In a number of threads over time, I've seen a stark division among Kossacks on the fundamental strategy we need to win more elections, especially in the Presidential contests.
There actually seem to be three tracks, but one of them is virtually unrepresented here, with good reason.
Continued...
That track--call it the Lieberman track--sees our political landscape as defined by a right-center-left continuum and feels that the only way to win more elections is to nudge the Democratic Party further towards the center.
Never mind that track; this community seems to be virtually unanimous in rejecting that strategy.
But there are still two very distinct mindsets here that conflict.
First, there is the track that still sees the right-center-left paradigm, and wants to be more assertive in moving left and articulating a left. This camp sees victory by growing our votes vertically, turning out more voters in our core constituencies by driving our message more forcefully and clearly.
Then there is the track that wants to replace the right-center-left paradigm with a insider/outsider paradigm, that wants to reach victory by growing our votes horizontally, by drawing new boundaries on various issues by holding firm on our priorities but compromising or forging coalitions on other issues.
It's tempting to include the "reframing" or "new language" tactics for this horizontal track, but that theme can be applied to either paradigm equally, and frankly the framing concept is getting cliche in this forum already.
The vertical track folks would argue that shifting any position will lose votes without necessarily winning any new ones.
The horizontal track folks would argue that we did just about as good at getting out our vote as we can reasonably expect, and if we don't move some persuadable voters, we will continue to lose Presidential elections.
I won't pretend I'm undecided; while I think both points-of-view have merit and we definitely should quit shrinking from acknowledging our liberal stances, I don't really think we are going to get out significantly more core voters.
I think the vertical strategy camp is counting on a "truth will set us free" faith that will ensure continued losses. They're willing to wait 16-20 years for a Democratic Message Machine to catch up with the well honed Republican one.
If we can win in states like Montana NOW with a rural friendly candidates and messages, then we can win in virtually any state without compromising any core principles such as access to legal abortion, health care, Social Security, multilateral security.
But I'm curious how the DKos population splits on this question. So take the poll, and now that I've made my case for the horizontal camp, anyone can feel free to make their case for the vertical camp.