When it came to winning over the middle class, let's face it, he outplayed Kerry with the values thing.  Kerry wasn't able to strike a chord when it came to traditional democratic middle class values.  "We want you to be able to buy into Blue Cross / Blue Shield" isn't the most convincing argument.  I had no idea what Blue Cross / Blue Shield is.  Kerry was unable to deliver a clear message when it came to traditional Democratic values.  When it came to ultra-conservative values, the Bush team were (unfortunately) pressing all the right buttons.

I guess what I'm saying is that the Bush team gave the middle class something to cling to, however unacceptable that thing was to you or me.  Kerry had nothing to offer the middle classes.  That's not because he's a northerner or a liberal, but simply because he was not able to communicate with the middle class.  The Kennedys were anything but middle class, but they could communicate.

It's a real shame, because if the Democrats had run a convincing "kitchen table" (as somebody said earlier) campaign then I think they might have won.

Trying to pick of southern states is playing defensive politics.  I want a new majority and it won't be found by including the south, it will be found the same way the Republicans governed for 70 years, by isolating it.

If we would only look at history we would see the Republicans have given us a gift for the taking, the pre-New Deal Republican majority still exists, it's the progressive populist midwest, it's the coasts and the fast growing west.  It's ours if only we stop being obsessed with the South and reclaiming a lost coalition.  Let the Republicans have it!  It's a backwards looking losing political position more befitting them than the post-civil rights Democratic Party.

Carter and Clinton both lost Virginia, both times they ran, despite being conservative southerners.  In fact, Virginia has only gone for the Democratic presidential candidate once since 1948, and that was in 1964 -- 40 years ago -- during LBJ's landslide.

Yes, Northern VA (i.e., the DC suburbs) is growing, but mostly out in the distant "exurbs" which tend to vote Republican.  For example, Loudon County, the 2nd fastest growing county in the nation, went for Bush by a 12-point margin, which is 2 points more than Virginia as a whole.  Stafford County, the 9th fastest growing, chose Bush by a 24-point margin.

Let's face it: 2008 is not going to reverse the prior 60 years in Virginia.

Similarly, North Carolina has only voted for the Democrat once since 1964, and that was in Carter's first race in '76. They didn't support Carter in 1980, and they didn't support Clinton either time he ran.  Kerry lost there by a nearly 13-point margin, despite having their native son John Edwards on the ticket!  This is the state that gave Jesse Helms 5 terms in the Senate; it's not giving its electoral votes to a Democrat.

The Senate is going to be a problem regardless of what the party does. In the short term we need to focus on holding together our base and picking up another three percent.

Kerry was as much of a national candidate as Bush. All he had to do was pull in another 200k votes in Ohio (or take 100k from Bush). He could have governed the country the same way Clinton did, assuming he had Clinton's political skills (which I doubt by the way).  

I suspect the whole point of Chris' second post on this topic is going to be that we need to stop playing to our weaknesses and start playing to our strengths. Given the potential, even the likelihood, for terrible results in Iraq, combined with the likelihood of fiscal disaster from Bush's economic policies, there could be a huge swing towards Democrats in the next four to six years.

How many swing voters were not impressed with Kerry? How many swing voters stuck with Bush soley because they didn't want to switch horses in the middle of a war? How many swing voters will move back to Democrats if we start addressing the kitchen table economic issues that are going to become even bigger in the next few years?

I think what Chris is suggesting is that we fight at the state and local level in the red states, but play to our national strength in the blue states, instead of trying to bribe them with a "faux conservative" or a southerner solely for the purpose of winning southern states.

Let's see where Chris is going with this, but it certainly looks intriguing.