The Democratic Party hasn't been doing very well in recent years, so I wondered why it has lost ground. In my opinion, the American Left is not united enough. Groups as disparate as neolibertarians and the Religious Right give their support to the Republican Party, and on the right, only hardcore libertarians and a few paleoconservatives seem to reject the GOP. On the other hand, moderate Democrats, populist Democrats, hardcore liberals and left libertarians can't seem to unite in a similar coalition. If I am correct in this analysis, I wonder why this is the case. I appreciate all votes and replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I put that they aren't united enough, but I think that this is just an oversimplified response. Along the lines of the this oversimplification...the Republican party represents a fairly small percentage of the total political views. And so the Democratic party tries to appeal to pretty much everybody else. And it obviously isn't working.

__________________
Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to sit and wonder 'Why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.
~Bokonon

None of the above.

The correct answer is: They have no focus. No one knows what their real ideology or agenda is. They need to pick one and stick with it.

Kerry got most of the crap for flip-flopping during the election. But it's not really a John Kerry problem; it's a Democratic Party problem.

Until they take a stand on something, I dont see anyone flocking back to them anytime soon. Whether you agree with them or not, the Republicans are not ambiguous about what they stand for.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I agree with poletree and Sadistic, though I think Sadistic's analysis is ultimately due to the fact that the Democratic base is decentralized.
Consider the groups that the Crats have to cater too:
1. Every minority group. The Republicans aim for the mode and make little changes to win over one or two minority groups without alienating the mode. That's a hell of a lot easier than trying to reconcile the differences of every single minority group in numbers large enough to challenge the mode.
2. Civil libertarians who aren't necessarily all that fiscally liberal and who could switch sides from time to time- avoiding socially conservative Crats and jumping to socially liberal Pubs.
3. Fiscal liberals who are not always socially liberal and thus might jump ship. Evangelicals are the big group and the Pubs have done a great deal to act as the religious party to win them over.
4. Union types, who only hold in common views on labor... and only so long as they see it as advantageous. Not even worth the trouble, in my opinion. But they do have a fairly impressive lobby and ability to deliver campaign funds.
5. Pro-choice people, making it real difficult to hold onto both them and the evangelicals

But yes, what this means is that the Crats have to pick and choose which groups to please and which to let go, while trying to break the Pubs' mode (oddly though registered Crats are a mode, but not necessarily loyal).
Clinton did it by going pro-business. Unions still preferred him to the alternative who was also anti-union. Clinton appealed to civil libertarians and won some fiscal conservatives from the center.
Gore and Kerry failed to accomplish anything other than call themselves "Not Bush". Kerry tried to win over anti-neo-con conservatives, which don't mix well with socially tolerant liberals, alienating the left of the Crats and doing little to assure moderates. He tried to cling to both pro-life and pro-choice.
Crats forget that people have multiple interests. A pro-choicer has other views. A pro-choicer might vote for Pubs over fiscal reasons or equally vote for a pro-life Crat over liberty issues. But Crats as of late have been so busy either attacking the opposition or trying to appeal to every one on every campaign issue, that they lose sight of what is important.
They should forget about the isolationist conservatives that are disaffected but don't mix well and are not dependable and shoot for foreign policy liberals, a large group that would pick neo-cons as a lesser of two evils over isolationists and mixes well with liberal ideals. They should focus on either labor or business, not try to do both. They should focus on religious freedom in order to create a difference with Pubs but not look like wishy-washies who are both pushing religion AND allowing freedom from it. Kerry was a walking contradiction on this.

The Crats need to focus on which of their base are the most important and which have synergistic relationships and try to pull neutral or sympathetic groups from the mode rather than throwing in with hostiles.
There has been far too much focus of late on the commonalities between Buchanonites and liberals. A real liberal would consider neo-cons a lesser of two evils but make note that it has a different method. The baggage tied to Buchanonites is not something the Crats need.

As much as people complain about liberals, the truth is that the Crats would be better off with a liberal than with a dud. Let the PR people worry about selling the ideas. The candidate's duty is to take a stand.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

As a moderate with long-term autonomist Marxist goals, I would lean towards the Democrats if I weren't pro-life. Since I am pro-life, however, I probably won't be voting in any election for a long time.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

That's one area where the Crats make a mistake. Pro-lifers are more likely than pro-choicers to be stubborn over the issue. The truth is that the Crats would be best as moderate pro-choice, meaning the allowance of abortion for circumstances of rape and danger to the mother. For one thing that is the stance of most people. It would make the pro-choicers feel less involved, but they'd have to add up other issues as well as look at the Pubs who have more hard-line pro-choicers and quite a few pro-lifers would feel more secure with the Crats. Sure, it sounds like a weak position, but it is CLEAR and it aims at a specific crowd while appealing to some moderates within other camps. It also serves the purpose of making their position the same as most Pubs'.
Why is that good, you ask?
It takes it off the center table of the debate allowing debate on other issues that the Crats might use to their advantage.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Well, people who oppose abortion except in extreme cases are usually considered pro-life, and in fact the current administration takes that stance. While I am 100% pro-life, I would vote for a Democrat who was pro-life with exceptions over a person who was 100% pro-life on abortion but was hawkish and/or wanted to eliminate public aid programs, since I hold to a complete pro-life ethic.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

That's the way they've managed to frame it. But most consider themselves somewhere in between. That is how both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can manage to claim majority. Neutrals are a bit divided by whether or not Roe should be tossed out. I suggest it's best for parties to avoid the issue of Roe and concentrate on short-term abortion concerns if any at all. The Pubs will cut their own throat if they continue to promise an overturning of Roe, since it is not likely to happen any time soon. The Crats should avoid getting on the same boat and also avoid the opposite. There are other issues to consider, many of which they actually might have some power over.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Well, overturning Roe vs. Wade would decrease the number of abortions, but it could be made unnecessary by a Human Life Amendment. If, to have popular support, there had to be exceptions for extreme cases in the Amendment, I would still accept it to save as many of the unborn as possible. I wonder whether 2/3 of State Legislatures would support such an Amendment. If a Human Life Amendment were in the Bill of Rights and abortion stopped being an issue, I could then in conscience whole-heartedly join the Left.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Laws don't save lives, Force. Human action does.
Drugs and prostitution are more dangeropus when illegal than when legal because they cannot be regulated and because people will kill and steal to keep it up. Abortion, now that it's been around, is likely to be similar.
I don't recommend making laws that are too strong.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.