Reply #43: I wouldn't...

[Finch]

...call winning the white house in 1992 and 1992 damage. Nor would I say that Gore campaign in 2000, Landrieu's win in 2002, Blanco in 2003, Herseth in South Dakota or Ben Chandler's win a short while ago (all candidate backed by the DLC and the conservative and moderate sections of the Democratic Party)...

If you are looking at the Republican "Gingrich revolution" in 1994. That can largely be attributed to many conservative Dems (Dixiecrats) retiring (check the figures if you like) added to this Clinton's first year in office was not good (the same was true of Reagan) however (like Reagan) the economy recovered and boomed and Clinton cruised to an easy win. But southern support for "Gingrich Republicans" (Right wing Populism really, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism)remain at the "congressional level" and hence you have a very firm base for the GOP in congress. While nationally social issues became important most people being inclined to perhaps traditional views but accepting of homosexuality, limited access to abortion and single parent families, but most people strongly rejected the extremism of both the left and the right. However once again the Republicans managed to be closer to ordinary people their values (while at times tacking extreme forms in the case of the likes of Santorum) in essence where similar to "average Americans" while the more secular, libertarian views extolled by many Democrats alienated these voters.