The Democrats need only look to the mid century Republicans to see their future. In the 1930's the nation faced two crises: the Depression and the rise of European fascism. The Republican leadership took neither seriously and led the party down a blind alley. For the next forty years or so (until the election of Ronald Regan) the Democratic Party set the national agenda. During those forty years Americans considered Republicans penny pinching isolationists. These views stem from a time when the nation faced serious crises and one political party (the Republicans) simply refused to take those crises seriously. Now the Democrats are on a similar path. Their concern for union jobs during the Homeland Security debate sealed their fate. Their current movement toward Dean simply compounds that fate. Who, among the Democratic leadership, can come forward as an expert on and committed to national security? That is their dilemma. Trent, I'm with you and I've already bet the farm on a Bush sweep.

OK, I'm gonnma have to get my '02 taxes done and start doing some writing...

Trent is, as usual both right and wrong. Then again, so is pretty much anyone else who talks about anything more complex than AAA baseball.

A.L.

i have a feeling that the dems are definately going down the same path as the mid 20th century republicans. i dont think however that the republicans will be as dominant as the dems were. if there is any lasting trend to be seen in our current politics it is the sharp rise in personalization and information sharing. the entire blog phenomenon is just one small part of this. id be very happy to see the emergence of real (non-fringe wacko) alternatives to the democrats and republicans. both of the big parties right now have very very deep divisions that are an enormous vulnerability if any other consistant group of challengers gets their act together and can reach a broad mainstream audience.

Chrystal ball gazing is always precarious. (I thought for a long time that the Republicans were doomed in 2000 because of their hysterical extremism leading up to the impeachment proceedings.) That being said, I don't see a scenario where the Dems win in 2004. Their best chance is a candidate with strong national security positions and credentials, but the voters will still mistrust the party as a whole. As for a third-party pro-security, pro-social welfare movement, that would just do more damage to the Dems. The fractures in the Republican party are not fatal. The same cannot be said of the Democrats.

The best one-line I have seen on the Democrats Dilemma was someone over on Andrew Sullivan's letter page calling Howard Dean "Barry Dean-Water." Too many Democrats want to use the 2004 election as a means of emotionally expressing themselves rather than something to win.

Even leaving that aside, there are structural reasons the Democrats are behind the eight-ball for 2004.

The primary source of winning presidential candidates are the state governors. The bigger the state the better. The Republican's virtual wipe out of all the major governorships in 1994, and retention of them since then, has left the Democrats without the best source of chief executives for the 2004 election cycle.

The exceptions, California and New Jersey are not in play. Davis of California is a disaster and the Democrats took back new Jersey too late for the governor there to be a factor for 2004.

I think Dean's relatively good performance is as much due to the fact he is a governor with executive experiance as to the lack of new faces in the Democratic Party.

For the Democrats to win nationally they need
a) Peace and
b) a populist Democratic governor of a large southern state.

They lack both for 2004 and I think Hillary Clinton will be their pick for 2008, assuming she wins Senate reelection in 2006.

The future of politics in America is libertarian.

The Republicans keep winning by mouthing the words. In time their actions will start to conform.

The left as it exists is a dead issue. Except for civil liberties. The libertarian 1/4 of the demo party.

As with any political change the big picture will not be evident for a while. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota is a harbinger though.

What is out is weak on defence and redistributionist economics.

Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban

Gallop Poll on public attitudes on homosexuality

Look at the trends in that poll and there is the decline of the RP in one direction. The culture is not going their way if they want to continue the culture wars.

Orrin Judd has a good and interesting analysis up, which includes both historical data and some potential "outcome changers." He sees a potential Presidential landslide coming in 2004, though, and I'm finding it harder and harder to disagree.

All this speculation is dependent on who the Democrats nominate as their standard bearer in 2004.

If the Democrats nominate Liebermann, they would have a candidate with significant understanding of National Security issues, hawkish in temperment, eager to build coalitions but unwilling to give earstwhile allies veto power over US foreign policy. Combine that with a sharp critique of the Bush administration's irresponsibility over the federal defecit, and this election would turn on voters' perception of the state of the economy in 2004 (not a bad situation for the Democrats to be in).

If the Democrats nominate Gephardt or Edwards, they will have a candidate who can partially neutralize Bush's strength on national security, thus giving them a chance at victory under the right conditions.

But Dean? He doesn't appear to be serious about national defense, or about developing a strategy for winning the war on terrorism. In light of 9/11, I doubt swing voters will elect a candidate with so little interest in this issue. Vietnam combat notwithstanding, Kerry's highly visible efforts to play both sides of this issue makes him appear equally flighty (a President, unlike a Senator, can't declare, un-declare, declare, and undeclare war like a kid picking daisy petals). Either of those candidates would doom the Democrats even if the economy is still sour in 2004.

Of course, since I think Dean is the likely nominee, I can understand why people are already writing the Democrats' 2004 obituary. Still, the primary voting season hasn't started and Lieberman IS leading in the polls, at least at the moment.

The problem for the Democrats is that Dean is dragging the whole field so far to the left in the primaries that they will not be able to recover the center for the general election.