Sure the joke about all of us armchair pundits is that we believe that what wins elections is that politicians support our personal policy preferences. I don't think that's true of all of my policy preferences, though admittedly some, but I think to some extent the issue is less about winning elections - which seems to happen when people are pissed off at the party in power - than it is about winning re-elections, or specifically maintaining power once you have it.
I know the narrative of Obama folks is that they inherited a financial meltdown and that they did what they had to do to avert catastrophe - some of which was unpopular - and then passed Obamacare, which they were brave to do even though it was unpopular (?), and they did all of this during a time when the media turned over the cameras to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
But they purposefully let a lot of people lose their homes as they bailed out the banks (this is on Obama). "They" purposefully put off any benefits of Obamacare until later in order to get that sweet sweet magic CBO score (this is not all on Obama), which left people thinking "Obamacare" was their shitty insurance before Obamacare had even kicked in.
My point isn't to lay blame (ok not all my point), my point is that by any measure, in 2010 the Dems had not delivered. People were losing their homes, the banks were bailed out, and their health care didn't get any better.
We have diehard Republicans and diehard Democrats, a few totebagging "independent minded swing voters," and then a bunch of people for whom voting and politics generally is optional. They, too, sort pretty neatly into one party or the other. If they don't think there's much to vote for or against they won't bother.
