Is our win part of an enduring shift to the center-left, or simply a blip?

[Ignacio Upton]

Since roughly 1968 when Tricky Dick came into power, and the current cultural dynamics between the parties got set into place with the polarization of this country, Republicans have dominated on a longer time-frame. Republicans have held the White House for 26 out of the last 38 years, and our few victories during these years (ie. Carter and Clinton winning, and a few midterm election victories in years like 1974, 1982, 1986, and 1998) have only been suceeded by massive loses in succeeding years.

The right-wing has been setting the broader agenda, more or less, since 1968 at the earliest, and they really took off with Reagan's rise. A Congressional majority means nothing if our Congressmen and Senators vote the wrong way for fear of right-wing special interests targeting them in 2008 or 2010. A Congressional majority couldn't get us Universal Healthcare in 1993 because of folks in Congress were paralyzed with political fear of the right-wing attack ads.

As long as the Right Wing Noise Machine persists, we are inherently on the defensive. On the broader level, we need to turn this around, and build an enduring coalition. We need to keep "middle America" on our side, and not just for one election cycle. Lower-case L Libertarians in the Mountain West, and Christians concerned about social justice issues are just two types of people that we should be actively working to court. We also need to give blacks and hispanics an incentive to continue voting for us, because the Republicans will still target them.

[havocmom]

1. depends on what we manage to get accomplished

or not accomplished due to insistence on some sort of vengeance agenda.

[Ignacio Upton]

3. Well if things turn around in Iraq

And if the economy picks up more, and if we expose Bush for the liar he is, then I see us doing well in 2008. What we should not do is over-reach like the Republicans did in misinterpreting Bush's win as a mandate for passing Social Security privatization. Voters want the country to move back to the middle.

[aquart]

5. Middle of WHAT? Please define "Middle."

Do I get habeas corpus in the middle?

Does someone who doesn't speak English mow my lawn for cheap in the middle?

How are gas prices in the middle?

I have zero clue wtf you mean when you or anyone else says "middle."

[gorfle]

2. It depends on the actions of the Democrats

Honestly, I believe that as long as the Democrats stay away from the firearms issue, they will have many newfound ex-Republican voters in their ranks.

If, over the next 2 years, the Democrats go on the offensive on this issue again, I think they will switch sides again.

The other thing that is absolutely imperitive is something must be done in Iraq. If nothing is done, the people who put the Democrats in power because of their anger at the Republicans for their handling of the war will be just as angry at the Democrats.

[ACK]

4. Depends. If we can pull away from the stereotypes and define ourselves

then it could signal a shift.

If we refuse to pass any tax increase except for those that impact those making $100,000+.

If we focus on the middle class.

If we fight for healthcare reform and closing the doughnut hole in the drugs benefit.

If Speaker Pelosi can run the cleanest more hard working most ethical house ever ...

If we do what we say we are going to do?

Yeah it could.

[napi21]

6. I think it depends on what part of the Country you're in.

If you're talking about a President, yes that candidate would have to be fairly close to center because they have to appeal to such a broad variety of opinions.

I think the health care subject has changed a lot since 1993. So many people are affected by soaring costs and the utter greed of Ins. companies and pharmaceuticals, getting something passednow would be much easier, but it would have to be a plan that was doable. ShrubCo has spent so much $$ on Iraq, it really puts humanity plans in a bind.