45% of Dems not voting/unlikely to vote? I am staggered

[bread_and_roses]

This is a week old but I just saw it -
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/1/821089/-Weekly-Tracking-Poll:-The-Holiday-Spirit,-Part-III

... In the best evidence to date that the Democratic leadership is going to have to do an immense amount of outreach to their base in 2010, the highest percentage of Democrats to date (45%) indicated this week that they are either unlikely to vote, or certain not to vote...The GOP fervor for voting has receded ever so slightly, but still towers over the Democrats in terms of voter intensity. The spread for the GOP stands at 75% likely/21% unlikely.

Now, I don't read Kos, and ended up on that page two links from a post on Commondreams http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/04-10 "Why Democrats Are Trying to Commit Electoral Suicide," by Ian Welsh. So, I don't know how good or not the polls over at Kos are, but I figure amongst the newshounds here, someone will...and will tell me if this poll is worth taking seriously, which is partly why I'm taking the time to post it, because...

... I am staggered by this. I had been seeing polls posted here about Pres approval rating among Dems being quite high, but it seems to me that if this is a valid poll, it tells another story altogether. Why, with a Party President and a Party majority in both Houses, an historic President, to boot - elected with the fervent, non-stop work of Dem faithful, I am told (though the only people I ever see knocking doors and dropping lit are the Progressives, but that may be a function of the weakness of the Dem Party structure here and not typical of other areas) would Party Dems be thinking of staying home in such numbers? And how the hell will they win any elections if the Party stays home in such numbers?

Around here, there's a pretty strong contingent of the Party faithful who respond to the criticisms of the President and the Ds in Congress by telling us that most of the Country is "moderate" or "Centrist" or whatever word they use - that those of us in despair over the policies promoted by this Administration are wacky fringe, that the Presidents approval ratings are great ... well, seems to me something is amiss if there is any validity to these numbers of Dems who might stay home. I have said straight up here that I am not a Dem, and I don't care about "the Party" and that's the truth. And the past year has put the lie to any hope that having Ds in office makes a damn bit of difference under our utterly corrupt and manipulated Corpo-cracy. (See "Hope Has Left the Building," by Arun Gupta http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/08-9 ). But I do not want to see our first Black President branded a failure two years into his term by a corporate Press salivating over huge losses in the House and Senate.

We're told here - and by Rahm! - that Progressives don't matter. Do the 45% of Ds thinking of not voting not matter also?

(if this poll was posted here, I missed it, and did not find it on a quick search (though I find the search function here unwieldy and the format really hard to process visually, so I may have missed it - apologies if it's a dupe)

[spanone]

1. b. s.

[secondwind]

2. all Dems have to see is Sarah Palin out there, campaigning for one wingnut or another.....

and they'll stand in line for HOURS in rain, snow or whatever to vote!

Don't lose the faith!

[OHdem10]

12. This can cut 2 ways. Possibly make disillusioned Dems feel no one

on our side cares enough to rally the troops.

Why have there never been Democratic Groups out there
countering the Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

85. Excellent question..but it's not about "caring enough" it's about doing what they were sent to do-!

That's what you have to understand --

that's what the corporate $$ buys -- inaction --

Inaction means they can't really be said to not have done anything . . .

they just don't do enough -- and they make Lieberman and Blue Dogs Omnipotent!!

[tblue37]

17. I don't believe that even Palin will energize our discouraged voters.

I posted this as a reply in a different thread, but it is what I believe:

Back in the early 1960s, when real progressive ideals were the consensus opinion, the movers and shakers from the right wing (big money men--bankers, leaders of industry, old money, etc.) started planning to retake the country for their own power. They consistently poured money into buying up media outlets, establishing think tanks, supporting career paths for bright young people by paying them to write papers and such so they would become the "experts" called on by broadcast outlets to discuss the issues of the day and so they would be co-opted and their loyalty would be to the interests of the moneyed powers, etc. They did this for 40 years.

Even when they were "in the wilderness," as it were, they didn't take their ball and go home. They kept at it, putting their money and their support into their long-term goal.

And they succeeded. America is actually a center left country, but the media, largely owned and directed by the RW moneyed interests, endlessly repeats the lie that America is a center right country, and people end up accepting that as te truth even though it is clearly false.

They control the debate and the terms of the debate. Even when they are "in the wilderness," as they are now, the RW is able to persuade everyone, including many progressives, to swallow their lies. And unlike the RW, progressives will take their ball and go home. Instead of continuing the push from one election to the next, progressives tend to try once, and if at first they don't succeed, they give up.

The best thing about Howard Dean, who is marvelous in so many, many ways, is that he looked to the long term. Although Dems were out of power, he still insisted on putting money and effort into the 50-state strategy, despite the nay-saying by the powers in the party, like Rahm Emmanuel and others.

