[mbs] In its time Rockefeller Republicanism could have had substantial appeal for some of the non-poor/non-rich, since it strongly support public spending growth. I remember talking to people who served with Nelson R. (I'm old, ya see), and they said their mission was to figure out how to spend as much money as possible. I agree this is dead now. But the 'only outreach' you allude to is pretty significant. I surmise that many working-class Dems despair of any economic relief from their party and settle for satisfaction of other demands from the GOP, in areas like gun control, pro-life, church and state, support for parochial school education, and tax relief. Clearly race plays a role here in a retrograde fashion. In electoral terms, Ruy Teixeira argues this is a very important group in his latest book. I agree NYC teachers do not fit easily into this category, but plenty of others do. Just look at who's living in Gracie Mansion.
The extent of Republican leakage to Nader is an empirical question, obviously, and I haven't seen any evidence of it. But in principle I think Nader's message has potential among many Democrats who have drifted into pro-GOP voting habits. Certainly Perot had a lot of appeal, even though his program is substantially different from Nader's. We tend to overstate the extent to which ordinary people are atttentive to ideological cues. I met a young Teamster in the Labor Party who said he thought we needed a new independent party, but 'not Perot,' because Ross was a little nutty. Not because his policies were awful.
mbs