George Bush won the white vote against his Massachusetts liberal opponent 60%-40%. That was back in 1988, but his son defeated his Massachusetts liberal opponent among white voters by a similar 58% to 41% in 2004. But 2004 was a rather close election, while 1988 ended in a blow out. Chris Bowers argues that the big shift has been the growth of non-white voters and that the quality of Democratic presidential candidates hasn't really improved.

Broad demographic changes that rendered the electorate both less white and less Christian had a significantly greater impact on the changing outcomes of the 1988 and 2004 election than did the quality of the candidates running, the issues of the time, or the strategies employed by the campaigns. Outside of these demographic shifts, everything else was pretty much a wash from 1988 to 2004. As I have repeated numerous times in the past, this trend will only continue. By 2012, when self-identified white Christians will probably only make up about 55-56% of the electorate (down from their current 63-64% total), unless ethnic and religious demographic groups start voting differently, the electorate will have shifted roughly another 3-4% in favor of Democrats. With that electorate, even a Democratic candidate with the skill of Michael Dukakis or John Kerry could win, and no Iraq war or economic downturn would be necessary.

And in another post he notes how Democratic policies haven't changed sine Walter Mondale in 1984.

This video presents almost the exact same issue set as the current Democratic Party presents. Two older woman talk about poverty at 0:20 and 0:30 in the video. Another older woman talks about protecting Social Security at 0:40 in the video. A diverse group of children are interspersed between these women. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs comes in at 1:00. The economic struggles of rural Americans comes in right after that, and a variation on the "people versus the powerful" or "two Americas" them immediately follows that. Republican connections to corporations and the wealthy are attacked starting at 1:47 in the video. Keeping Jerry Falwell off the Supreme Court comes in at 2:01. Fair taxes come in at 2:13, including a call for closing tax loopholes and for higher taxes on the wealthy, on corporations. After that, a fairly long attack on conservative foreign policy ensues. New opportunity for women and opening doors comes in big time at about 3:45 in the video. Updated to match current events, none of this would be out of place in pretty much any Democratic campaign commercial for state and federal office now, even in red states and red districts (if such states and districts still exist, of course). Dangerous right-wing foreign policy, protecting Social Security, ending Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy, reigning in corporate influence on the government, outsourcing, increasing diversity, keeping the religious right off the Supreme Court, fighting for economic fairness and on and on. This is all the same stuff. About the only thing missing is health care.

After the break that Bill Clinton offered from "the same ol' liberals" is the Democratic Party doomed to return to the 1980s? But this time with electoral success?