I imagine this will swing back and forth multiple times over the next two years

Smart U.S. public is just against whatever asshat claims to be the power-de-jour.

There is nothing more stupid or gullible than the America voter. Next cycle they’ll put the Democrats back in charge and the charade will start over again. We effectively have one party and one agenda and voters are morons for missing it.

Concur with the above sentiments.

Volatility with the voters will increase. Older predictive models will continue to fail.

I vote, and I am not stupid, or gullible.

Oh come on Kelly. You know I wasn’t referring to people here. :)

My conclusion is that both parties are blowing it with the electorate. Most people don’t know where to turn for help.

Just checking!

[Peg software needs no rebooting. Parity check = complete.]

Smooch. :)

Agreed. Also:

My conclusion is that both parties are blowing it with the electorate.

Yep. What I mean by volatility is that the voters are going to keep FIRING the incumbents (where possible.)

People are hardly affirmatively choosing the last couple cycles. They’re FIRING!

Yikes! Looks like the two party system is so messed up Americans can’t decide which one is the best. LOL!

The Dems may lose if they don’t get their act together and put forth a real jobs bill and something to raise this country out of the Depression. This is no recession and they are tip toeing around all the truths.

Yes! They are. Something I think is a good thing.

I am not really surprised, look at the antics the dumb bastards have pulled since they came back. Reading ,part of, the Constitution as a political stunt? Jackassery.

Trying to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well it was a futile effort?
Jackassery.

Have I seen one thing that will make one job in this land of unemployment?
No.
Have I seen a huge bunch of jackassery? Yes.

Where is my job Boehner?

More jackassery.

We are about to lose several key Democrats due to them moving back to private sector jobs, apparently they decided not to go the lobbyist route.
The Repubs are apparently having emmigration issues themselves, thank you, Craigslist.

Trying to redefine rape?
Jackassery.

That alone, is enough to show me that they are not about fixing anything except their 1849 agenda.

Sometimes, you are a fresh breath of air.

Yep. What I mean by volatility is that the voters are going to keep FIRING the incumbents (where possible.)

Exactly! And since there is no real disparity anymore between the two main parties, control of the House will flip like clockwork every two years.

Heh, always the Ornery Bastard am I.

I’m thinking that is what is needed now. The entrenched jerks have long played the game with lobbyists and corps. If the change is quick and severe, it may have a hamper on the citizen’s united give away.

And, the world is a better place for that effort. :)

So the electorate is swinging back and forth between one set of jerks and the other?

That’s just great.

My conclusion is that both parties are blowing it with the electorate.

Of course, it’s not the electorate they’re trying to please…

Welcome to Amerika.

Where ya been?

/S

Jon’s post makes the point without lamenting the reality. The way Jon wrote it, he seemed to be saying that there’s a real difference between the parties. There isn’t. Only when the electorate figures it out will there be a real call for change in this country.

This I know, I was just teasing ya.

Buyer’s remorse? Idiots.

Not only that, but the jerks don’t care bc they just get lucrative lobbying jobs when they get thrown out of office.

Yet Mr Obama is fast becoming a republican

Sometimes??? Sheesh girl you know him better than that…

Question for all of you geniuses: What conclusion does Barry draw from all this? /s

Oh, good. Dems can takeover and get back to doing nothing and cowering in fear of Republican filibusters.

That we need to move farther to the right to appease the crazy motherfuckers over there barking at the moon.

If he was a STRONGER centrist, this trend would increase! *g*

Ding!

Heh. That’s pretty much what most of them are doing, innit?

Was that the sound of me hitting my head against the keyboard?

(shrugging) My bad. :(

PS He’s always honest and true, but it’s only sometimes that I have the honor of reading it. (Are you buying that? ;o)

They never swung to the Republicans in the first place. They swung away from Democrats.

Look, the 2010 election was NOT a Republican mandate. For those naysayers that still spout the bullshit that folks like us make up too small a minority to make a difference, the 2010 elections provide proof otherwise.

The Democrats stayed home. Period. The Republicans didn’t gain votes, the Democrats lost them. Period.

