Fresh from their victory in the 2006 mid-term elections in capturing the House and Senate, Democrats look to solidify their gains and broaden their appeal on a national level. It is their hope to turn the tables on the historical advantage Republicans have had in taking the White House over the past 50 years.

Today, many in the Democratic established have some choices to make in regards to future congressional and presidential elections:

• Promote Southern/Moderate Democrats to national, state, and local offices
• Fund a fifty state campaign
• Utilize political capital and power gained from the 2006 mid-term elections
• Ignore the South and pick up the Southwest and Midwest electoral votes

If the Democrats were to shift their politics to the right they would lose their identity. There are two parties in the system for a reason and that is, in most cases, to establish differences in opinion as to how to conduct domestic and foreign policy. Americans need to have a distinct choice, not Republican and Republican-lite.

This is not to say that moderates are not important because they are. They help create the bridge in establishing compromises that gets things done in Washington when the nation is evenly divided as it is today. They also help to balance extremists within our own government.

On the other hand, I do believe there is a place for those on the outer rims of the political spectrum. It is they who in times of a national split in party preference and partisanship, come to no agreement and help stop the bleeding of spending bills that put our government and people into debt. The government has a purpose and can help in many ways, but sometimes it is best to just let our elected officials come to a stalemate and do nothing.

Furthermore, I am an advocate for fighting fire with fire. Now that the Democrats have control of the House, Senate, and a solid majority of the Governorships, they should and can steal a page or two the Republican playbook in their efforts to effectively redistrict. Since state legislatures decide on how to draw district voting lines, Democrats should be able to create favorable districts in states across the country to gain more seats and influence in Congress. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in Easley v. Cromartie that partisan redistricting does not necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Although this type of action is not necessarily ethical, the so-called moral Republicans have no qualms about the effectiveness and use of redistricting to hold on to power. If there is no violation here, the Democrats should use every tool in their arsenal. Eventually, I would like to see a successful bipartisan fight against this issue so that no party in power can have such advantages, but this is not a realistic approach, nor a reason to sit on your tail while the opposition walks all over you.

You might be thinking that the Democrats won the 2006 mid-term election by drafting moderate candidates and to some extent this is true. However, I would argue that is had more to do with American disgust with the Republican Party. It’s hard to lose an election when there is a national backlash against corruption, one party rule, failure in responding to hurricane Katrina, out of control budget deficits, and most importantly an unpopular Iraq War. In order to ensure a breakup in government control it was probably best that the Democrats employed this strategy in the short-term, but the odd of establishing a new trend in favor of a lasting Democratic majority is yet to be seen.

Furthermore, if the Democrats were to attempt to put the South in play for the office of presidency they might as well forget it. They have to get over the fact that this region had been traditionally in their electoral column. The Republicans have a firm grip and that’s the way things will be for some time. In political and life goals it is important to get those on board who are going to be more receptive to your message and likely to support your cause first. With more strength in numbers you can then seek out those in the minority and perimeter areas who are vulnerable and may be less resistant due to the majority of support you now maintain.

So what does this mean?

The analogy of relating real world networking to building a political majority should ring loudly to those leaders in the Democratic Party who want to win in 2008. Why try to reach for something that is unattainable when there are other swing states that can be easily won if enough attention is paid to them. It wouldn’t take much to push the Democrats back into the White House either. The last two elections have come down to just two states, Florida and Ohio. These are purple swing states that can easily be won. With a majority of governors and representatives in the House and Senate, the Democrat chosen to lead the way in ‘08 should find himself or herself in a much better environment to be elected President of the United States.