In general I think Dems should be more aggressive about attacking GOP seats. A more aggressive strategy will inspire more volunteers and more contributions.

This makes sense.  No sense shooting for the moon and losing it all.  However, as many seats as possible should at least have a living body challenging it, in case the incumbent goofs up or dies.

But what about that Supreme Court victory today? 5-4 decision in favor of upholding the 8th amendment and banning the death penalty for minors.

Civilization took a bold step forward today!

Let's see: Iraq is a lost cause that cannot be won, Roe vs Wade still in effect, killing minors is now illegal, and Bush will never be able to privatize SS. So far this 2nd term is shaping up just fine! Thumbs up chimpy!

I disagree.  I think the Democratic Party needs to solidly position itself in the public mind as the party of fair elections and democracy, consistently and across the board.

We need to loudly decry the Republicans' partisan redistricting in the states they've done it, and equally loudly point out the states we could do it in but are not.  We then use that to push for nonpartisan redistricting rules in all stats that don't have it yet.

We have only a small number of seats to gain from partisan redistricting in the states you list.  We have much more to gain from a solid, clear position in favor of fair elections and a better democracy - using that, we can gain seats all over the country.

If the Dems don't, then the R's are just emboldened to try it other places.  If the Dems do in Illinois, but then wait to see if the R's try it again, that would be a good strategy.  Make it clear that this is tit for tat, but would be the end of it if the R's don't try it again.  If they do, pick another target.

From the forthcomig book "Dem Strategy for Dummies":

1.  If Repubs say we're making a mistake, we're on the right track.

2.  If repubs say we're being reasonable, we're making a mistake.

3.  If repubs snicker at a candidate (think Dean) they are afraid of him.

4.  If repubs praise a candidate (think Lieberman) he's a loser and/or a spineless wimp.

 In fact, the most depressing thing about the election for me personally as a volunteer was that Boswell carried Polk County (home of Des Moines and suburbs, roughly 15 percent of Iowa's total population) with a 26,000-vote edge, yet Kerry only won Polk County by 9,000 votes. That was the whole ball game, basically. Bush won Iowa by about 10,000.

Right, because if those hordes of anti-war voters who sat out the election had only voted, we would have won.

I have to say, I'm pretty damn tired of hearing this fantasy from our side -- we're supposed to be the reality-based community, remember?  The reality is that turnout was extremely high, other candidates who might have appealed to more liberal voters (Nader, Green Party) did poorly, and we lost by less than 3% of the popular vote.  What that means is that there were essentially *no* liberal, progressive or anti-war voters who could have provided a winning margin for Kerry.

What we needed was to appeal to more borderline voters, those who aren't automatically anti-war, who don't necessarily identify themselves as liberals or progressives, but who might have voted for Kerry (or another candidate) if they had been appealed to in a better way, say with a more populist message or with a candidate who was more personable.

Note that this is not, in my view, a reason to "move the party to the center" or to become "Republicans lite", but it is an argument for framing our issues in ways that appeal to a wider spectrum of voters.

Well, on the redistricting question, I think there might be a similar lesson to be learned.  The lession would be: stop screwing around trying to game the system.  From were I'm sitting, it's clear which side is more adept at that, at least in recent Congressional history.

The party that came out for new, nationwide, uniform standards for composing Federal election districts (States Rights be damned!) would be a party I could respect.  I can't promise it would make me vote Dem, but it would certainly make it noticably harder for me to support my current leadership...

Of course, I might just be giving this advice hoping you'll do the contrary...or was it the reverse of the contrary...that would be following the advice....wait, now I'm confused!