Right now, it is hard to get the story of any success told to the American public, because the money on the left doesn't really support any long-term effort to move the consensus opinion the way the money on the right did in the early 1960s and thereafter. But we "little people" showed in the last election that we can raise money and push grassroots efforts if we want to. But now I read that 40% or more of Dems say they are not likely to vote in the next election, while 89% of Republicans and 68% of Independents are likely to vote.

Progressive Dems need to get involved and stay involved at the local and state level, as well as at the national level. The Republicans groom and push through candidates for city commissions, school boards, state legislatures, etc. That is their pipeline. They groom people who them burst onto the national stage as viable candidates. Meanwhile, Dems have trouble even fielding candidates sometimes.

Here in Kansas, our Democratic governor, who was originally a moderate Republican until Sebelius tapped him to run as her lieutenant governor in the last election, has said he won’t run for another term. There are a zillion strong Republican candidates for the post already—but we can’t find a Dem to even run in the race yet! In Michigan, the strong Dem candidate for governor has withdrawn his name. We need to be grooming and supporting candidates from the ground up. But for some reason, progressives seem to lack the stick-with-itness of the RW when it comes to grassroots enthusiasm.

We need to vote, and to do so not just in national elections, but in local and state elections as well. Those positions have a direct impact on our quality of life, and they are also the pipeline for national candidates. We also need to take control of our party machinery at the local and state level, even in non-election years. In most cases, by the time an election rolls around, we have already lost the opportunity to field a truly progressive candidate, so we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

And since we don’t own the media the way the RW does, we need to do more at the grassroots level to get our story out. For example, the corporate media will NOT tell the story about how ACORN was unfairly smeared by RW mouthpieces and the media and then illegally singled out by Congress, so we have to get the story out there about their vindication by two impartial official investigations.

And we have to persuade our progressive friends not to stay home on election day.

[bullimiami]

24. turnout for the 2006 midterm was like 40% overall and that was up.

if 55% of dems showed up for midterms that would be impressive.

[Kaleva]

56. A 55% turnout in an off year election would be impressive indeed!

[bread_and_roses]

64. census.gov says 71% of registered voters went to polls in '06

I wondered about the off-year factor too...and it took me a while to find any reference to turn-out among registered voters rather than total population. I imagine Parties have these #s but I was having a really hard time finding referenced on a search. Among the few references I did find, however, the number of Registered voters actually voting was much higher than the general population. An article about voting in Hawaii, for instance, a known low-turnout State, said that Hawaii counts turn-out only by # of registered voters, and in '06 58% of them voted.

Now, the Kos poll seems to be among "all adults" not registered voters. So, I take your point. Nonetheless, I think this result is quite depressing one year into a historic Presidency.

[bread_and_roses]

72. A good plan. But how many right-wing administrations will we see while it's developed?

It is a good plan - but I think it's way too late for it. The entire system is cracking too fast.

[defendandprotect]

86. Actually, THIS is what voting for the "lesser of evils" has produced . . .more right wing control ..

[defendandprotect]

84. IMO, you're wrong . .. but on the other hand . .. "faith" in what??

Do you still have "faith" in Obama . . . and the team he put together?

Faith in universal health care?

[DCBob]

3. I dont believe that number. Many are pissed now because their irrational dream of liberal utopia...

has not occurred. They will come to their senses when it gets closer to election time and someone like Sarah Palin appears to have a chance to occupy the WH and conservative hell is a real possibility.

[Celebration]

5. Don't be so sure

And Sarah Palin is no shoo in.

[DCBob]

16. There will be a few hard headed/disgruntled/lazy Dems who sit it out but it wont be 45%...

I am quite sure of that.

[Celebration]

22. I agree, probably closer to 40% n/t

[Change has come]

93. LOL

Well played. :thumbsup:

[tavalon]

10. That would be just like her, too.

Running for President in the midterms.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Good one....

:rofl: :rofl:

[DCBob]

20. Ok I missread the article a bit... too busy eating my yogurt and granola.. heheh

but the same basic concept applies. :)

[DisgustedInMN]

29. Perhaps..

.. you are willing to take that gamble. Just understand that when you lose, and you most assuredly WILL LOSE, you will have no one to blame except yourself.

Here's a short reality check for you, I suggest you listen quite carefully:

I am a motivated Democratic voter and activist. I was a STRONG Obama Delegate at the 6th CD Caucus here. I was probably a STRONG Democrat before you were born. I worked for RFK's campaign and even had the distinct honor to have a conversation with him. I offer this to give a perspective of where I come from, BEFORE you insult me by telling me that I "am not a 'good' Democrat."

Given the above, unless Barack Obama makes some RADICAL course corrections, I, and many others just like me, won't just not vote for him, we WILL find an alternative to him and give them the kind of support that put Obama in office. Believe or don't, that's your prerogative.

