRABNNRM]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

And you support Obama?

I've got nowhere else to go.  McCain's too conservative for me; and the other candidates are nuts.  So Obama '08.

A move back to the type of Democratic Party you want would be best served by a Obama loss.

[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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Uh huh. You could get a democrat party that does all that you request but it wouldn't be liberal/progressive anymore.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hopefully our leadership will be people like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mark Warner, etc., and we'll become a moderate, Southern based Party.  No more nominating New England liberals like Kerry.

So you want the Democrats to become more like the Republicans?

Yes.

Why not just join the Republicans?

Because I don't want us to be Republicans, just move closer to the center; get away from McGovern/Mondale, and move towards Truman/Clinton.

If you agree with the Republicans, why do you insist on moving the Democrats there?

[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.

[War on Want]

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.

So pretty much what you are suggesting is selling out any Social Democratic views we still have and replacing them with pragmatic social liberalism? I'd pass on that.

[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.

[NDN]

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.

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.

[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.

[NDN]

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.

[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.

[NDN]

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.

[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.

[NDN]

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. What we should really be doing is trying to win over the West and parts of the midWest.

[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".

[War on Want]

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.

[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.

[Colin]

What the hell is 100W?

[NDN]

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

Social Issues have their place but we've let the GOP make them the focus of the national debate lately. How much of 2004 was spent discussing gay marriage, guns, or something else along those lines? I'm not saying we should all be social conservatives obviously. And in some areas such as civil liberties we could actually be more 'liberal' than we are currently and potentially gain votes. But we need a big tent, and we need to drop/avoid certain issues.

[Person Man]

What the hell is 100W?

100 Longitude- it basically divides the country in half.