A Party that loses an election and blames voters for not showing up at the polls . . .

[branford]

180. It's more than just general platitudes in our platform.

Our platform already supports environmental causes and the working class. However, as with any coalition, sometime our priorities are at odds.

Individual candidates have to thread the needle, and the desires and priorities of the local electorate will always trump the party. Moreover, what you consider an acceptable trade-off, might not be acceptable to those for whom you claim to speak.

You presuppose that if the party was both more socially and fiscally liberal that it would become more popular and appeal to a much broader electorate. I've seen no evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, under the Dean's 50 State Strategy, which incorporated significant numbers of moderate and conservative Democrats, Democratic influence was at apex in recent history. The more liberal gains attributed to Obama were immediately reversed in the next election because of the unpopularity of health insurance reform, and continued to decline through the recent election. Conservative Democrats cannot now win elections in areas where we once dominated, such as West Virginia. Other than hope, why would even more liberal candidates succeed?