Bloggers took President Obama and Vice President Biden's recent comments, in which they expressed frustration over low voter enthusiasm, as a symbol of mutual disillusionment between voters and the West Wing.
Liberal blogs chastised the leaders for trying to blame voters for their predicted midterm losses, while conservatives looked on as the battle of the base continued.
Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote about President Obama's comments in Rolling Stone that "it is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election." Benen divided those disaffected voters into two main parties, and discussed the ways to reach those groups: "those who believe the president's accomplishments have been inadequate; and those who are struggling badly in this economy, and expected conditions to be better than they are under Obama."
For those in the "inadequate" camp, the president's pitch may or may not be persuasive, but I think it should be. We talked recently about the accomplishments of the last 21 months, so I won't rehash the list again, but I continue to believe it's a record that's as impressive as anything we've seen in modern times. What's more, I'm not at all convinced it was within the president's power to make these milestone breakthroughs any stronger. The accomplishments can and should go further, but for the Democratic base, that should mean getting more engaged, not less.
Reaching that final group seems to be a tougher sell. The administration's economic policies have made a huge difference, but the status quo is still woefully unacceptable. It's not necessarily up to the president alone to grab hold of the economy and make it better, but there have been missteps and the frustration is understandable.
I suppose the pitch Democrats can make to these voters is: it can and will get worse if Republicans win, and would have been much worse had the GOP gotten its way.
MyDD's Jerome Armstrong seemed to fall under the group that thinks Obama's accomplishments have been inadequate, writing that his Rolling Stone interview "made him sound like the Whiner In Chief, not a confident President."
Its unbelievable that Obama thinks he's accomplished '70 percent' of his promises. What a crock. The guy has no personal sense of accountability at all, its rather embarrasing.
You can pretty much tell that the whole point of his doing this article was to point a finger of blame, and set up the WH story for the upcoming mid-term loss... All very coordinated. But what's interesting about it is how detached Obama himself is from the exercise. It certainly isn't motivating. Its not uniting. It tilts more to the lecturing side. He's apparently already standing up, has been so all along, and has nothing to do with the problem of there being a lack of principle.
AMERICAblog's John Aravosis took issue with Biden's comments on MSNBC last night when talking with Lawrence O'Donnell, host of "The Last Word." During the interview, Biden said that "there's a new majority, 60 votes," which prevented Democrats from, in some cases, getting legislation passed, and in others, getting it passed through normal channels, like health care reform.
Two problems with that line of argument. First, George Bush did just fine with a 55 vote, and even a 50 vote, majority in the Senate. Why couldn't Obama/Biden do just as well with 60? ... Rather than lecturing Democrats about how unreasonable they are to be upset with the President for constantly negotiating with himself, Biden would do better having a talk with his boss, and asking him why George Bush was so effective at passing his agenda, at kow-towing Democrats, and at thwarting opposition filibusters, when Bush had far fewer numbers than Obama has now in the US Senate.
The conservative side also noted the apparent conflict between the White House and voters, as vocalized by its two chief spokesmen.
Daniel Foster of NRO satirized the president's listing of his legislative accomplishments during his Rolling Stone interview:
Obama tells Democrats to 'wake up' and gaze upon his works.
And on Biden, Hot Air's Allahpundit wondered why the liberal base hasn't been more incensed that members of the West Wing seem to continue to slam them for wanting to see more accomplishments and not being fired up enough about the midterms.
"As much as I enjoy this hot internecine blue-on-blue action, I can’t blame rank-and-file lefties for being annoyed with Team Barry. If anything, their reaction thus far has been remarkably subdued."


This article (and many who argue in favor of the President) erroneously assume that what the White House considers to be accomplishments, every voter does as well.
Did I not just say a moment ago that it is as ridiculous for the Democrats to confuse (and then blame!) voter apathy on the voter's opinion instead of voter disapproval as the Republicans did some time earlier?
"Obama attracted more than 17,000 during a campaign stop at the university's basketball arena in 2008, but Tuesday's event was being staged in a much smaller outdoor space in the heart of campus. The Democratic National Committee was not releasing an estimate of how many people were expected or could fit into the area."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/From-the-Wires/2010/0928/Midterm-elections-run-up-shows-Democratic-desperation-says-GOP
In 2008 the size of the crowd was the story...
Funny how things change, innit? And not in the way we all thought.
If Democratic candidates lose they have no one to blame but themselves. They have not campaigned hard enough and have not been successful, in some cases, in dispelling the Republican lies and propaganda. Maybe their strategy is to let the Republicans spend and spend on campaigns and waste all that money when most people aren't paying much attention and then swoop in during October and flood the airwaves with commercials and campaigning that would be the envy of any politician. If so I hope it works if not than they have done it to themselves.
One of the reasons people "don't like" the health care law is that they don't understand it. The supporters didn't do enough selling to inform people of what is in the law. The opposition, on the other hand talked their little mouths off with their lies and misinformation about the law.
Why do you not hear a commercial only once on TV? Repeated over and over again the message finally reaches the hearts and minds of those intended. The Republicans know this by their incessant spewing of lies and propaganda. The Democrats must wake up and prove them wrong again and again and must fight fire with fire with much the same tactics.
One of the reasons people "don't like" the health care law is that they don't understand it. The supporters didn't do enough selling to inform people of what is in the law. The opposition, on the other hand talked their little mouths off with their lies and misinformation about the law.
Please Adler. The reason people don't like the HCR bill is that it is 2700 pages that no one can figure out, including the people who wrote it.
If it was so great the dems would be running on it , not from it. Could it e they don't know what is in it either?
The dems keep saying the public is for all the changes they've made. It certainly appears that is not the case. It isn't so much that the repubs are particularly well liked, it is that the dems are particularly disliked.
For all the promises of changing the way Washington does business, we have Joe Biden, a 36 year Senate vet lecturing people.
Every time I hear an establishment politician presume to lecture on the morality of a thing I kind of want to hurl.
It's not "apathy" on the part of the democratic voters....a "non-vote" is still a statement. As the lyrics of one of my favorite bands said: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...."
I'm disillusioned too, but I can also see that there is a far greater danger. Germany could be disillusioned with Hindenburg and the Wiemar, but the alternative turned out much worse. If we have learned nothing since 1980 it is that the GOP is in constant election/attack mode. Doesn't anyone remember the immediate, concerted and continuous attacks on Clinton? Even illegitimate Bush was given a pretty good hands off after the election. Democrat congressman weren't attacking him from day one. And the Dems don't have Fox or the radio/TV wing nuts. Just how much air time do people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine and Beck take up each day, every day, since at least 1993? At some point that starts to become a new reality. The Dems can counter that with reason, but that only goes so far. The Dems never had 60 votes, they only had 59, because the GOP held up Franken. Then when Franken was finally seated, Kennedy and Byrd were too ill. Bush worked with 50-55 because there are moderate Dems who really do cast independent votes, unlike Snowe, Collins or Brown (like on DADT). The Dems have to put themselves in a position where they can equalize the air ways and the campaign cash, and possibly neuter the right wing bomb throwers. It is not enough to have a "working majority." We have to have a real functioning majority, and that means controlling the debate within the masses. If the educated progressives want to take their bat and ball and go home to debate this in academia - take a look at Wm. F. Buckley. He didn't move the conservatives - it took Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan. If you want to do something constructive, vote for Dems, but run better ones against the likes of Bayh and Ben Nelson. Or marginalize Snowe and Collins - they've played their cards and done us no favors.
I have noticed that Democrats do not vote lock and stock with the "party" line. They have a more varied background and do vote for their people. The Republicans are far superior at making their members vote in line with their party. Those who tried to work with the democrats have either lost their seat to a Tea Party candidate or have been somehow "talked" to and are now in step with the party.
Watch when a dem and rep are on a talk show together...the Republican will continue to talk and talk over anyone else. The Democrat almost always stops talking and lets the Republican talk and they never gets to rebutt what was said because their time is up. I have noticed this over and over in the past 2 years. It could be me looking at this through my rose colored glasses, but I have always thought that the Democrats are just too nice to hit back at the "truths" told by the other side and are way to polite to interupt the Republicans when they interupt the Dems. (My observations only)
But is many of those Dems lose in November, I think they will deserve it for not standing up for themselves and for the party. (Again, my opinion)
sonokursh2--I have thought the same thing about the Democrats---they are just too nice & don't get down into the mud with the Republicans. Even after watching the Swift-boating of Senator Kerry during the 2004 election, they have not learned to strike back hard and aggressively.
Remember the days of Tom Delay and keeping the votes open? Apparently when the GOP twists arms, they have more "goodies" in the corporate donorship bag to give away. Our possibly unless a GOP candidate is self funded, he is far more dependent on the party fund raising apparatus. He can't depend on union support. This is why Rahm was brought to DC. Something happened.
Low voter enthusiasm is merely a result of low quality politicians.