And those same naysayers are dead wrong about Obama too. He will NOT win re-election. Almost NO way, shape, or form. I don’t care if unemployment drops to 4%, there is a large enough segment of the base committed against him that he will lose UNLESS the Republicans run such a batshit crazy opponent that enough of them will be scared back home. I hope that won’t happen, but admit that’s a possibility.

All of the old models and trends are invalid. 2008 was a change election, it showed that the American electorate had changed, but our politicians still haven’t. Because of that, you can’t use old trends like an incumbent wins if the economy is good. Too many folks are too disenchanted no matter the economy, no matter anything. IMO the old models and trends are worthless as predictors for 2012 and forward. It’s going to be a whole new ballgame where new historical trends will be made.

I don’t know whether to be happy as a pig in shit or be really bummed out by all that.

At one time I held out hope the electorate would figure it out; not so much anymore. There is too much short term memory. How many Americans do you think know how their Rep. voted on any issue? How many even care? If it doesn’t affect them directly, it might as well never have happened.

We do nor have a two-party system and that has been true for a long time. Both parties are beholden to their corporate benefactors.

While you are hitting your head against the keyboard, I am wrapping my head in duct tape.

what do you think demi?? ☺☺☺

Probably best to be neither.

2008 Democratic primary debate;

Obama: “For a long time the Republicans were the party of ideas”

Hillary: “Yeah, the party of BAD ideas”

Cut taxes big on the wealthy 1981 and 2001 and prosperity Trickles Down? Failed.

Deregulate banks, health insurers and oil drillers because it’s better for business and they will police themselves? Failed.

Duh. Abe Lincoln would have said;
“You can fool some of the people, ALL of the time”… ;^)

– Balkingpoints / www

I think people are so ticked off in DC they threw the Pubs out in 2008 dems out 2010 and next they will throw the pubs out in 2012 and them in 2012. and as long as people cling to the 2/1 party, nothing changes.

Let’s hope you’re right about that.

If anything, the Tea Party insurgency (at least when it shakes up the Republican establishment) and the liberal base revolting against the administration and the Democrats MAY have a positive effect in that it’ll be much more difficult for standing powerful interests to remain complacent. There’s always a chance, however small, that it’ll lead to some kind of real change.

I think now more than ever it’s time to get progressive principles out in front, and explain why progressive taxation, the social safety net, government spending, and education are good CRITICAL things that voters should get behind. Hope springs eternal.

It’s likely the Republicans will have the House for more than one cycle, thanks to how congressional districts are drawn and the stucture, but that’s the most encouraging for Team Red. Take a look at their prospective candidates for 2012, and then making your bets — for those who think the party will win next year’s presidential — by telling us specifically who is their winner.

The Republicans will win back the U.S. Senate only if they’re also winning back the White House.

Consider elections after the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 — allowing the states’ voters to directly elect their U.S. Senators — and for those commanders in chief who won more than one presidential election (with re-election year):
• 1916: Woodrow Wilson (lost the House and Senate in 1918)
• 1936/1940/1944: Franklin Roosevelt (the only one of this list who never lost same-party control of either house of Congress)
• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower (lost House and Senate in 1954)
• 1972: Richard Nixon (opposition party had control of both houses during his presidency)
• 1984: Ronald Reagan (elected in 1980 while winning over the Senate; lost it in 1986)
• 1996: Bill Clinton (echoed Ike; lost both houses in Year 2, 1994)
• 2004: George W. Bush (lost the Senate twice — with Vermont’s Jim Jeffords leaving the GOP in 2001; after the Republicans had both again with 2002, W. lost the House and Senate, a la Wilson, in his Year 6, 2006)

Going into Election 2012, Barack Obama lost the House already (in 2010) but held the Senate (as did Reagan). Since World War II, every time House flipped (1946, 1948, 1954, 1994, 2006), so, too, did the Senate — but with the break in pattern finally happening in 2010. So, Obama had that mix of Ike/Clinton and Reagan. But the history shows that when an incumbent wins re-election, and going into the election his party had either the House or Senate (or both), people do not re-elect the president and the flip his party out of either the house of Congress.

