Why did the Democrats lose the elections? Looking on it from the outside, I found two main reasons:
First, because they are a coalition, the Republicans are a party.
Second, Democrats personalized politics, while Republicans were politicizing personalities.
Republicans adopted a European style party system while the Democrats stayed in the old traditional American mode. That's why the weren't a match this time and they should better switch strategies sooner than later.
Let me explain my argument in the extended diary box. It may all be completly wrong as I am followin American politics from Europe, my distant perspective may also provide some new insights. At least that's what I am hoping for.
Politics is about not about leadership, it is about association. As they say it theatre: "the other actors play the king". The republican party managed win all elections since 1994 (except Dole) because they changed the ways their modes of association work. They became a European style party which comes with a strong platform, and core political principles believed in by most of its followers. They created a positive group consciousness. Republicans understand themselves for what they are for and they managed to be remarkably homogenous. At least when it comes to the core of their politics. And, as I would like to argue, their personal doesn't matter that much anymore. They could have pulled that victory with any other candidate because people were mobilized by an agenda. They are autocratic, authoritarian and they lie on a lot of practical matters but their base know what they get on the issue that matter more to them than war and social security: the culture war.
Yes, America is in a culture war. Yet the democratic party leadership is unable to come up with a decent analysis of the current situation or with a strategy how to deal with it. So, what's the matter with Kansas? Just stop whining about the "value issue". Instead start to figure out what are the actual lines of separation and conflict that go through an American society that is for more heterogeneous than it pretends. For a start you should read some books by Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist.
According to Bourdieu, anyone's personality - as he called it the "habitué" is defined by an individual accumulation of cultural, economic and social capital. Society has to be imagined as a field divided into milieus not classes. I will not try to explain a complex sociological theory in a language I have lot of problems mastering, yet shortly it means, that cultural and social factors define someones habits sometimes even more than the economic background does. You don't have to be factory owner to fell like a capitalist.
Republicans have mastered the strategy to appeal to people on the cultural level. This is why they have an electorate that derives from the factory worker and farmer to the CEO of Wall Street bank.
As long as Democrats should start to identify their milieus and how to reach them and where there is actually a way to win voters back. Which brings be to the whole issue of the bi-partisan rhetoric: No on really wants bi-partisanship. First of all, it doesn't work and second, there is no bipartisan agreement possible on most issues. So fuck it. Bush was elected because he was a divider a not a uniter. Learn from him: Claim to be bi-partisan and be not. This way, your followers will like you and you'll lose no one. This whole "working across the aisles"-rhetoric is basically a showing of weakness when you really mean it. A functioning majority does not need to work with the opposition, because that's why they are the majority.
Be an opposition but come up with a credible agenda and make sure your milieus know that they will profit from your agenda and others will not. This is actually something this blog should think about. There is so much talk about politics here: poll, strategy, vote fraud. This is all appropriate. But where is a discussion on the right environmental strategy. Has no one here problems with stem cell research? Where is the debate about a model for a functioning social security system? There is an incredible substance gap that needs to be closed. So, close ranks, create the necessary infra-structure to stream line the message and get rid of a syst
One last thought: Never put the person before the agenda. The Republicans didn't. This is why the managed to get the personally weakest president since Warren G. Harding reelected. John Kerry failed - and yes, losing by three and a half million votes is failure - because he was a compromise from the outside. But he was a compromise (electability) before the other party joined the table. All the democratic hopes in the 9 contested senate races were that the democratic candidates would win because of their personalities. Instead the republicans won because they were republicans.
I am convinced the democratic party has a chance to reform when it rediscovers what it stands for and does not compromise what it stands for. Additionally, the other side will make mistakes (remember Dole). It will take 8 to 10 years but I strongly believe the second decade will be yours.