A report by two Democratic intellectuals warns the Democratic Party from tilting too far to the left and thus, losing the moderate voters in the center who are the ones who decide elections.

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:

· They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."

· They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.

· They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.

Well, that is all good advice for the Democrats and they've been receiving such advice for two decades from the DLC. I don't imagine that the Moveon.org crowd finds these arguments very persuasive. And for a candidate trying to thread the needle between such moderate ideas and the liberal ideology will run the risk of being labeled a flip-flopper.

The New Editor looks at the statistical evidence of why it is dangerous for the Democrats to move too far to the left.

In the seven presidential elections since 1980, three Republicans have achieved a majority of the vote four times. During the same period, zero Democrats have achieved a majority of the vote, while three failed to get 45% of the vote (two Republicans failed to make that mark during this time as well).

In the 27 presidential elections since 1900, eleven Repubs have received a majority 13 times. During the same period, three Dems have received a majority six times. In fact, during this period the same number of Repubs have received a majority (13) as have Dems who garnered less than 45% of the popular vote (13).

In the 37 presidential elections since 1860, 13 Repubs have received a majority of the vote 17 times. During the same period, four Dems have received a majority seven times.

As the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne pointed out in a recent column, 2004 exit polls show that voters self-identify thusly: 34% conservative, 21% liberal, and 45% moderate.