I disagree with people here who think Obama won’t win re-election. Criticism is valid. But the Republicans, in terms of the presidency (the numbers, the map, telltale signs of realignment), are fucked. Historical tide shows no reason why the Republican Party would miraculously win back the White House in 2012. (Don’t tell me about unemployment numbers; this country knows it started on the watch of not Obama, but Bush; not a Democratic president, but a Republican president.) And, for that matter, the GOP won’t be winning back the Senate.

(Note to OldFatGuy: Don’t ever ignore historical voting patterns! Referencing past patterns tells a lot about behavior.)

I won’t vote to reelect Obama under ANY circumstances, I don’t care who’s running against him! He’s no more a Democrat than “Chauncey” Bush was.

Since World War II, every time House flipped (1946, 1948, 1954, 1994, 2006), so, too, did the Senate — but with the break in pattern finally happening in 2010.

Forgot to add 1952.

Ha ha ha .. for some reason that exchange with Kelly cracked me up … /s

Obama’s Chamberlain style of politics is more dangerous than the Neocons.

Assassinations and massacres by right wing gun nuts has a tendency of doing that. Whoda thunk it?

Too much Fox News for you.

You’re cut off.

I think there’s way too many party-liners grabbing space lately @ FDL. Here, it’s always been the argument that counts. Please check out Juan Cole today, “Wael Ghonim vs. Barrack Obama”. I promise you, it’s very strong & well worth the reading time.
http://www.juancole.com/

Exactly! The Republicans are finished on the PRESIDENTIAL map. States like Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, and possibly Virginia have likely permanently flipped to the Dems in presidential elections. Look at all the states like PA, WI, and MI that the gop has not carried since 1988 and will not carry again in the future. Heck, no gop candidate has gotten to 300 electoral votes since 1988!! Almost 24 years! Shifting demographics means that gop wins their last pres. election in 2004. By 2016 the Dems may have enough demographic strength to inflict a fatal blow on the rethuglicans!

Also, ironically, the Michael Bennet strategy will most likely work to easily defeat a tea-turd candidate like a palin, huckbee, or santorum.
Only Ron Paul or Mitt Romney give the republicans a remote chance in 2012, but they would never make it out of the tea turded primaries.

Speaking of ignoring historical voting patterns, the most powerful predictor of success for an incumbent president is the direction of the economy, and unemployment particularly, in the 6 months prior to the election.

Re the senate, the problem for Dems is the number of seats in swing states they need to defend after their success in 2006.

What real difference does it make if dems hold the senate and retake the house when we’ve got a president who’s insistent on digging his heels in against any real progress for our country? The repubs’ biggest problem is their tea party segment and the dems biggest problem is the president. Cy Coleman said it best – There’s Gotta Be Something Better Than This.

Let’s be fair. When Democrats got together in 2009 and 2010 to work out their party’s positions, the president wasn’t the only mealy-mouthed pos in the room who was working hard to scuttle real reform for our country. Obama isn’t the Democrats’ only problem by far. He’s just part of the problem.

Faux News? Obama rolls over on everything. He’d never cut funding to Egypt. Man are you way off.

The difference between the two parties is negligible.

As long as the vote swings between those two parties, the results will be the same irrespective of who is in office.

Here’s the thing you’re not getting: Obama and his Democratic Party didn’t start on us this unemployment crisis. Just like Franklin Roosevelt didn’t bring us down with the Great Depression — and still he won an even bigger landslide re-election in 1936.

You’re ignoring realignment elections. 1860 (R), 1896 (R), 1932 (D), 1968 (R). 2008 is one that will be for the D’s. Obama doesn’t have to make miracles happen; he doesn’t have to get an x-number of millions back to work. He didn’t create the problem brought down on this country by the economic philosophy of the Republican Party and the bullshit Reaganomics.

There is always a catalyst that results in a watershed presidential election that causes impact on the electorate placing more trust in the presidency to one party over the other (as indicated in parentheses with the years I’ve mentioned in this paragraph). And once that kicks in, the other party either nominates a more palatable loser (as D’s did with 1900 William Jennings Bryan, also the party’s nom in 1896 and 1908) — or they really unleash a bomb (R’s 1936 pick, Alf Landon; D’s 1972 selection, George McGovern). And the party that is on the losing end of realignment gets either 8 or 12 years at best for the next nine or ten election cycles with winning the White House (1860-1892: D’s saw just one, