Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?

I can accept compromise; it's the wholesale capitulation that leaves me discouraged. I begin to think that Nader was right: there really isn't any real difference between the two parties.

"The supporters of a president inevitably become somewhat disillusioned by the process of governing."

Doh! Stupid governing.

P.S. Spellcheck: it's intentions, not intensions.

Let's try this. Take a sampling of those Democratic voters who say they're not interested in voting next year and ask them "Do you think that the Democrats in Congress, as a whole, are too far to the left, too far to the right, or just about where they should be?"

I'm not drawing any conclusions, yet, but I'd be interested to see what comes out of it.

While the Repukes are the Party of "NO", and intellectually dead from the belly button both ways, at least they are consistent. The other Party appear patently amateurish and as the Repukes, leaderless, and that includes Obama. I for one, while not of either Party, voted for Dems, only to have my nose rubbed in the shit pile that is pervasive in DC politics and again reminded my vote does not count. The only difference is the GOP and Tea Party types think their vote still makes any difference and will do their civic duty voting for corrupt politicians.

It's a mixture of projecting onto Pres. Obama voters' own intentions, unemployment, the kow-towing to Wall Street, Afghanistan (see no. 1), and the tendency of Democratic Congressional leaders (ALL of 'em!) to give too much away from the start.
Good ole MSM isn't helping either, but so what else is new?

I guess we should expect another 11 months about how disaffected Dems are.

Which is better than being in disarray, certainly. I think, at least.

Did polling about who was going to vote some 11 - 12 months before the election start in November and December 2005?

Somehow, I don't think so.

There's suddenly an awful lot of interest in knowing whether people are going to vote when Republicans have the chance to make inroads in Democratic majorities.

This poll certainly fits well with the DKos narrative about the supposed hordes of pissed-off progressives. It remains to be seen whether the DKos sample is valid on a number of fronts (eg, are these all Dems in places with active, contested seats that could potentially flip? Are these real Dems or disaffected Naderite types etc?

In my real life at least, by which I mean the extensive circle of people I know who worked for, or volunteered for, the Obama campaign and other Democratic causes, Obama is still quite popular and people are as motivated to vote as ever. Of course, I do know some people in Blanche Lincoln's state who will have a hard time voting for her if she submarines health care reform, but that's hardly a referendum on Obama.

"Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?"

Because Obama has not led and has not fought. Because Democrats now have about as much control as a party is likely to get in our two-party system, yet they appear unable to enact meaningful health care reform legislation even though that has been their major party plank for 40 years. Because the Democrats seem to be nearly as compromised as the Republicans by the American oligarchists. Because Obama and the Democrats are mired in a Clinton-era Republican-lite mindset (hello, Rahm) and flee in horror from their progressive wing, even though it was the progressive who supplied the energy and enthusiasm that elected Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Just a hunch.

No enthusiasm for the Democrats is something well deserved by the Democrats. Is there a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? I guess so, but they both are in the pockets of the same monied interests, they both are war and imperialisms parties, they both are disinterested in those of us who aren't powerful and rich. Health care reform as it sits on the table now is of no interest to me and seems another gift to the monied interests, not all that different from the Bush era reform to Medicare for prescription drugs which pours billions into the Big Pharma interests. I have no enthusiasm for the Democrats. None at all. And for those who think there's an important difference between the two parties, I have a bridge connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan that I'll trade straight up for your sea side lots in Nebraska.

He could have done a few simple things that would have helped stem dissillusionment.

First, clean up the US attorney mess by firing every single Bush appointee immediately and review the suspect cases against Siegleman, Paul Minor, Cyril Wecht, etc. But no, he wanted to look forward and not back. Standing up for the rule of law is highly principled and would have made a lot of people happy and they would have an easier time accepting some of the compromises.

Second, reverse all of the crazy Bush positions on issues like illegal wiretapping and photos of detainees.

Third, he could have been more active in health care rather than leaving it to Congress. Just because Hillary did what she did in 93 doesn't mean that she was wrong about everything.

Fourth, he could have insisted that the stimulus be larger and less tax cut oriented so that after it's negotiated, it would be more robust than it ended up being.

Finally, he needs to be more partisan. He was elected with a broad mandate to enact real change. We weren't looking for half measures. I wanted the country reset more or less to how it was before Bush.

If he had done these things, he would have a motivated base standing behind him.

I didn't vote for Obama. I knew he was a Clintonesque triangulator.

I won't be voting for him in 2012, either. I won't support any candidate who supports the escalation in Afghanistan. I won't support any candidate who votes for the health INSURANCE bill, if it contains Stupak/Pitts and/or no public option.

This is the thing - the Democrats assume we'll all stick with them because the GOP is so much worse. The Democratic Party loathes the left wing, and blames us for everything all year long. When it comes to needing $$ or volunteers, they don't hesitate to ask the loathed left. As long as we continue to vote for their crappy candidates, we'll get an endless supply of them.

Now more than ever we need bold leadership. Instead, we get a spineless Democratic Congress, afraid to actually run the country, and a weak, pandering-to-the-right president who wants bipartisanship more than he wants to actually lead us into meaningful change.

The title really ought to be: Dem voters are less motivated than the twenty-eight percent of the population which self-identifies as Republican.

I am motivated and will vote for Obama in 2012 and if the dems know what's good for them, they will vote in 2010 to make sure we don't lose seats. Those of you who want to waste your vote and vote green or pink - remember, you could be responsible for losses you will wish never happened.

I have been around the block a few times and have heard this "I am not going to vote" refrain before. If you want another 8 years of Republican rule, then do so at all of our peril.
The man has been in office 11 months and has accomplished more than most presidents. At least he's trying to make things better under extremely rotten circumstances.

If you want a good view of the Obama presidency so far read the New York Magazine article

http://nymag.com/news/politics/62377/

Obama accomplishments

Signed on October 28, 2009
Hate Crimes Bill

Signed on October 28, 2009
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

Signed on October 22, 2009
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
#
Signed on August 06, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Extension
#
Signed on June 22, 2009
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009
#
Signed on May 22, 2009
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
#
Signed on May 20, 2009
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
#
Signed on April 21, 2009
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
#
Signed on March 30, 2009
Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Signed on March 20, 2009
Small Business Act Temporary Extension

Signed on February 17, 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
*
Signed on February 11, 2009
DTV Delay Act
Signed on February 04, 2009
Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
*
Signed on January 29, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Some folks here make me sick. Really. Obama isn't the dictator Bush wanted to be. He can't just make edicts and everything will fall into place. He has to make choices about accomplishing the realistic, over the possible but unlikely. I grant there have been disappointments, but they pale in comparison to the past 8 years prior. 11 months, monumental problems, full-stop Republican party in absolute opposition on a scale never seen before, and a whole pack of DINO's blocking the most progressive aspects of anything put forward in congress.

Here's the deal: you worked your asses off for the presidential election, and got a change in the WH. Instead of pouting that you can't just sit on your hands and let Obama do all the work for you, you need to start making change happen in congress. Find a good progressive replacement for Lieberman and give him/her your support. Help Sestak beat Specter. Get the idea? Heck, even some Greens in congress is a realistic goal. But be realistic... Nader was NEVER going to be Prez. The Senate, mmmmmmaybe. Give it a shot. But pin your hopes on something doable, and where it isn't doable, take the lesser of evils. In conservative states, we should be thankful when we get a DINO. But, in more liberal states, primary the DINOs. This is strategic thinking. While the R base are killing their own because they don't pass the litmus, we have the opportunity to make progressive GAINS, which would only make the DINOS less relevant. If the Dems lose ground next year, the DINOS become more powerful. Use your lil' noggins and THINK on that one.

Hell, we haven't even gotten "A" so far, let alone B-F. B was negotiated away right from the beginning (single-payer), we're still in Iraq, we're escalating in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, the Obama administration is fighting to maintain a lot of the non-transparency of the Bush administration . . .

So, other than the fact that we now have a President who can speak in complete sentences, and who is not hated by the rest of the world, what have we accomplished, exactly? I'm willing to have a certain amount of patience before I get A, B & C, but I'd like to get something. Hey, call me crazy.

Why should I give a darn about Prof. Larry from Virginny with the waiter mustache? A useless article!

I don't mind compromise. But when the baby is getting thrown out with the bathwater then there is a problem. The Dems are running the country like the Republicans, that's why the people who consider themselves part of the Democratic party really not interested in voting in 2010. They don't see a real difference in governance. There are democratic senators threatening to filibuster a health care bill that already gave away too much to the health insurance corporations. And, now they are threateing to 'reform' entitlement programs like Medicare, Social Security, etc rather than reform the Pentagon which wastes far more money. That isn't change I voted for nor any other Democrat I know voted for.

I think, so far, Democrats have failed to see what they're doing to themselves. Obama is incessantly attacked on many of these blogs, like this one, where he's deemed "no different that Bush," a "corporatist," "weak," et cetera. Certainly, Obama isn't perfect.

But, he's often criticized for things like compromising to try to find a way to get these initiatives through Congress. Democrats hold up FDR and LBJ and say fallacious things like, "They didn't compromise." Unfortunately, many people are viewing history through rose-colored glasses. FDR initially wanted Social Security to cover more than just the elderly, and he wanted it to include healthcare. But, he couldn't get that through Congress. LBJ ultimately signed healthcare for the elderly (Medicare) into law, but it still fell short of a broader extension of benefits that was proposed. [In both cases, these initiatives were tweaked with subsequent amendments.]

Yet, instead of viewing Obama's actions in the context of how those presidents actually expanded social programs, Obama's methods are compared to fictional accounts -- FDR and LBJ are held up as men who didn't compromise; the implicit (and sometimes explicitly expressed) sentiment is that Obama doesn't possess the principle that those men possessed.

So, now we have the charge that Obama's "weak" or that he "doesn't fight for anything." The notion of working within the political milieu is not something Obama is supposed to do; he's supposed to somehow be above or beyond something so mundane. [Even though no other president has been.] People seem to sincerely (and magically) believe that If Obama just REALLY wants something done, it will be done. Lack of "sufficient" progress on some initiatives is presumed to be nothing more than a lack of political will on Obama's part. The need to navigate political milieu that is more oriented against substantial changes is disregarded.

Which brings us to charges against actual progress... How many attacks have been leveled, because something "didn't go far enough?" People don't ask, "Is that as far as this political milieu could be pushed?" Refusing to entertain that question has skewed peoples' realities. [I keep hearing about how Obama didn't push for single payer. A poll recently released showed that only 22% of the nation supports a single-payer system.] A major healthcare initiative, which would be the most progressive change this nation has seen in a generation, a change that no previous president has ever come so close to achieving, is on the verge of passing. But, it's attacked because it hasn't happened fast enough and because it "doesn't go far enough." (Political milieu be damned.)

He's attacked for not closing Guantanmo, for not repealing DADT, for not passing immigration reform, etc. Has Obama changed his position on any of these campaign promises? No. But, that seems to be irrelevant. It only matters that it hasn't been done YET. The fact that progress on each of these fronts is in motion is conveniently overlooked. I guess the assumption is that Obama wanted the first quarter of his first year of the presidency to be consumed with preventing the collapse of our economy and the second and third AND fourth quarters to be consumed with passing a healthcare initiative. This assumption seems to persist in spite of Obama having called for Congress to complete the healthcare initiatives in August to leave more time for other matters. Again, apparently, Obama should've somehow bullied Congress into passing a healthcare plan by now. The fact that Democrats are working so hard against an initiative that is at the heart of the Democratic platform has not gotten the attention it deserves. Did anyone think in the midst of 2008's heated Democratic primary that largely focused on healthcare that this would be the case? That's doubtful. (See comments above about the political milieu.)

Ultimately, it doesn't surprise me that Democrats are disillusioned. Based on what I've seen and read online, people had unrealistic expectations about what could be accomplished in our political system, and those unrealistic expectations seem to persist today (see comments about FDR & LBJ).

Furthermore, Democrats seem to have a curious predilection for eating their own. Democrats seem to relish internecine warfare. It's termed "holding people's feet to the fire," or being "committed to principle, not the person," etc. That makes sense, if applied sensibly. But, how beneficial are those approaches when they begin to undermine your own leaders? If people think they can somehow undermine leaders of the Democratic Party without inflicting damage on Democratic aims, they are sorely mistaken. There will absolutely be collateral damage to the Democratic Party.

I think many Democrats have forgotten what it's like to have a Congress with greater minority influence. Lindsey Graham made a statement the other day about how healthcare would be dead if Republicans had just one more vote in the Senate...

Time is spent attacking people for not being "sufficiently progressive." But, let's see how Democrats feel about a political milieu that is even more oriented against progressive change.

You can only poke so many holes in your own boat before it starts taking on too much water. Democrats would be wise to start patching and stop poking. Or, at least commit to not saying a word when Obama's agenda comes to a grinding halt (or worse, is reversed; Republicans are already vowing to undue ANY progressive legislation), because Republicans pick up enough seats to move from being just oppositional voices to truly insurmountable political opposition.

If that happens, don't forget to look in the mirror, Democrats. You will have had a hand in your own undoing.

We gave them the house ,the senate ,and the oval office, and what do we get in return ? A lot of sweaty hand holding with the centrist dems and the republicans, so that they don't flip out over our big government socialist take over. After seeing the scary teabaggers this summer, I'm too scared not to vote.

I didn't expect Obama to govern anywhere but the political center between main street and Wall Street. Unfortunately, he's by far favoring the corporate crowd over Main St. Biggest tip off was when his Senate point man on health care, Bachus, refused a debate on single payer and nixed public option. I think Matt Taibbe has Obama pegged about right. He's much more comfortable with the corporatists. And will govern accordingly.

deals like comcast and nbc are why i do not like obama and the dems. they tell you they are for the middleclass and a vibrant competitive market, but in actuality they are just as bad as the repugs. dems and obama believes in allowing big corporations to squeeze the middleclass by not enforcing anti trust rules. there needs to be another party

I think progressives are being too cynical. We are getting a lot done. It's not easy or pleasant, but who thought it would be. But people should hang in there and stay engaged.

The MSM and rightwing want to play up Obama's "failures", like not bulyyign China, not nuking Iran, and actually foolishly trying to reform all our broken systems. Don't listen. We're getting a lot done. We've avoid a depression with an enormous stimulus. Financial reform and climate change will be next years legislative battles. And we will get HCR.

The MSM/GOP industrial complex wants us to back down and accept their permanent idiocracy rule of wignnut kooks, haters and bigots who oppose any reforms whatsoever. I say "no way". We're on the right path and need to kick these clowns to the curb.

Question for Professor Sabato:

According to Ray Fair's 2007 model, the state of the economy is incredibly important during Presidential elections, but less statistically significant during off-year elections. In particular GDP growth during mid-term election year doesn't seem to matter (though positive spikes in GDP seem to help).

Why is this?

As someone who supported Clinton last year and was raked over the coals for it by Obama supporters who said she would sell out to Republicans, I really wish I could say "I told you so" and laugh at all this cyberangst, but I can't. The stakes are too high. Here's one example for your consideration.

This year, my sister was diagnosed with cancer and had to go on disability and take COBRA. She was initially not able to make the COBRA payments but has since received subsidies under the stimulus bill, provided by congressional Democrats and supported by Obama, and could afford them. My sister will need to continue those next year, and congressional Democrats are introducing bills now to extend them into next year.

Without the insurance subsidies, she would not have been able to afford the care and could very well have died.

Every single person on this site who thinks that, had Republicans been in charge of either the White House or Congress this year, those subsidies would have been enacted into law, raise your hands. I don't need to see the count, because if you really think that would have happened, you're even more self-centered and myopic than your posts here suggest.

No matter what disappointments I may suffer at the hands of COngress and the Administration, and I've had a few, I would never put either one of those institutions in the hands of Republicans, either directly by voting for them or indirectly by not voting at all. It matters too much to real people with real situations who need help.