Lethargy?

[BlueDemKev]

I'm beginning to sense a bit if lethargy among us liberals. I hope I'm wrong, but being lethargic around this time four years ago cost us dearly in the 2010 midterms. We cannot let our enthusiasm for pres. Obama and more importantly our support of Democratic values subside or we will pay dearly come election time. The tea party is fired up and determined to defund Obamacare, and take control if the Senate next year. We cannot let them do this!

To quote our president, let's get "FIRED UP! READY TO GO!!"

Every election, every time...GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Too bad the National Party does not support liberal/progressive Democratic values.

That would help A LOT. And not just at election time.

[JayhawkSD]

2. It would help if Obama were a bit more liberal.

I don't mean radical leftist, but maybe not killing people with drones all over the world without even knowing who they are. Maybe not selling out to the drug companies before negotiations for "health care reform" even start, saying that single payer is off the table, and then letting the "public option" die. Maybe not appointing a Wall Street executive as Secretary of Treasury. Maybe not supporting cabinet officials who openly lie to Congress and then appointing them to investigate NSA spying scandal.

Those things kind of dull my enthusiasm for today's liberalism.

They certainly don't get me "FIRED UP! READY TO GO!!"

[BlueDemKev]

3. Nobody is Perfect...

Obama isn't. Clinton wasn't. Neither was Carter, Johnson, even Kennedy...

...but they are all SO much better than the alternative. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are hardly voices in the wilderness, they are very representative of today's Republican Party. Not voting and allowing Republicans to get into power, even temporarily, will cause us to lose so much of the progress we've made over the last 50+ years.

And remember, a conservative Supreme Court has unlimited power to strike down ANY piece of legislation designed to help others.

Take heart...the liberal population in America is growing. Our country is becoming more and more diverse, and don't overlook the fact that the Republicans have lost five of the last six presidential elections. The only time they do well (outside of die-hard red states) is when liberals stay home and not vote. Conservatives know they are shrinking and it's one of the reasons they've become so angry in recent years. They are the past. We progressives are the future.

[JayhawkSD]

4. I cant' say that I can argue with that, but...

...saying "He's better than the awful alternative" is not going to generate enthusiasm in me.

You were asking for enthsiasm and I'm saying I can't get enthusiastic about voting for somebody because the other side is worse. I'll sit on my hands, hold my nose, and vote like a good little Democrat if that is the only viable choice, but don't ask me to be enthusiastic about it.

"We progressives are the future?" That's what Republicans said in 1995.

[BlueDemKev]

5. If the prospect of folks like Ted Cruz & Rand Paul running the show...

...doesn't get you enthused about voting Democratic, then there's nothing more I can say to persuade you.

Many progressives stayed home in 2010 because Obama and the Democratic Congress "weren't liberal enough". The result? We are stuck with a Republican House probably until 2020 thanks to the gerrymandering that took place after the Rethugs took full control of swing states such as PA, WI, MI, FL, and OH and redrew their congressional maps and created countless of "safe" right-wing districts.

Stay home if you want, but don't complain later on when the tea-baggers destroy over a half-century of progress we've made and the Supreme Court is packed with Samuel Alitos and Clarence Thomases.

[JayhawkSD]

6. I'll try one more time

Look up "enthusiasm" in the dictionary. "My guy is doing things to which I strenuously object, but he's better than the other guy, who's even worse" is not something about which to get enthusiastic.

I get enthusiastic about someone who is doing the right thing even when it's hard to do, even when it doesn't succeed the first time he makes a pretty speech about it, even when a large part of the population is initially opposed to it and he has to sell them on the idea. I get excited about leaders who lead by being so dynamic that they sell ideas and make people follow them. I don't get enthusiastic about the type of leadership that consists of waiting for a parade to form and then getting in front of it.

Civil rights in 1965 was not popular, it was dangerous, it was not likely to pass, it was generating harsh criticism, it was drawing vicious political attacks. LBJ stood in the face of all of those negatives and demanded that Congress pass meaningful civil rights legislation.

George Bush was wromg in almost everything he did, but when he wanted legislation he got on the bully pulpit and demanded that Congress pass that legislation. He kept thumping that pulpit again and again and he didn't stop. And he not only got his legislation, he got it in the form he wanted it, and he got it from a Congress that was not of his party. I personally wish Congress had stopped most of what he did, but his leadership and persistence was too much for them.

Obama makes a pretty speech and then drops the sunject, and Democrats cry about "obstructionist Republicans." Maybe they are, maybe it's just that Obama never really gets in the trenches and makes a real fight on issues. I'm not getting enthusiastic for a "leader" who doesn't even fight for me, who gives pretty speeches for what matters to me but never really persists and makes a dogged and energetic fight for them.

[BlueDemKev]

7. Funny how the Rethugs believe...

...that we're ruthless fighters and we feel that our side is too conciliatory. Nevertheless, I think we agree that we're far better off with Democrats in power than Teapublicans.

Remember, progress is never easy and always takes longer than we'd like it to! Remember, conservatism can never die because it's a natural human instinct to resist change. Liberalism will always persevere however, because progress of the human mind is eternal. So take heart! : )

[Xyzse]

8. I agree 2014 is very important

Thing is, Obama is just still better than the alternative, where therein lies the problem.

Being percieved as merely better than the alternative does not translate towards enthusiasm. He, unfortunately has a direct relationship on how well the Democrats do on mid-term elections.

I've donated towards the DNC towards the 2014 elections, and will seek to do more in VA, even though I am in MD. I don't expect much from Obama, just wish he didn't undermine Democratic/Progressive positions too much in regards to Education(Charter School expansion) and Finance(i.e. Fannie and Freddie) for example.

In 2010, many individuals I know felt that he took too much of the Republican's agenda and made it his own that it became hard for people to be excited with what he was doing.

Mid-term elections tend to favor those who "take care of"/pander to their "base". If the base feels unappreciated or marginalized, they stay away from the polls.

I can debate with them in regards to the importance of mid-term elections as well as to the merits of what this administration has done, but usually that only translates to tepid support.
---
Presidential elections, people tend to care more in thinking that this person will effect my life. So there is fear there to motivate someone to vote, since a President is a figurehead. They don't see that mid-terms are very important as well. So if the Presidential figure-head feels lackluster, we get a lackluster mid-term showing.