Am I the only one who finds it frustrating that we focus *so much* on the presidential election?
In case you didn't know....both houses of Congress are now controlled by far-right Republicans. And besides, the majority of legislation in the country happens at the state level, where ALEC is busily drafting up all kinds of heinous shit (I'm sorry, "model" legislation) in all these Republican-dominated state capitols that will affect you, me, and damn near everyone else in this country in a negative way, in terms of economic and social policy. Far-right Republican Governors are a dime-a-dozen these days; I can't keep track of how many there are! And that's to say nothing of all the bullshit that happens at the local "nonpartisan" level. 
I'm not saying that the Presidency isn't important. It's very important, particularly in regards to foreign policy and the federal courts (especially the US Supreme Court, which is also dominated by right-wingers, in case you didn't know!), and for vetoing Republican bills. But let's not put all of our eggs in one basket. Let's not invest so much into the outcome of the Presidency, that we forget about all the other branches and levels of government.
-My $0.02.
= new reply since forum marked as read
And just for the record: the Democratic Party voter base is a lot more diverse-in a lot of ways-than, say, this message board. That says more about this board than the Democratic Party, IMO.
What's Obama's approval rating among Democrats as a whole (not DU'ers)? Who is the leading candidate for 2016? 
And as far as trade policy goes and treaties with other countries: that's never really been a partisan issue. The Democrats are not, and have never been, a remotely anti-capitalist party. And as far as "taking votes for granted" goes, let's put that in historical perspective. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and yes, even John F. Kennedy, more often than not, took the votes of black Americans (outside the South, where Jim Crow effectively barred black Americans from the franchise) for granted, and broke campaign promises to their constituents for political expediency.
It took decades of struggle at all levels of politics and government to achieve civil and political rights for African-Americans, and none of it would have been possible without immense pressure from persistent and tenacious grassroots organizers-you know, ordinary people getting involved at all levels of politics (broadly defined). The same goes for any movement, whether it be feminism or LGBT or labor or anti-war or environmentalism or anything else.
All this is to say: Why is anyone remotely surprised (let alone "disappointed" as if you somehow expected or hoped for a different outcome) that, when Democrats are now weaker at all levels of government, when Democrats are weak in terms of grassroots party infrastructure-to say nothing of the decline of grassroots social movements that could put pressure on Democrats-the leading politicians and office-holders in the Democratic Party take money from Wall Street banks or from Corporate America (as if that was ever NOT the case in American politics for BOTH parties, to one extent or another!). The more affluent Americans are the ones who participate fully in politics, rather than simply voting once every few years (which is the LEAST someone can do).
The politicians respond to those who participate in the process. It's just that the wealthy, well-educated, and well-connected are the ones who participate in the process at a far higher rate than everyone else. Not hard to figure this out.
The question, therefore, that you (broadly-not you personally) should be asking yourself, is: why have so many of the social movements that have ALWAYS been the ONLY reason for why there is any real social change, reform, or indeed, progress-why do those social movements not exist in the way they did in past decades (whether it be the 1930s or the 1960s-1970s or any other period). Once everyone starts addressing that question, then maybe we can move forward from there.
