Semi Rant: Obama voters left unmotivated---hence the lack of voting.

[vaberella]

I don't want this to come across as though I'm targeting someone's post. Well it's not really one person---it's a meme I'm hearing on DU and I've heard it also on MSNBC, Candy Crowley likes to say it on CNN and Fox News has it on repeat and so on and so forth.

That the good number of people who had voted for Obama, but seemed to sit out in this election is because they felt unmotivated. In a general sense, if I remember correctly---most people don't really come out to vote if it's not in GE. The GE always pulls the most voters. That's fact one.

However, something else irks me about this excuse. Because it's an excuse. Do I sound like I have no sympathy for the unmotivated?! No, I don't. I don't feel any sort of pity or sympathy towards anyone who was unmotivated to post. I see voting, or the right to vote as a privilege. A privilege for those who are born in this nation, a privilege for those who were able to obtain their citizenship. Why? I wasn't born in the US. I came from Haiti, and I came when I was 2 years of age. I applied for my citizenship when I was 18 and I didn't get it until I was 25. I fought, I was part of protests at the NIS (their name at the time) because I was one of the backlogged people. 7 years I wanted to participate in national and local elections and I couldn't. Why? Because I knew as well as everyone here how important our vote is. How, it may not make much of a difference for some things in some states. But it's the piece of mind to know that you'll be counted in one of many for doing something.

So when I hear people are unmotivated or felt dispirited because of Obama. Let's just say I want to throw up. I get really disgusted. Will I blame the entire party because of one man?! Really? I had to sit there and think about this and the more I did, the more I became angry. How selfish, and how trite can a person be to sit there and think well, "Obama is not doing what I want or what he promised, so screw all Dems. I'll sit this one out." <--- Really?! How is that intelligent?! How does that show him. It's like, for those of us who fought and struggled to be a citizen, just got slapped in the face by the selfish who thought it was worth sitting it out.

I don't know. I'll explain another aspect of my life. I was raised in New York. I am currently living in Paris. I had filled out an absentee ballot to be sent to me in Paris, before the elections. I noticed it wasn't going to make to me in time. I took the time out to search not only my candidates out and make a list. But I found the US embassy in Paris and took the two hour travel time to get down there. Then I waited in line so I can fill out the ballot since it was the last day. Why did I do this? Why was I motivated? It wasn't because of Obama. Obama didn't even enter my mind.

I was bloody afraid of Paladino. I had sat through program after program on MSNBC, particularly Rachel's show, and did research on these teabagger candidates. I didn't need Obama to motivate me. The fear of these freaks taking over our Government, our State--was enough to motivate me. I even went as far as to send out messages to other students who were living abroad and part of my program to vote because I was afraid of these people. Why is it that people were unmotivated because of Obama? But seemed to be okay with these Republican-teabagger nutters. These nutters weren't scary enough to motivate people into taking a stand?!

Paladino was enough. And I come from a blue state. I knew overall that Cuomo would come out of this okay. But it didn't matter. I knew that in my conscience, that if by some chance my vote would come in handy I wanted it out there. I remember very well when Al Franken was struggling in Minnesota and he won by a few counts of the absentee ballots.

I was afraid when I saw a freak like Paladino actually become the Republican candidate and there were people in New York who supported him. That was enough to set me off and I wanted my ballot to count. How can these smaller things not be motivation enough?

How are our local elections so determined by one man? Please. To feel sympathy for these Dems or whoever who sat it out?! No. No, I don't feel anything. I feel pity and empathy (when I think this could have happened in my state) when I think of the Dems who stood with their gut and knew that the Republican candidate would bring nothing but pain. Those people in that state deserve our support. They are the ones I really feel for. But those who sat it out...their selfishness helped cause some of this. Of course there are a lot of causes in why that guy won. However, I feel for those Dems who voted and did what they could. I understand what they're going through.

To sit out on a vote because you were unmotivated by one man is selfishness and petty plain and simple. And to hear this propagated on a Democratic site as though it's a reasonable excuse, is just inexcusable. Seriously.

What if it was Obama who was President when Al Franken was a candidate in Minnesota---how many of you would have sat it out. Assuring he would have lost---would this excuse be plausible in that scenario. "Sorry Franken, but Obama pissed me off so you'll have to pay and so will the entire state of Minnesota too."

It's a weak excuse and I'm floored and disgusted by it. I'm also tired of hearing it on DU and by the bloody Media. I'm tired of people saying Obama pissed off his "base so much they didn't vote." Ugh, how sad is that.

I had to get this out. I was rather angry.

Final Note: This is not about a "Me", "You", or an "I". The final process of voting is a "we." Our votes are counted as a whole for which ever candidate we vote for. In the end, the action which is totally individualistic, eventually manifests into a massive entity that determines the course of lives---be it at the state level of the national level. I think many of us who claim to have been "unmotivated" or if we know of those who claim to have that status...have to remind people that it's more than "I" but it's 100% about the "US." And this is what we're seeing in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, and all over the country. That we're reminded of the importance of the "US" in voting.

[qazplm]

1. it stems from those who argue

that there is no difference between the parties and I think those folks need their heads examined.

[vaberella]

7. yeah....

It's another one that bugs the hell out of me. There is a massive divide between the two parties.

[Armstead]

10. On some things....But not enough of one

[vaberella]

12. For me there's enough...especially when I compare Cuomo to Paladino. n/t

[Armstead]

16. Well,yeah.......That's like comparing George Clooney to Mel Gibson

Sorry, just a bit of levity

[BklnDem75]

18. Actually it's not

You just threw out two names and compared it to two politicians that's night and day on issues. They're only the same if you never bothered to see what they're about.

[Armstead]

35. Um, lighten up?

It was a silly little joke.

[BklnDem75]

42. It's hard to tell who's joking nowadays...

:evilfrown:

[Armstead]

47. That's true

But in all seriousness, I wasn't being serious :+

[roguevalley]

33. on some things. not on all. there is still a patriot act, tax cuts for

the rich, guantanamo, two wars, etc. on some things its the same old shit.

[polmaven]

45. Of course...

Why hasn't King Barack issued a royal proclamation to eliminate all of that by now?

[roguevalley]

59. why hasn't he done something about it indeed. He has the ability

to do a lot of it himself and the rest? Its called leadership. How the hell do you suppose Lyndon Johnson rammed through civil rights legislation during the sixties? He did it by beating the shit out of his own guys and out playing the others. Its called leadership. Amazing how no one seems to expect the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has the skills to lead or the guts to take stands. Too bad. We are running out of time.

[polmaven]

63. Do you know the makeup of Congress

during those years???? LBJ did not have to "beat the shit" out of anyone. In 1963 when the civil rights bill was passed, The House had 258 Dems to 177 Republicans, and the Senate had 66 Dems to 34 Republicans. There wasn't much the (R)s could do to block him.

In the last Congress, though the House had very similar numbers (256 - 178), and the Senate had only 57 Democrats, with 41 Republicans and 2 Independents,and even the several of the Dems were blue-dogs. Without 60 votes to invoke cloture, there was not a lot that could stop the (R)S from shutting down legislation altogether. Leadership can only go so far. The president does not have the power to threaten anybody, particularly members of the opposite party. His only other option was compromise, and, of course, many here complain when he does that as well.

[Exilednight]

27. That's a broad brush statement that holds no grounds in reality. The truth is much more

nuanced than that.

There are a few that will argue what you suggest, but speaking for myself I see things a bit differently.

There is are very few people in the party that actually stand up and fight for what I believe in. Your argument HAS TO BE BETTER THAN "at least I'm not as bad as the other guy".

Just because he's not as bad as the other guy, it doesn't mean that he's better than the other guy.

In the last election, Obama won by telling people why they shouldn't vote for McCain. In the upcoming election he's going to have to tell people why they should vote for him. There's a big gulf between the two.

[Pirate Smile]

34. IMO This is NOT true-"Obama won by telling people why they shouldn't vote for McCain.In the upcoming

election he's going to have to tell people why they should vote for him. There's a big gulf between the two."

The 2008 election was more of a "voting for the candidate" election than any other election I've ever seen.

Most elections are more about voting to prevent one-side from gaining more power or one particular person.

If you don't consider the 2008 Presidential election one in which more people voted FOR one candidate then voted AGAINST the other, then I see a lot of extremely disappointing Presidential elections in your future because Elections like the 2008 campaign come around very rarely.

[Cobalt-60]

39. I voted against fascism

I would have voted for anyone that won the democratic nomination.
Even if I knew how Obama would roll for big business and doesn't seem concerned about anything but funneling tax money to criminal banksters I would have voted for him.
I'll even do it again if he isnt beaten by a sorely needed primary challenger.
But that's all.
The Democratic Party has been taking a dive since the Bush* admistration.
If they don't start acting like Democrats instead of Republican Lite its time to organize a party that isn't dedicated to sucking corporate d*ck.

