Worry about the mid-terms and how to motivate our voters to get to the polls, not Trump's approval rating or lack thereof.

We have to be FOR something, not just against something.

But weakening him is part and parcel of it all.

It's both and. Not either or.

Of course we must pester our electeds and candidates to get bold in advocating truly meaningful change. Take just one area. If we don't paint a picture of immigration reform that secures the border, while reflecting our values and providing a path to citizenship for the hardworking people who have been contributing to our economy for decades, etc. what do we have to offer in contrast to their cruelty?

It is long past time that our leaders get out there and advocate for the big things, like Universal Health Care. We will NEVER build the political will for it if we aren't out there talking about it. If they had been hammering on Universal Health Care over the past couple decades as hard as the reactionaries have hammered on their Christian nationalist agenda, I firmly believe we would have made serious progress by now.

Way back in 2018, I pushed for a lobbying effort to push leaders to lead on this -- to go much further than simply opposing the attempt to repeal ACA. Universal Health Care is about our values. I didn't have the time or resources for a more substantial effort, but I've been doing my bit to make the case with anyone willing to listen. The article I wrote back then is as relevant now as it ever was.

https://www.greatergoodusa.com/issues/universal-health-care/

However, as I brought up in another thread...Why is it that drug costs are insanely expensive for folks here in the US, when overseas in many countries the cost for the exact same drug is literally pennies?

That is an issue that needs to be tackled and it is FOR something that voters would actually respond to instead of always more of the years of trump-hate that does nothing.

That is insanely expensive here. I assume there are gobs of them.
I would like to know them to use against RW acquaintances.

to so many people. Too many calculations on why that just won't work, too little will to just try. That's where the disappointment comes in.

We are reaping the consequences of decades of an insane "Can't Win, Don't Fight" stance. And that stance is not just on refraining from stepping in and contesting elections at every level, whatever the odds. It is an attitude that has kept too many of our Democratic Party electeds silent on the big goals, declaring them "impractical," or outright stifling hope with declarations of "it will never happen." It is insane because the ONLY way to build the political will for change is to be out there advocating for it, loud and proud, whatever the "odds."

The quote (source unknown, misattributed to Gandhi) is nevertheless true “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

You can ONLY ultimately win by sheer stubborn persistence to stay in the game, come hell or high water.

I think the attitude is shifting. At least I see signs of hope. D.C. groupthink, particularly among those to "came up" in the 90's, as the reactionary noise machine grew, is still driven by residual "battered Democrats syndrome." The watchword of the time was "backlash." We can't possibly say X. There would be backlash. In the few meetings with staffers I was part in the 2010's, it sometimes felt as if we were talking to parrots. Backlash! Squawk! Backlash!

Anyway, I think that most of them finally figured out that they will be "battered" whatever the hell they say, so they might as well speak out for what they believe. But old habits die hard. The only way to pierce whatever rationalizations or groupthink is driving inaction or silence on something at a given time, it is for outsiders -- i.e., regular citizens -- to stick their noses in and when they offer a lame excuse, make it clear how lame you, and others in your community, think that excuse is.

We were for a lot of things this past election -- and the people that claimed to care the most about """voting FOR something""" didn't care one bit about them. It either didn't matter or wasn't good enough.

And if being AGAINST fascism isn't good enough for you yet, what about being FOR democracy?

I believe a lot of that is just reflecting, justified or not, a desire for Dems to fix this and disappointment that so many things keep getting worse.

I don't think that is a reflection of preference between the two parties. I'd really like to see some kind of simple generic poll measuring something like: In a generic race between a Republican and a Democratic, which candidate would you vote for?

Taken together with the "enthusiasm" numbers referenced in the OP I think we'd get a different picture.

is HUGE...It is why trump won.

If our people will climb to the polls over broken glass like Trump's voters will, we would win every time.

Pushing our leaders to do better -- and being unhappy with the national party for having abandoned so much of the nation for so long -- is not a reflection of people "swinging" to the dark side.

Sadly though, I think too many of us are falling into the trap of putting more energy in heaping accusations and anger on our Democratic electeds and party leaders than on pushing them to do better. That sort of "circular firing squad" mentality sows cynicism that immobilizes and keeps people home. It is something we need to resist, however upset we may be.

The thing is, the Democratic Party always does better when there are a heck of a lot of people in it saying and dong things I disagree with (and when there are others out there disagreeing with me).

Our job is to find the common values and make progress where we can. And advocate for our points of view. The idea that the diverse coalition of people affiliated with the party is somehow made stronger by trying to turn it into a monolith by kicking out those who are doing things we think are asinine is itself asinine. And the idea that there is some magic Democratic Party agenda that will be all things to all people is similarly off base. Yes. It would be great if more of the leaders in our party got on some sort of same page on the "vision thing." And on the opposition side of things, I don't know why they can't seem to come to a consensus on a list of the most egregious acts committed by the 47 regime and issue a joint "We Object" statement signed by every member of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate -- that would be a truly powerful thing.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Bottom line. You are spot on.

But if that makes you feel better, stick with it. Va pour sa! Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Christiani, Idi Amin, Kim Jung Il,Ghenghis Khan, Kubla Khan, and Mao (and many others) cared not a wit what their prols thought of them.

None of these mass murderers cared about their polling numbers:
1. Mao Zedong
2. Joseph Stalin
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Leopold II of Belgium
5. Hideki Tojo
6. Ismail Enver Pasha
7. Pol Pot
8. Kim Il-sung
9. Mengistu Haile Mariam
10. Yakubu Gowon

Well, not until the prols had the ability to affect their own regime change. We're simply not there yet, and probably never will be. We tend to bring knives to gunfights...