The Democratic Party's Danger

While the Republicans have been busy losing the last two elections, the Democratic Party have been doing the opposite.

After losing the 2002 and 2004 elections, the Democratic Party's losses ended up becoming a thing of the past. After the 2004 election where they lost a close presidential election, as well as losing seats in both chambers of Congress, the party regrouped.

Part of the regrouping involved replacing the DNC Chairman at the time, Terry McAuliffe, with Howard Dean. Howard Dean took over from there by using the internet as a major tool for raising money and by revealing a strategy known as the "50 state strategy."

The "50 state strategy" was a plan by Dean to recruit candidates all across America in each state of the union. That included states that Democrats typically don't do well in, such as the south.

Before that strategy was implemented, the Democrats ran what many call a failed campaign-a campaign where they said they would be able to win every traditional blue state and then win two of the "big three" battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. In 2004, that strategy failed, which was how Republicans stayed in power.

But Dean went to change that after getting beat in 2004. That strategy had some skeptics from people who said that they should continue to focus on the battleground states and not red states they never win in.

Dean proved the critics wrong in 2006 when he was able to use the "50 state strategy" to expand the map. In 2006, the Democrats didn't just win in traditional blue states, but they also did capture victories across the map. Most of the noticeable gains came in the House, where they won seats in red states, such as North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky, as well as the western states.

Those victories were just a sign of things to come for the Democrats when it comes to 2008. That was an even more telling sign of how Dean was able to change the map.

Signs were shown as early as the primaries where Democrats turned out in higher numbers than Republicans in every state primary. The Democrats turned out millions of new voters, while the Republicans lacked enthusiasm.

Then came the 2008 general election and the turnout from the primaries matched when it really counted. The Democrats won big time with Obama, Senate candidates and House candidates.

Democrats won with Obama in states that were previously solid red states, such as Indiana, Virginia and even North Carolina. Obama won all of the "big three" swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Obama also was able to tap into the western vote, which contained tons of new voters, including Hispanics, in places such as Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

In the Senate, the Democrats picked up many seats and nearly won three others. Democratic gains in the Senate included Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Oregon, Alaska and soon Minnesota-a gain of eight seats. That doesn't include Arlen Specter's late party switch in April of this year.

In the House, the victories continued. Democrats maintained their gains in those Midwest states, wrapped up the northeast, even taking leaning Republican districts in New York, Pennsylvania and other states. A Democrat even won in the state of Idaho, which should further show how huge the wave was in 2008.

Mentioning all of those facts was important because it is tied to the purpose of the "50 state strategy." Howard Dean intended for this strategy to recruit candidates in the Democratic Party that were liberal, center left, center and even center right.

Howard Dean's plan of recruiting a vast majority of views into the party was able to greatly expand the map and give them total control of Congress. While there are defectors on some parts of the Democrats agenda, the Democrats mostly are setting themselves up to be able to pass any piece of legislation they want. With the help of these moderates, the Democrats are free to pass a very liberal agenda

However, I would caution the Democrats that passing a very liberal agenda could be harmful to their future elections. While the Democrats are setting themselves up nicely to gain even more seats in 2010, they could just as easy lose them as they gained them.

In the last two elections, a lot of the losses Republicans had were moderate Republicans who were being punished in moderate or even blue states because of their party's push to the extreme right. A major part of the Democratic victories were due to Republican extremism.

Therefore, if Democrats do the same thing the Republicans did the past two elections, they run a strong risk of losing their party in those red states they recently made gains in. All the Republicans would have to do is come to the center, by running centrist candidates such as George Pataki of New York and Rob Simmons of Connecticut. If they do that with a hard left agenda of Democrats, then Democrats will lose the seats they just gained.

Democrats have everything now. They can push the left wing agenda that they want. They can even make gains in 2010 and really push a left wing agenda that this country has never seen before by creating programs such as single payer health care, universal education, very strong green energy policy, and a very different foreign policy than even Obama is doing now.

But all of that in the long run could be toxic for the Democrats, if they don't be careful. To establish the "40 year majority," as James Carville, former Bill Clinton adviser said, they will have to stay in the center.