Some people think that the Democrats have lost all ability to make a difference in the country. Some newspapers have gone as far as saying that they're gone forever. But the Democrats disagree.


If you put this election in a historical context, George W. Bush's 51 percent-48 percent victory over John Kerry was not all that impressive. In the 27 presidential elections since 1900, the average margin of victory has been 11.7 percentage points; Bush's 3-point edge last week made this the sixth-closest election of them all.

Of course, the Republicans do have a bit of an advantage. And as long as the Democrats stay positioned on the left, appealing to a shrinking number in mostly shrinking blue states, the Republicans are likely to stay dominant.

Yet history suggests that the Democrats won't keep making the same mistake. In fact, there's a distinct cycle of defeat-followed-by-victory in presidential elections. After a party loses the White House, it takes awhile for it to realize it has done something wrong in the eyes of the voters. Instead, the tendency is for party activists to blame the losing candidate, or maybe the voters, for the defeat - blaming anything but the basic views of the party. So the activists, having absolved themselves of any fault, proceed to nominate, for the next presidential election, a candidate still molded in their own image. For the Democrats, this means nominating a true-believing liberal. And for the Republicans, it means a true-believing conservative.

This 'hair of the dog' strategy, of course, usually leads to an even bigger defeat the next time. Only then, after suffering two consecutive defeats, do party pragmatists regain influence; they lead the search for a centrist who can win a general election. In 1960, for example, the Republicans lost narrowly with moderate Richard Nixon. So in 1964, following the cyclical pattern, they ran conservative Barry Goldwater, who lost badly. Then in 1968, the GOP turned to Nixon again - who won.

In this decade, the Democrats are going through the same process. They are learning painful truths about the salability of ideology. After 2000, Democrats explained away Al Gore's defeat by dissing Gore as a candidate and by further claiming that Bush had 'stolen' the election. Given that unreflective mindset, it's little wonder that in 2004 they nominated Kerry, who was to the left of Gore.

To be sure, Kerry wasn't the most liberal candidate running for the '04 nomination. But to say that he was closer to the center than, say, Howard Dean isn't saying much; the Bay State senator passed the activist litmus tests on issues such as abortion, gun control and the environment. Indeed, for 2003 the National Journal rated him the nation's most liberal senator. So, of course, he lost.

Now the Democrats must have a debate. If, after two straight losses, they still believe that their defeats are the result of bad luck, or 'not getting our message out,' they will be on track for yet another defeat in 2008. On the other hand, if they get the hint from the voters and go looking for their next presidential candidate in a red state, their fate might change, because after eight years of one party in the White House, the voters themselves are usually looking for a change.

So what the Democrats need for '08 is a candidate who can appeal to everyone-- liberals and conservatives. If the Democrats follow this simple strategy, then history is in their favor, and we just might see a donkey in the White House in 2008.