What WON'T happen, is that we WON'T be silenced, by you, by the Republiconartists, by Rahm, by Barack, or by anybody else. And of that, you can rest assured.

[DCBob]

32. I don't doubt you. I am just saying most are not like you and will show up.

BTW, I have been voting for over 30 years so I doubt you were a "STRONG Democrat" before I was born unless you are one very old dude. BTW, how come you are so new to DU? Seems this board is perfect for you. Where ya been??

[DisgustedInMN]

34. Ahhh yes, "where I've been.."

... is on the front lines battling it out with righties. I've now found myself in the uncomfortable position of not having faith in "change you can believe in" after watching one capitulation after another, without some much as a whimper of protest. All to get what? Some illusionary pretense of "bipartisanship?" How that work out for us?

About the only "change" I'm seeing is that those with the "D" behind their names, use lube.

[DCBob]

39. "How that work out for us?"

Maybe give Obama a bit more time to turn this battleship around that had been pointed in the wrong direction for nearly a decade. Surprised you are so impatient having worked in politics such a long time. You should be well aware of the difficulties of making major changes in the country.

[DisgustedInMN]

41. FDR...

... put a million unemployed back to work within 30 days of taking office, under MUCH tougher conditions. I can't pay my mortgage with "patience" or excuses.

[DCBob]

42. You want a job building log cabins in the national parks?

Jobs are coming. They always lag in a recovery after a recession. The stimulus worked. It kept this country from going into a massive depression. We should be thankful we are not standing in soup lines and sleeping in tents.

[DisgustedInMN]

47. With all..

... due respect. Some ARE "standing in soup lines and sleeping in tents." Just because it isn't you, don't pretend it isn't happening.

This is the disconnect that is likely to destroy the Democratic Party, Some DON'T have anymore time to be "patient," we NEED jobs NOW, not "next summer" or "next year." If I lose my home, because of a FAILURE to act by the Dems, well...

:thumbsdown:

[DCBob]

51. With all due respect... you sound like you think the Republicans could do better...

Surely I must be mistaken.

[DisgustedInMN]

53. Please don't go there.

If you insist on using this kind of strawman argument with me, I'll have to step away, as it will surely piss me off. You may be willing to settle for Republican Light, I'm not.

[DCBob]

54. You already gone there if you think Obama is Republican light.

Get real dude. Gotta go. Enjoy your day. Ciao.

[DisgustedInMN]

57. Whatever....

.. you've really convinced me!

:sarcasm:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. That's very true. I'm in Minnesota as well, and

my church's feeding programs are seeing increasing numbers of people who have obviously fallen out of the middle class recently, as opposed to the hardcore street people we saw when I first moved back here in 2003.

[defendandprotect]

87. This is looking more and more like a DEPRESSION than a recession . ..

and I think many Americans are living the reality of a new Depression . . . !!

[bread_and_roses]

70. There are a good few people who would be happy to be building log cabins in parks

what makes you think otherwise? And as the poster below noted, there are also a good few standing in soup lines and sleeping in tents and shelters. A national jobs program along the lines of the WPA is exactly what is needed right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. When you're on the edge of starvation, you'll take any legal job

I have a Ph.D. but when I came out of grad school during the Reagan administration, I worked as an industrial and clerical temp to keep going until the job market opened up.

I worked in a hospital laundry, a metal plating plant, a factory that made typewriter platens, a place that made airline lunches (yuck), and a Mylar balloon factory, to name a few of the more notable jobs.

I've also volunteered for Habitat for Humanity.

Maybe YOU'RE afraid to work with your hands or in a non-desk job, but most people are capable of it if they have to be.

My father was a college graduate when he went to work for the CCCs.

[Forkboy]

97. LOL...naive to the max.

Nice thinking though, and I don't fault you for it. Just naive.

[sendero]

71. I'm so tired of this idea..

.. HE'S DONE NOTHING. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF TURNING AROUND A BATTLESHIP, HE'S FULL THROTTLE THE WRONG DIRECTION.

I have already given up on Obama and I assure you I'm one of the 45%, I will NOT vote for him again.

One more clue for the clueless - it's doesn't take 45% it only takes about 10%. And if you think there aren't 10% of us who have had it, you are a moron.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. He can't even make one little token leftward motion

Not even one.

There's not even one left-of-center person in the Cabinet, for cryin' out loud.

[defendandprotect]

88. Precisely . . . 45% have given up on Obama . . .

This isn't about any "failure" of the administration . . . this is about

making deals for their corporate contributors -- and setting out to do so

from the first days of the adminsitration -- !!!

[dflprincess]

94. I'm hearing a lot of discontent among long time activists in my Senate district

(myself included). I think Rahm, etal are badly underestimating how much trouble they are in. In a lot of areas the people who have hung on for years and done the grunt work are the liberals and if we walk away there won't be many left to do the phone calls and door knocks and just keep the local party organizations going.

The DFL has been making the same mistake. Personally, I wish it were possible for the Farmer Labor wing of the DFL to demand a divorce. I believe ScarletWoman has quoted an old Farmer-Laborite she knew as saying the biggest the mistake the Farmer-Labor party every made was to let the Democrats in....That's truer now more than ever.

[bread_and_roses]

65. ROFL, I surely had no dreams of a "liberal utopia" and I doubt many did

Though a fervent supporter of Obama, and although I convinced myself that he would be a more Progressive President than candidate (more fool I), I certainly did not expect a "Liberal Utopia." However, I didn't expect a continuation of the Republican control of legislation and the primacy of the Corporatocracy either.

[defendandprotect]

89. Everyone else has universal health care . . . how is that expectation "irrational" for America . .??

The wealthiest nation in the world --???

Take the pony for a long walk . . .

it's overworked!

[defendandprotect]

90. dupe

The wealthiest nation in the world --???

Take the pony for a long walk . . .

it's overworked!

[endless october]

4. i'm voting.

primaries, too.

[Warpy]

9. I am, too

but I'm the type of person who, could I afford a horse, would be tilting at windmills.

Sensible people will be disgusted enough to stay home.

[NecklyTyler]

48. I'm going to vote

I don't trust predictions of voter turnout, particularly 10 months before the election

[glitch]

62. Especially primaries. Even if I have to write in a candidate. nt

[tavalon]

6. A large contingent is choosing to vote

by not voting.

I was going to be part of that pissy patrol, but after a long look, it seemed antithetical to what I do.

[ixion]

7. I know many people of all political stripes who are livid over the so-called "reform"

of health care, myself included.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that the dems have really shot themselves in the foot at this point. I'm sure the DLC crowd will roundly attack me for daring to speak such blasphemies, but I just call'em as I see'em.

[jtrockville]

58. +1

I agree: democrats shot themselves in the foot on this one. Maybe they can recover, maybe not. They've surely lost many supporters.

[Raine]

103. You're exactly on point! nt

:thumbsup:

[Warpy]

8. Wimpy conservatives who are working to gut necessary legislation

to please their corporate donors are demoralizing the base.

Any party that fails to play to its base (in this case, the true center) is doomed to lose elections as disgusted party members just stay home.

Voting requires effort. If people aren't getting anything for it, they're simply not going to do it.

The GOP is great at playing to their nitwit base, even as they sell them out on a lot of issues. The Democrats seem afraid to play to theirs.

This poll doesn't surprise me in the least. The leadership disgusts me for being so oblivious.

[fasttense]

11. It's a good indicator of how angry self described Dems

are over current legislation and President Obama's support of that legislation.

Whether it will it continue through to the elections is yet to be seen.

I'm considering staying home from the polls in 2010. But if some wacko like Palin starts bashing Dems, in a more virulent manor than usual, I'll go out just to vote against them.

[xchrom]

14. Pain is a good teacher. Nt

[Warpy]

18. Bullshit, not for conservatives

and party conservatives have been throwing elections away with both hands since Johnson went out of office.

[against all enemies]

15. Giant bonuses are going out to the Bankers this week.

Thanks to our Democratic government, unless they pass a new tax on bonuses, thank you Dennis, they can kiss my ass next election.

[liberal_at_heart]

67. +1

[NNN0LHI]

19. Well then those people will deserve what they get

I bet about the same number of Dems would vote against unionizing their workplace if given the chance too.

Stupidity is not just for Rethugs.

Don

[against all enemies]

36. So I'm stupid?

Bail outs for the banking industry, a health care plan that's a boon for the insurance industry? And I should let my Democratic representatives think that its all OK with the Democratic base?

The leaders know that real Democratic won't vote republican, but they should realize that they might just stay home. Tell me again why I should vote for the Democrats after the banking industry bonuses are handed out this week.

That's our money, and it's been gifted to the super rich by Democrats. I can't defend that.

[otohara]

101. Will This Help

Exclusive: Obama budget likely to include (as yet undetermined) fee on banks to help taxpayers recoup cost of bailout -- Romer still sees recovery beginning in spring
By: BEN WHITE & VICTORIA MCGRANE & MIKE ALLEN on January 11, 2010 @ 5:57 AM

EXCLUSIVE: Top administration officials tell Morning Money that President Obama’s budget, to be unveiled next month, is likely to include a fee on banks designed to recoup some of the cost taxpayers incurred in the bailout, which specified that the U.S. government should be made whole. This will stop short of a financial transactions tax, and the administration has decided that a tax on compensation packages would be too easily evaded. The officials said the final approach has not been locked down. The chief goal is a fee that is not easily passed along. http://www.politico.com/morningmoney/0110/morningmoney58.html

[elocs]

21. I can understand this because right NOW a lot of Dems are disenchanted and disillusioned

and disappointed with the near taunt of (in the general election), "well where else are you going to go?" and the thought that they will have to hold their noses and hope again. Many Democrats maybe projected their own hopes and dreams on the last election and really believed that the promised change would come. Maybe they simply misread what was really promised and offered, but that does not mean they feel any less disappointed.

We are not going to be hurt and disappointed with what Republicans' actions because that is what they do and that is what we expect of them. However, as in all things we are most easily hurt by the ones we love, all the Democrats for whom we worked hard and gave hard earned money and got out the votes for their elections are the ones who disillusion us when they do not live up to what we see as their promises or they do not appear to fight hard enough for the important things.

Maybe instead of all the bipartisanship and concessions made at every turn Obama and the Democrats would have been better off employing the "Chicago way" with their big majorities: they come at you with a knife, you go after them with a gun; they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue. Get in the trenches and do what needs to be done because that is what the Republicans would do and they would take no prisoners.

[NJmaverick]

38. Well historically Dems are poor turn out voters

still this news must be cause for celebration of the many anti-Dems on DU. It seems all their hard work is paying dividends.

[elocs]

43. A lot of Dems put much faith and hope in the last election and believed the promises

as they understood them. Will they believe again, will they show up again?

In 2008 the Republican turnout declined by 1.3% while the Democratic turnout increased 2.6% over 2004. What happens if that switches around this year and in 2012?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008_voter_turnout_same_as_2004_/

[bread_and_roses]

68. "White House Believes 'Liberal Angst' Over Healthcare Will Go Away"

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/10

In an NPR story this week, White House aides and Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer summed it up: (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122366587)

White House aides believe a lot of the liberal angst about health care will go away once the president actually signs a bill. And to the extent that the Democrats have a problem motivating their core voters, they've got time to fix it.

"We're not overly concerned about these things, first and foremost because there isn't an election tomorrow, not an election the next day," says Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director.

I guess they, too, like some here, think health care is a "pony" issue and we are children who will forget that we didn't get our dream toy for Christmas.

[LiberalEsto]

23. We need something to vote FOR

but all we get is the same old, same old.

[natrat]

25. there is a shadow government, they are moving to the right,rahm and the rest playing their parts

what is so difficult to understand about this. If you see some obviously compromised people, rahm etc, screwing the party over as badly as possible there are only so many conclusions you can draw. All the expressions of surprise get old after a while, comes down to just how fucking stupid are you

[Umbral]

26. Sarah Palin? Oooo, Scary! Wait... She's not running for any office (this year)

The worst she can do right now is endorse or campaign for candidates foolish enough to associate with her. She may scare some Republicans to the polls, but she isn't going to motivate a pissed off liberal, at least not this pissed off liberal.

[droidamus2]

27. Not likely

Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Democrats said they might vote for somebody outside the Democratic Party but I really question whether that many people would just opt out of voting altogether. I am unhappy with the way President Obama has handled the healthcare situation and intend to change my registration from Democrat to Independent, but that in no way means that I will not vote or even that I won't vote for a Democrat if I think he/she deserves my vote.

Here's an idea! Are the Repugs/Conservatives getting ready to steal another election? If they were reports like this (and all the other ones saying the Democrats are going to lose big time in 2010 and 2012) are just a way of preparing the populace to accept big Republican gains.

[stray cat]

28. I wish I were surprised - proof that the republican masses are usually smarter than dems

even unhappy they prefer to keep progressives out of office, the progressives would rather let repubs win if they can feel vindicted

[NJmaverick]

37. Very true

[Spazito]

30. It seems to me, given that Obama's approval numbers among Dems....

is close to 90% the 45% number is ridiculous. Who were they polling? The far left? The far left makes up a very small percentage of the overall Dem support so maybe it is 45% of 20%?

[Hatchling]

80. They were two separate questions.

Since Obama isn't running in the mid-terms, it's very possible to have a high favorable with Democrats for the Obama question and still have a low voter turnout.

Below is part of the methodology used:

A total of 2400 adults nationally were interviewed by telephone. A cross-section of calls was made into each state in the country in order to reflect the adult population nationally.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” figure would fall within that range if the entire adult population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as gender, race, or region.

You can find this last week's complete breakdown by party, gender, race and age groups of these and other questions at this Link.

http://www.dailykos.com/weeklypoll/2010/1/7

[skepticscott]

31. The self-indulgence of a lot of DU member and other Democrats is astounding

For some reason, these people seem to think that the primary purpose of voting is to make themselves feel good about their choice, with the ultimate welfare of the country and the world being no more than a secondary concern. Your primary responsibility as a voter and as a citizen is not to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy, but to make the country as good a place as possible for as many people as possible. In no conceivable way can you accomplish that by staying home on election day.

[checks-n-balances]

79. YOU MAKE SUCH AN EXCELLENT POINT!!!

I hope you will start a separate thread making that particular point sometime soon.

Thanks for making it crystal clear!

[Romulox]

98. Nonsense. The purpose of voting is to put forward one's self-interest

(which can obviously include the well-being of others if a person so defines it.)

Voting is not an act of martyrdom.

[skepticscott]

99. That may be the reason

why people DO vote the way they do, but it's not what SHOULD motivate them. And why would voting always have to be an act of martyrdom, unless you're in the minority on most of the issues out there?

And what in the world is the purpose of not voting at all? Please don't say, to send a message, because that's so blind to proven reality that it's ridiculous.

[Kaleva]

33. Which Dems are in danger of losing their seat ?

My guess is that it will be mostly blue dogs.

[2 Much Tribulation]

35. If someone says they are unlikely to vote in normal polls they HANG UP then, so...

smug attitudes about %support ratings AMONG DEMOCRATS remaining high for Obama despite health care are highly misleading for these reasons:

1. %DEM Support ratings do not measure either those unlikely to vote at all (except for special polls like the one in the OP where they stay on line to find out WHY) and

2. %DEM Support ratings do not measure those who have changed party to Independent, Unaffiliated, or Green, at least for purposes of pollsters, if not for purposes like the Michigan Democratic official who recently resigned and his resignation letter was posted on DU giving his progressive reasons for doing so.

[KharmaTrain]

40. It's Also An Off-Year Election...

Thus voter numbers are going to be down. There's no big sexy race...and in some states the biggest race will be for Congress...not quite the one that everyone cares about...bets are many voters don't even know who their current rep is. Thus when they predict turnout for an off-year election, of course it's going to be lower...not just for Democrats, but for all voters.

That said, I don't mind some red flags being thrown to shake up people...especially those so feel so put out that their candidate...be it President Obama or their Senator or Rep didn't do what they wanted or thought they promised or whatever. You can close your eyes and curse the darkness or look closer at the system, see how bad its broken and work to fix it. There's 11 months until the election with plenty of blistering primaries and a lot of other variables that will happen between now and then...thus predictions at this point are pure conjecture. Now if we saw polls like this in September, then there's a cause for alarm, but I don't see that as the case.

[shadowknows69]

44. When both parties start to look like the same puppet pulled by corporate strings

A little thing called apathy sets in.

[Kaleva]

45. Wouldn't this make turnout about the same as any other year cycle election?

I would have to check but I think a 55% turnout amongst Dems this year would be much higher then normal.

[IsItJustMe]

46. For me this whole HRC has truly shown the Democrats for who they really are. They talk a good game,

but in the final analysis, it's just talk. The money interests are running the show, make no mistake about it. Until something major happens in this country to change that stranglehold, true change can not, and will not occur.

The problems are systemic in our two party system. It's no longer working.

[Kaleva]

49. Mid term election turnout info for 2006

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ttw/trends_map_data_table.aspx?trendID=19&assessmentID=5

It looks like a 50% turnout would be an average. Some states had over 50% turnout while others had down near 30%.

If the Republicans are highly motivated to go to the polls this year, I imagine Obama must be doing something right to get them them so riled up. His job approval rating amongst conservative Republicans is down to about 10%.

[bread_and_roses]

74. That's a % of all voting age adults - registered voter turn-out higher

however, the Kos poll is from a pool of "all adults" (voting age) not registered voters, and there is no way to know if those self-identifying as "D" are actually registered or not. SAo point taken. However, if the % of registered Ds thinking of not voting is anywhere near that, it is a big problem. I think it's a big problem anyway. The success of the '08 elections should have people energized and rarin' to go - success usually breeds success.

[scentopine]

50. I'll vote write in or third party without any guilt

I used to laugh at the Nader vote or get angry about it. I was foolish. I get it now. We have one party in this country and it is right wing and more right wing. We punish the poor and worship the rich.

In case no one noticed, we haven't changed direction, we are moving steadily right - just at a more steady and determined pace instead of the erratic bursts of acceleration under the Bush regime.

I am fucking sick of this shit and the Obama apologists. It is one thing to vote for someone who says they represent your principals. If they betray these principals, shame on you for voting for them again.

What happened on Wall Street required a Nuremberg style investigation for the world wide disaster and massive shift of the countries tax revenue into the very hands of the Wall Street criminals who caused the problem. Imagine capturing a terrorist, scolding him lightly, and giving him a trillion rounds of ammunition before patting him on his bottom, telling him to stay out of trouble and sending him on his way.

Until there is justice, there can be no government.

And for all the Palin distraction? Bullshit. The right wing just needs one charismatic candidate and all those new "democrats" who voted for Obama are going to go back to the republican party.

And if you don't vote? I will not think any worse of it. The democratic leadership will load you up with guilt. Fuck em. We don't mean shit to these scoundrels. These scoundrels don't mean shit to you and me.

Torture, Wall Street, stimulus filled with tax cuts and tax breaks, war, wire tapping/spying on Americans. Jesus Christ it is a revolting circumstance we find ourselves in.

Democrat or republican? Sons of bitches sucking on their corporate masters, filling their own pockets at our expense. Every last one.

At least with republicans they wear their shitty ideology on their sleeves so its easy to disagree with them. Democratic leadership has become equally repulsive for hiding their ideology up their sleeves. Then they use it as a weapon to protect their own self serving motives against the very people who put them in office.

Its pointless to argue which is worse. They are both unacceptable.

[thotzRthingz]

52. re: "45% of Dems unlikely to vote?" ... as a registered Independent (and progressive)

It is very UNLIKELY that I would forgo voting. But, I am also unlikely to support people like Glenn Nye (D-VA) -- a blue dog "conservative" who may as well be a republiCON... based on how he has voted on issues which were (and still are) important to me. Those being:

* a robust public option (introducing real competition to the system)
* scaling back & withdrawing from Afghanistan
* pursuing BUSH administration war criminals

That aside:

I think many DEM voters are really pissed-off right now, but I hope that mindset doesn't actually keep them away from the voting booth. And THAT might be what OBAMA is hoping as well? :shrug:

[Vinca]

55. What is so disheartening is how easy it would have been

for Democrats to keep the momentum going. Sadly, they opted to genuflect to Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe in hopes that someday all Democrats, Republicans and Independents would sit in a circle and sing kumbayah. How different it might have been if they started out with the premise of enacting Democratic legislation.

[bread_and_roses]

73. yes, it would have been easy and I find it disheartening too (n/t)

[defendandprotect]

83. Try to understand... this isn't what they "opted" to do ... it's what they were sent to do -- !!!

[Kaleva]

59. "Only 40 percent of those eligible to vote actually go to the polls in off-year elections."

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ttw/trends_map_data_table.aspx?trendID=19&assessmentID=6

[MadHound]

60. Not surprising, an off year election and a party that has screwed its base - low turn out

Perhaps the party will learn its lesson this year. If not, the lesson will continue to be repeated every two years until the party does learn or there is no longer a Democratic party.

[noamnety]

61. What do you think the party would have to change to motivate these voters? (nt)

[kentuck]

63. The Party needs to be more progressive..

If the leadership did not see that after the last election, what else could we do? It was the progressives that carried Obama and the Democrats across the finish line with the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. What more proof do they need?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Passive resistance to a corrupt system?

I'll be voting but I owe no fealty to the Democratic Party and will vote for the most progressive anti-war candidates on he ballot..even if I have to write them in.

[gardentoad]

69. I wont vote for the first time since I was old enough.

I can either vote for Evan Bayh or another Republican. Whats the difference?

[WT Fuheck]

75. why vote?

[Hawaii Hiker]

81. Because even if you're disappointed with some of the Democrats, they

are still A.L.W.A.Y.S. better than the Rethug option...Maybe a long time ago voting for a Rethug might have been an option, before the party was high-jacked by the religious right & the goofy tea-baggers, that us Democrats need to show up this Nov. (and ALL elections) & keep the Dems. in power...

[WT Fuheck]

102. aspirin is better than an antacid for your headache.

but if the problem is a brain tumor, it really doesn't make much difference.

I firmly believe now that voting is a complete sham. It makes no difference whatsoever. The trajectory--planned, bought and paid for by the oligarchy--is identical and utterly unrelated to whom we pretend to put in "power." That whole campaign-election-politics thing is just kabuki theater to keep us from waking up. Choose the blue corporate party instead of the red corporate party and at best the inevitable happens a little slower. That's not all good. Lingering suffering is not preferable to getting it over with quick. There will be no real change until we make change with a force more tangible than pressing a box on a fascist-built touchscreen.

[defendandprotect]

82. And 45% of all Democrats ... UNITED.... would make quite some voting bloc . ..!!

Think about it --

NOT voting is the problem --

We need to get together and decide on a Plan B --

After 30+ years, folks, I think we have to admit that voting for "the lesser evil"

DOESN'T WORK --!!!

[dysfunctional press]

91. they'll lose the union vote if their 'cadillac-plan health tax' goes through.

and they aren't the only less-than-gruntled group out there.