[Exilednight]

61. I don't think Obama's 2008 campaign was all that

great, or all that rare. The reality is, we could of nominated a turtle and beat the Republicans. We beat a party who was holding the executive branch with the lowest approval rating of any known sitting president. Whomever we chose to put up against the Republican nominee was going to win by the vast disappointment of the Republican party. Democrats kept a cohesive message during the campaign, but when it came to governing after the 2008 election they failed to follow through from the top down.

I give Speaker Pelosi credit for keeping together an alliance that pushed through great forms of legislation that sadly ended when they arrived in the Senate and received no help from the executive branch.

One of the worst things Obama did was fill his cabinet by gutting the Senate.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

4. Hiya...

I had a post that was less thoughtful here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=627408&mesg_id=627661

It really set me off. I mean...I cried when I got my citizenship and people are so flippantly saying---Obama pissed me off. What?! Thanks for appreciating. Saying something means more than a +1. I appreciate it. :pals:

[jenmito]

3. VERY good post. K&R up to 0. n/t

[RBInMaine]

5. "Unmotivated" is such a load of crap! People need to grow up! Obama=the most progress in DECADES !

[AtomicKitten]

6. You go girl! k&r (still at zero)

[vaberella]

8. De nada. Thanks for the reply.

:hug: :pals:

[Mimosa]

29. There's a gang which un-reccs every post i make because I hold 'em all to account. n/t

[Armstead]

9. I realize that I am sometimes repetitious -- But you are beating an already dead horse

I think all of us on DU -- whatever our perspective -- have been dealing with a lot of frustrations recently watching the GOP become ever more blatant and dictatorial in their coordinated effort try to dismantle the edifice of good government and siphon evem more of the nation's wealth and political power upwards.

And we're all flailing to find reasons, and solutions.

It comes out in many different ways -- blame Obama, don't blame Obama, get mad at Congress, the Ciongress have their hands tied, etc. etc.

And your frustration is justified in many ways. Yes voting is a sacred privilege, apathy is not excuse, not voting to "teach Obama a lesson" is counterproductive, etc. etc. etc.

But the real question is what are we going to do about it? Frankly, voters are subject to that complicated thing called human nature.....And if someone thinks politics is irrelevant to them, then it is understandable that they don't want to have to go down and wait in line to make a choice that they really don't see as a choice.

And, more relevant, in bad times,people who are not inherently ideological are more more likely to buy it when they are sold a bill of goods that sounds logical: "We are experiencing a government budget crisis and we have to cut spending or we will all will go bankrupt. Big Government is ruining the economy and your life. Obama and the Socialist Democrats are making the economy much worse and stealing your freedom. Public healthcare will ruin your health"

The only way to counter that is with an equally strong and clear message from the Democrats, standing as a united protector of the interests of the majority with a clear liberal and progressive populist platform. And actually back that up with action.

Therefore, it would be a lot more constructive to look at WHY the Democratic message did not resonate, rather than blaming the awful voters and the awful liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Party's Tapioca Centrist non-message.

[vaberella]

11. That's not human nature. Human nature calls for a sense of caring for one another.

That's just a manifestation of an individualistic mentality through social construction by capitalist machinations. If people were to remember that we're in this together, maybe we'd have very little of the actions you call human nature.

In the end, and let's say it's human nature. It's whatever. My post wasn't in anyway to beat a dead horse to but to basically rant about a post and a meme I've heard time and time again that's pissed me off. I already know what I'm going to do about the situation. While I'm in New York and in Paris, I'll do what I've always done---get people to vote and push them to remember politics. I can't change the world since many on DU won't bat an eyelash on my post or care. But there might be some who do and will be as proactive.

Basically, I said what I said to get it off my chest and to in some way shut down this meme. Because it's not a sell-able excuse. Not for me anyway.

[Armstead]

13. Human nature is complicated -- We're all a mix of social altruism and self-interest

Liberalism is much better for people in the realm of self-interest. We all do better when we all do better, as they say.

But too many Democratic Party politicians have avoided pushing that concept -- they don;lt really defend it either in terms of people's altruism or their self interest.

(Not all but too many.)

You're welcome to rant, as we all are.

