Anti-Climacus

LINK: I thwack Matthew Yglesias often enough when he's wrong that I should admit he's right when he's right: the best thing that can happen for the Dems is to lose in 2004.

Basically, this is an example of the Al Smith phenomenon: there was pretty much no way he was going to win in 1928, the political environment at the time being what it was. But the loss happened to be the right kind of loss: the realignment that went on in the major cities was a key (previously missing) component of the 1932-36 landslides, and it was the Al Smith campaign that brought them into the Democratic fold. If you think that the demographics work in the long term interests of the Democratic Party (which they almost certainly do), a loss which allows you to a. avoid responsibility for the nasty problems likely to come up in the next four years (budget problems, mostly) and b. position yourself well for the future (if I were a strategist, I'd be looking seriously at building up Louisiana, Nevada and Texas, at a minimum), then taking a pass is the smartest thing the Dems can do.

This is actually a party-neutral argument, as I think it works for Goldwater in 1968 as well. And, in the interest of fairness, if I were a Republican strategist, I'd be looking at New York, Minnesota and West Virginia.