[EndElectoral]

92. This adminstration needs to wake up and realize they are losing their base

[Beacool]

95. I can only speak for myself, but I stopped feeling any party loyalty around the middle of '08

I decided that from then on I wouldn't automatically vote for a politician just because he/she had a "D" after their name. I now study the available candidates very carefully, and if I don't like the Dem choice, I will stay home. The meme that the other side is far worse has ceased to have any effect on me. As for giving my time and money, if I don't personally know the candidate, they will only get my vote.

:shrug:

[Zhade]

96. If I were still a registered Dem, I'd be among them.

The system is broken, and I don't reward lies and betrayal.

[Hidden Stillness]

100. The People Voted for a Political Party to Help Them, Not for Independent Media Agents, to Amuse

This, yet again, is just the latest example of the now-permanent state of disaster, at the Democratic Party takeover by Republican/corporate lobbying interests. Every single major event--from legislation to the general running of the Party and funding of candidates--since the introduction of the corporate club "D"LC during the mid-1990s, has been either the dismantling of a Government program or protection and turning it over to commercial control and profit, or deregulation leading to unpunished corporate crime. It starts with focus-group-tested slogans and faked "anger and outrage" over something or other, then when elected turns to collusion with those same corporate interests. I actually remember Bill Clinton, the traitor, giving very perceptive and well-received speeches, in unionized Detroit, on the abuses of employees by employers, on worker fears, hardships, the greatness and importance of unions and regulations--then, right after, stabbing us all in the back with even more deregulation and corporate secret deals. Clinton and Gore were and are hated here because of NAFTA, etc., which paved the way for all the job/industry-moving ever since.

They apparently still think it is the 1990s, because they gave us the same thing with this group. Obama the personality cult, with slogans, glides in on free-ride treatment, lies (against NAFTA, for jobs, etc.), and anti-woman bigotry by the media. They start giving us these insulting, condescending showcases, like "Joe Biden the Hero Fighter of the Middle Class, for the Middle Class," ("Bankruptcy Bill" Biden the Credit Card Industry hack, right), complete with promises for some kind of recurring forum panels of some kind. Then, Clinton-like meetings with only insurance executives and lobbyists, then Emanuel, Daschle, Geithner, Summers, more Clintons, more corporate lobbyists and executives.

There has been absolutely nothing but cheery, chipper, press-conference-sloganeering, with swaggering bluster--it really is like Bill Clinton, who became so hated; "we love the middle-class" slogans and performance, covering up rich, wealthy privilege and even further tax-cutting and deregulation, secret meetings, outsourcing. What did they think people were going to do, when there is an increasing crisis because of unimpeded rising unemployment, rising debt, foreclosures, corporate crime--and people were crying for help?

The people want actual Government programs for the people, help for their desperate problems now, and what do they get? This 1990s, "spinning," "trick 'em all and set 'em against each other," "play to the base then stab 'em in the back," "pretend to fight Republicans then make secret deals with them, then pretend to be outraged," "go on a charm offensive," "whip up the left wing then cut them out" total "D"LC mid-1990s Clintonisms. Democracy that cuts out the people and only serves the oppressive global corporate cartels, to the detriment of all society, for the enrichment of the very few--can not last! They came in playing games, they are still playing games, and the people are becoming more and more angry, desperate, hopeless. These people never wanted to make Government work--they only wanted to get it completely out of the way of their corporate friends; and "this is thier reward."

Spinning everything like a consultant--"you wanna give us Sarah Palin," blah blah, only makes everything worse. They never address themselves honestly to the needs and cries of the American people and the deepening recession/Depression. This will get worse. The people gave them a serious, and actually inspiring, message that we need a new New Deal--and we got "performers" geared to the media and commercial advertising, spinning everything for their own careers, their corporate donors, and their eternally bloated egos. It is like two different planets.

[Raine]

104. The Democrats will have to give me a reason

to vote FOR them. That reason will have to be better than being the lesser of two evils. If I don't have a reason to vote FOR them then I will sit it out. I'm sick of just giving my vote to someone who has a "D" after their name. They are going to have to earn my vote from here on out.

[Scruffy1]

105. Generalizing just doesn't owrk too well

While off year elections generally have low turnouts it doesn't make much difference in most cases because so few of the congressional seats are competitive. In Minneapolis we get lopsided DFL victories of 80% and Some Republican districts are about the same across the US. Gerrymandering has a lot to do with this and also it is very hard to recruit good candidates to run against incumbants unless they have a good chance of winning. Not many can afford to give up their job/career for a long shot run and the National parties aren't going to put money on long shots. I suspect when all is said and done the turnout will be similar to to other off year elections. This is not to say that the base is not pissed off and will stay home in droves. But the RNC is not in the financial shape they were in 1994 and the wingnuts have really hurt them as has their total lack of leadership.