After three consecutive losses in statewide races, some top Democrats are questioning a tactic aimed at boosting the party’s candidates in each of those contests: Bush-bashing.

Running as much against the Bush White House as he was running against Sen. John McCain, Barack Obama easily carried Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts in 2008.

Yet when Democratic nominees for governor in Virginia and New Jersey and for Senate in Massachusetts sought to tie their GOP opponents to the still-unpopular former president, the strategy didn’t resonate. Voters were more focused on the current administration or local political issues — and the onetime Democratic magic formula seemed yesterday’s news.

“Voters are pretty tired of the blame game,” said longtime Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand, a top aide on Obama’s presidential campaign. “What a stupid strategy that was.”

Howard Wolfson, a senior official on Hillary Clinton’s campaign and veteran Democratic communications guru, noted that his party was able to run against Republican Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era presidency for 30 years.

“That doesn’t seem to be the case here,” he said.

Another well-respected Democratic consultant put it simply: “Need a new game plan!”

Having so effectively lashed GOP candidates to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in their successful 2006 and 2008 cycles, and seeing the Republicans’ still-dismal approval ratings, some in the party aren’t quite ready to turn over a new political leaf.

But following their recent defeats, there seems to be consensus now in the Democratic consulting community that candidates can’t simply insert grainy footage of the former president into a commercial or say their rivals will “support Bush policies” and hope voters will respond.

This fall, said Democratic strategists, their clients must be more strategic about if and when to play the Bush card — and do so only if their opponent has an actual personal or political connection to the former president that can be explained to the electorate.

“It’s got to be highly relevant,” said pollster Joel Benenson. “It has to be done in a way that’s not gratuitous and on issues that affect people’s lives. You can’t just brandish [Bush’s image] and wave it like a pennant.”

“Voters are smart about this,” added pollster Geoff Garin. “There’s got to be some credible relationship, either in terms of how they voted or [in terms of] specific policies that they’re supporting now.”

It’s not, Garin continued, one size fits all, but for some GOP candidates, the line of attack still carries some promise. He cited Rep. Roy Blunt, a House majority whip in the Bush years who is now running for a Missouri Senate seat, and former Rep. Rob Portman, who served as Bush’s budget director and is now running for the Senate in Ohio.

“Those people were really present at the creation, and making the case against them as helping to create the Bush economy is still very powerful,” Garin said.

During the Bush years, however, Sen.-elect Scott Brown was practicing law in Wrentham, Mass., and serving in the state Senate.

So when Democrats, realizing in the race’s final week that they were in danger of losing the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy, rushed up ads depicting Brown as being a Bush clone, it had little effect.

They’re “linking me to people I don’t even know!” Brown exclaimed in the days leading up to his election.

"