However, I'm saying that this "meme" you are so upset by is far overshadowed by other factors as the reasons for the defeat last year.

[mochajava666]

14. Well said

[FrenchieCat]

15. Thank you for your story....which in some ways is so much like mine!

The truth hurts, which is why your OP will be unrecommended to a certain death that only the truth deserves from those who do not want to hear or read it; and they will smile while pushing the unrecommend choice, as that is all they can do.

You see, there are many folks (and many didn't vote, even if they say they did) who "claim' that they "care" so passionately about the issues and the policies, not the President or any other politicians. Ironically, these are the same folks who blame everything on one individual, and actively look for negative stories about the President to post here and elsewhere, day in, day out, even if what they post is distorted and twisted to make this President look bad. On the one hand they search out any reason to call out this President, while never, ever acknowledging that compared to past recent Presidents, he is actually progressing on a whole lot of issues in a positive way.

But rather than to understand that with Obama in office, a whole lot of negative has being reversed, they take all of that for granted, and they'd rather call this President a "Republican"/"Not a Democrat" while they go on and on about what this President has not done, because of course, he should be the re-incarnation of Sen. Sanders, who couldn't get elected nationwide, and they know it. But instead of being fair and reasonable, they choose to wish a pox on our house while not really being concerned with the millions who would be devasted by the policies of the Republicans, if they are allowed to gain further power. Some call that "fearmongering"; to discuss the realistic alternate conclusion that not working/not donating/and perhaps even not voting for this President would result.

So these same folks work hard each and everyday in putting down this President (clearly understanding that undermining this President's support can only lead to disaster) in whatever way they can; via snide, cynical and downright nasty comments. They don't like this President, don't appreciate this President, and don't and won't support this President, no matter what is ever said, or what he has or will ever do....because for them, it hasn't been about policy in a long, long time. They know it, we know it, and you must give up in trying to reason with them, because their dislike is much too strong to ever allow them to feel otherwise. I say they are lost, and will never ever be on board of weighing their own inaction and negativity toward this Democratic Administration and the negative long term consequences that their cynicism and disgust generates and how that affects exactly those "Issues" that they say they sooooo care about. Those dots will never be connected in their mind....due to not wanting to acknowledge that the malaise they are blaming for the fact that so many didn't vote was directly influenced, in part, by their own often-repeated naysaying that was flung about as often as possible. Being part of the problem is not something that they can see, although it is a very real part of why the problem grew to affect the last elections. Instead they work even harder at blaming the egg, without questioning the chicken. They in fact never truly understood the "We" in Yes We Can.

[ReggieVeggie]

17. isn't this a call-out?

besides, I don't think it was "the base" so much as Obama's lackluster performance and leadership these last 2 years that kept enough people home to turn the tide

[FrenchieCat]

20. Lackluster performance is relative, it is an opinion based on a series of unsubstantiated subjective

goalposts put up by those who are being neither realistic nor fair.

Not voting meanwhile is a concrete action that results in concrete results.

The two are not the same, nor should one depend on the other.

Either "the base" cares about politics enough to understand its complexities and difficulties,
and the ultimate result of not doing one's civic duty in a rational strategic thoughtful manner,

or "the base" insists on being naive enough to believe that one individual should be the only reason they decide to either vote or not to vote.

[Mimosa]

30. Maybe they saw that the war continues and health insurance premiums went way up.

Think about it. I had to drop health insurance because my monthly premium was raised $400 a month and there's no cheaper alternative. Everybody i talk with has been experiencing the same thing. Plus the wars go on and people are losing jobs.

If people don't perceive improvements why would they be motivated? Fear of even worse? for many it's about as bad as it can get.

[ClassWarrior]

32. So people's perceptions matter? They don't just support you because you're awesome?

Well what do you know?

:eyes:

NGU.

[ReggieVeggie]

43. did Democrats retain in the house in 2010??

yeah...that was Obama

[BklnDem75]

22. So it's Obama's 'lackluster performance and leadership'

that forced people to stay home and end up with a republican governor or a republican controlled state. Does that sound stupid to you, too?

[FrenchieCat]

23. Not only is it ridiculous,

but it means that these folks can only help themselves and those things they say they care so much about, only when and if they have a daddy-like Svengali who appeases their emotions enough to keep them stimulated.

It means that they are unable to connect the dots between their own specific actions/inaction and what it means if many together react similarily. It means they do not believe that their vote matters, although they believe that their vote means that who they vote for should do exactly as they dictate.

[BklnDem75]

24. I... I think I'm in love!

:loveya:

[vaberella]

26. No, because as I noted, you weren't the only one saying that & it's been stated on MSM.

By all of the major networks. Bill O'Reilly to Ed Schultz has said the same. Shit, Ed Schultz even advocated it and stated he wouldn't be voting. Just goes to show you where he's at.

[elocs]

19. Yes, "wah! wah! wah! I'm a Democrat and I just can't vote unless I am motivated

and right now I am just so disappointed and disillusioned that I think I will just stay home and teach Obama and those other Dems who let me down a lesson. After all, here in Wisconsin there is no difference between the Republican running for governor, Scott Walker or the Democrat, Tom Barrett. Even if Walker wins, how bad could he be? And Russ Feingold, well he's going to lose anyway so what difference would my vote make?"

The trouble with this picture is that about 90% of the number who voted for John McCain took the time to vote for Walker last November and he won by less than 125,000. Meanwhile Tom Barrett received 600,000 fewer votes than Barack Obama got in 2008, a whopping 60% of the number of his votes.

So Republicans can get out and vote but Democrats cannot unless we feel just right. My we are such a sensitive bunch that we have to be in the right mood to exercise our right to vote, abdicating that responsibility to Republicans who are more than happy to elect their candidates.

Governments are formed, policies and laws are made as a result of those who chose to participate in the process, not those who stay home and choose not to vote.

A sign I saw in Madison a couple of weeks ago tells the story:

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Here we had record breaking turn out. And Democratic victory.

There are many reasons why we had that turn out. But people here are critical of DC politicians and policies as they see fit, always. Still, largest midterm turn out in 20 years or more, and Democrats elected.
When it comes down to it, V, for different reasons maybe, I am agreeing with you. People should vote at every election, no matter what. People who skip an election for reasons short of coma are not thinking clearly. Skipping a midterm because of a President is just daft. This is a dereliction of duty to one's State, district, city and county, much less to one's neighbors.

Also, I come from a business where demographics and such are important, so I offer that there are many stats that tip a hand as to who did not turn out, and where that happened and why. The actual reasons vary from place to place, but the one tired old commonality which we should all try to address is the youth vote. When we were that age, we were voting and chomping at the bit to vote, our peers then and our counterparts now far too often skip voting, especially without the big Presidential hoopla of a National Election. That is the one major demo that I see lacking last time around the country, even in winning States.
Who do I blame most for the losses? Tim Kaine, and the DNC mucky mucks. But that is just how it should be, their job is to win. They did not.

[ChiciB1]

28. I Voted & Am One Who Worked Hard To Elect Obama Too. All Of My Family & Friends Also

voted in the last election but there IS a reality that exists. MOST of us simply don't UNDERSTAND where or what Obama stands for these days.

Living here in Florida it's hard to understand HOW Rick Scott even got elected! It seemed Sink was ahead most of the time, that is until she wasn't and she lost!

But so many of the Democrats in D.C. also seem to have forgotten "we the people" and the younger/youth who worked and voted for Obama seem to have faded away, deep into the woodwork. I hear VERY LITTLE from them anymore and I have family members going to college too. To many it was a "rock star" campaign and a lot of fun to be on the winning side of, and to others, well THEY ARE disappointed to see that their first foray into politics seems to have meant so little.

Those of us who have ALWAYS voted, still will do so. But some of us are going to be holding our noses while doing it. For all too many Obama's star doesn't shine much anymore, if it shines at all.

Some don't like hearing it, but it's being heard more and more... blame who you will, but for many that HOPE & CHANGE mantra sounds hollow if not dead completely.

LEADERS need to LEAD, it's what I hear so much these days, and we are sorely depressed by it all and really don't want to feel the way we are.

[DCBob]

25. Spot on!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[ClassWarrior]

31. Are you talking about voting for the Dems or volunteering for the Dems?

:shrug:

NGU.

[vaberella]

40. I'm talking about voting or volunteering for the Progressive.

In most cases, especially in the red states or purple it's voting for the Dem. I strongly believe in voting for the Dem, and if you believe in them volunteer---if not---send them some funds like a 5 dollars to win. But don't sit on your ass about it. I lived in New York---if I was in NYC---I would be campaigning for Cuomo. My family are big Cuomo loyalists---so that would never have been a problem. However if it was Patterson again, I would have send some funding and voted for the man, although I would not have volunteered---unless volunteering means educating people I know about the differences between the candidates.

All in all, it's about knowing your candidates and getting the word out and making people remember why they need to vote if they have forgotten. The older generation knows very well why they have to vote. They don't take it for granted. It's the middle to youths who don't. This is not about them but something larger and being proactive in some way is fundamental. I strongly believe in voting even if the candidates are perfect soulmates to your cause.

[obamafourmore]

36. Well, that worked well for the unmotivated, ah?

[StarsInHerHair]

37. wow I bet you REALLY MOTIVATED thosevthat sat out the last vote

good going:puke:

[vaberella]

41. No one around me or in my life personally did not vote.

I'm sure some of the students who came from other States may not have voted. I didn't know them personally. I'm not about motivating people. I'm about telling them what's going on and to realize they have a choice to make. Think what you want, but I did what I could and my conscience is not dying inside for inaction. I made my sister make a statement at her job. I had my mum remind a few of her co-workers, I notified some of the students as to the step by step of putting in an absentee ballot and so on and so forth. So if anyone sat out the last vote around me, I had no clue. But I know I pushed everyone I came in contact with or came in contact with people I know to be proactive. I even spammed some of my friends and family's FB's to get them to get anyone or remind anyone to vote---even the ones in Canada.

Barf, all you want...I did what I could.

[Shiver]

38. Big K+R. Big fucking K+R.

I will admit, in the last election, I didn't see much of a difference between Scott Walker and Tom Barrett. I had been keeping myself out of politics, for the most part, for the better part of a year. I wasn't particularly motivated by either candidate, in all honesty, and I mainly showed up to vote for Feingold. But I made sure to vote in every race on the ballot, because of one guiding principal that I have sustained throughout my entire voting life.

The Democrat will ALWAYS be better than the Republican. This is even more important with the Teabaggers on the loose.

Some Dems are lackluster. Some Dems are more conservative than I would like. Some of them, I have to hold my nose as I mark my ballot. But the Repug will always be worse. I know it's not a thing people around here like, and I don't even like it myself, but sometimes you HAVE to vote for the lesser of two evils. Because really.. do you want the greater of two evils to win?

[DCBob]

44. The prospect of RW thugs in power should have been enough motivation for anyone..

The problem was many were uniformed and naive, thinking that either it wouldn't happen or wouldn't make much difference. Fools.

[treestar]

50. +1000000000000000000

It never ceases to amaze me the DU posts that sneer at this as though Republicans have no chance of getting elected!

Especially when they are so much more motivated. They would never sit it out - the ones who think Bush or McCain are "liberal" would never stay at home for so much as the election of dog catcher.

[Armstead]

51. A modest suggestion

Maybe it's the job of the Democratic Party to educate and actually give a spirited counter-argument and constructive progressive populist alternatives to the lies of the GOP CONservatives.

Maybe the failure and refusal to do that is one of the large reasons voters are uninformed about it, and naive enough to believe the GOP snake oil.

[DCBob]

53. I think they tried but were drowned out by the tsunami of disinformation from RW media..

I dont know how we are going to do it, but we desperately need to find a way to deal with Faux Newz and the other RW propaganda media machines.

[Armstead]

58. I agree about the tsunami -- but I also don;t think they tried hard enlough.

For a fuller explanation of why I think that, please read my response below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=627691&mesg_id=628086

[vaberella]

55. I was able to do my homework. Why can't anyone else?!

I think majority of us are adults. They only have adults to vote---or people they deem to be educated adults at the age of 18. That means you're old enough to do the research and respond in kind. It's not that hard to do. There is a lot of false information, but there are true ones. And there are people to talk too. I think we have to step up and say---Look I'm an adult. I don't need people telling me what to think or what not to think. I can read up and get my information. I did my research on Paladino and deemed him a freak of nature. I voted against him. I didn't need the Democratic party to tell me. I was keeping track of what was going on with key bills and legislation. So when the GOP was lying or people were spreading misinformation. I knew it to be false. I lived on CNN. Sure there are people who naturally won't do that. But if you want to make an educated decision then one needs to do some research.

I have to wonder why you keep defending lazy behaviour. Voters are uninformed because they let others tell them what to believe or think. I have to wonder if the Democratic Party did dispel some myths---which they did, would people even believe them? Because it would be the word of a Democrat against the word of the GOP. We have to take some responsibility.

[Armstead]

57. I'm not defending lazy behavior -- Just recognizing it and the reasons

I'm assuming you've read my other replies to you (and maybe to others) so I'll try not to be too repetitious here.

Basically what I believe is that if Democrats/Liberals/progressives are to make real progress (both politically and in terms of governing) we have to acknowledge the actual way many people relate to politics and do a better job of reaching people on that basis, instead of bemoaning the "stupidity" or apathy of voters.

The real challenge is to make liberalism and progressive populism the "default" political orientation of more people.

It is not necessarily that people are dumb -- and not that they are apathetic and don't care. It has more to do with the nature of peoples lives and the other concerns they have -- plus some basic facts about human nature.

There are people (like me and you and many others) who for a variety of personal reasons follow and react to public/political affairs on a gut level. We pay close attention to it because we instinctively find it to be both fascinating and vitally important. We naturally pay attention to the details and overall issues because of that.

But not everyone is "wired" to follow very deeply below the surface. It should be otherwise but it is not.

This may be a bad comparison, but it is like professional sports. There are people who can remember very detailed statistics about players and teams, have a deep grasp of the performance and strategies of different teams. And they feel a direct emotional connection with their particular team, and are elated when the team does well and despondent when it fails.....There are other people who know nothing about the same sports and couldn't care less. It is just a baffling bunch of stuff, and they see no reason to care and understand it.

Yes, the difference is that politics and public events have a direct bearing on real life.

But not everyone sees it that way. They aren't connected to it, and to them the battles between parties and the performance of individual politics seems irrelevant.

In part, that is because issues really are complicated and hard to grasp....Someone who is not a follower of sports can't suddenly jump in and comprehend things like different coaching strategies. Likewise, people who aren't predisposed to following politics and policies don't see the nuances and implications of different policies -- or how it actually does relate to their lives.

It's also due to a certain degree of fatalism and cynicism. Many people I know who are intelligent and do care about things, do not see politics as relevant to real life. They don't believe politicians and political parties really do intend to change anything for the better. They see them all as ineffective and/or crooked. "They're all the same."

Again, I am not defending this, but simply acknowledging that this is the way many (if not most) people are.

The real job of politicians and political organizations is to break through that wall. Success is when they are able to get more people engaged and also to make them believe that what they represent is worth getting excited about and supporting. That requires a mix of salesmanship, showmanship and actual substance.

Over the years, the GOP have been able to do that. They relentlessly hammer home the message of Conservatism, and they package it in ways that seem to make sense to the people who don't pay close attention. That consistency and relentlessness has given them the ability to both get the "swing voters" to often go their way -- and they have also managed to convince many people to become die-hard conservatives and partisan Republicans.

The job of Democrats (IMO) is to become as relentless and strategic to revitalize liberalism as a default position. IMO the Democrats have failed in that job for too many years because the institutional party leadership has become too allied with the same corporate conservative worldview as the Republicans. It has become dependent on their money, and there is a lot of philosophical inbreeding between Democratic politicians/leadership and the Corporate/Wall St. Oligarchs.

That has led to Democratic support of bad policies (NAFTA, Media Consolidation, Financial deregulation, etc.) over the years. And thus their contention that "We're better than the Republicans" rings hollow to too many people.

(I emphasize that many progressive Democratic politicians did not buy into this. But those real liberals and progressives often have to contend with opposition from their own party.)

Voters will continue to either be apathetic and cynical or become ideological conservatives until more Democratic leaders actually separate themselves from the Corporate Elite Worldview and actually support and promote a REAL liberal/progressive agenda as an alternative to the GOP CONservative machine -- and be more proactive about selling it.

[Vinca]

46. I think the nightmare that was the last election has many excuses.

The first thing to consider is how people are generally not interested in midterm elections. I think we forget that on DU because we're so tuned in to what's going on. The second thing is that there is a segment of voters that will follow the shiny object. In 2008, Obama was the shiny object and he was masterful at reeling them in. In the last election, there was only a slightly shiny object for the really dim bulbs and that was the Tea Party. IMHO, we should stop rehashing 2010 and try to come up with a shiny object for the next election.

[Armstead]

52. Gopod point -- There are plenty of shiny objects that the democrats keep ignoring

...Among them is the prospect of actually and aggressively supporting the revitalization of a labor movement and demand for workers rights and "fair days wage for a fair days work."

Another was proposed with elegant simplicity by the guy who is the icon on both of our posts. Sen. Sanders "Millionaires Emergency Surtax" would be a great vehicle for the Democrats to prove they are both serious about the budget while also standing with the majority of Americans against the oligarchs.

[Vinca]

56. Agreed. It's a real mystery why Democrats ignore what 80% of the population wants.

[Exilednight]

60. First off, Obama has to support labor with a more

boisterous voice. You can't have the argument that Obama shouldn't get involved with state workers and energetically supports workers. Mike Rudd was just on C-Span and asked the question of why Obama doesn't stand up and help unite unions across the country the Wisconsin's cause.

[rucky]

48. It's not an excuse as much as an explanation. n/t

[vaberella]

54. A very poorly made, and I find, unacceptable explanation. n/t

[treestar]

49. Oh I agree. It is downright wrong

To claim to need so much motivation to do a basic civic duty. One can write in a candidate or vote for third parties, too.

Naturalized citizens don't take US citizenship for granted the same way.

[EndElectoral]

62. It's naive to believe that Obama's lack of delivering on progressive promises didn't hurt in 2010

I disagree people are unmotivated. People are frustrated, angry, and disillusioned. When you run a campaign on "hope and change" and then continually acquiesce to a minority party you're going to anger your base.

People elected Obama because we wanted a very different direction for the country, we wanted those who had defrauded our system punished, we wanted a turnaround on the Bush policies of invasion, of warrantless searches, of incarcerating without trial, of looking the other way kind of regulation, of an effective strategy toward lower health care costs for everyone, of making the wealthy pay their fair share, of bringing industry back to America, of fighting for the worker's rights, of moving beyond standardized tests and evaluation in improving education, and a thousand other things that would make America a bettr nation. Peopel watched Obama compromise himself into being viewed as a centrist at the best, and a Republican corporatist at the worst.

People are not unmotivated. They're frustrated. They're sick of voting in elections for the lessr of two evils - a centrist or a right wing wacko. Progressives want a voice at the table, not a pat on the head. Progressives are probably more motivated than most Democrats. The simply want to vote for an actual Democrat.

Obama is an extremely likeable and charming man, but he is not nearly as effective as that promise of a man who ran on "hope and change". He seems to running more on "hope, pray, compromise, and if all else fails - acquiesece."

[DirkGently]

64. What's actually weak & unworthy is blaming the electorate for the failures of leadership.

[creon]

65. Apathy

We have, basically, three politcal groups in the USA: Democrats, Republicans and "I don't care".

There are millions of eligible voters who are not registered and do not intend to register. They see no point.

There are millions of registered voters who do not vote. They see no point.

Many millions know very little about politics, governement or current events. And, they do not intend to learn anything.


Not only are there disaffected Democratic Party voters, there are millions in the political group, "I do not care".

[creon]

66. Schultz

I do not care whether or not he votes. That is his affair.
I decide whether I will vote and who for.




And, I will vote.

[BlueIris]

67. The "unmotivated" weren't, IMO, uninspired by the president, as they were disillusioned.

With everything, everyone, the entire political landscape. They represent a bigger problem than 2010, because I don't see how the Party can get them back for any future election at this point.

[mochajava666]

70. The party can only get back the disillusioned by standing up for

what they believe. It's just that simple.

Show leadership, and you will get a following.

[totodeinhere]

68. Given what the GOP is trying to do to this country, how in the name of God can any Obama voter be

unmotivated? I just don't understand that. Are these people stupid or what?

[kjackson227]

69. Great Semi-Rant deserving of a K&R!

[quiller4]

71. You would have a stronger point if the dropoff in Democratic turnout

hadn't been a fixture of every off-year election. Democrats are highly motivated to vote when they believe they have a chance at capturing the presidency but even in a presidential year, they under vote on local races. This is a problem Democrats have been battling for several decades. No popular Demoocratic president has been able to draw his supporters to the polls in great numbers in an off year since FDR.

It is a national problem though it is slightly less pronounced in the far west. Look at the voter turnout in Washington and Oregon. Republicans picked up seats but not nearly to the extent that they did in the east or midwest.

We can and should work to remedy this. Same day registration, early voting options and vote by mail are measures we could support to increase participation.

[mstinamotorcity]

72. To vote is

to voice your opinion about which candidate you want to be responsible for upholding,passing legislation,and governing for the people of your city,state,and country. To not VOTE is saying that the other candidates should win. But I said I wouldn't say it.