"Liberals are a famously skittish bunch who seem eager to bail on a candidate at his or her first sign of trouble. Republicans, on the other hand, stood by Romney (often grudgingly) during months of losing and nonstop humiliation. It’s difficult to imagine Democrats doing the same for Obama, given the eagerness to tear out hair after one lousy debate performance."
-- Alex Seitz-Wald in today's Salon
Jesus, where have I heard this kind of sentiment expressed before -- over and over again?
Most liberals are, by their very nature, prone to panic attacks and they always seem to be looking for an excuse to question everything they believe in. They're overly analytical, distrustful and condemning of the very figures whose politics they purport to embrace -- particularly if those figures happen to eventually become leaders, given that authority is corrupt by its very nature and is therefore always to be questioned -- and generally pride themselves on their unwillingness to be the sloganeering automatons from that other party, the ones that get behind a candidate and stay there at all costs often winning them elections and policy battles.
They seem to truly enjoy getting their asses kicked -- or at the very least being able to fret over it, post-mortem.
This is why, I have to imagine, it's a hell of a lot harder to be a Democratic politician than a Republican. Being a Republican is easy, especially these days. You adhere to a set of strictly enforced talking points and you stay there, wavering only, perhaps, when your ass is in such a sling that you have to say anything to get elected (see: Romney, version 27.0). Being a Democrat means you have to try to appeal to a wide swath of people guaranteed to either sit defiantly in a corner like babies because you're not pampering them and the singular pet issue they've chosen to hang their entire vote on or at the very least bail on you while screaming, "I told you so," at the first sign of trouble.
It's gotta be like herding cats.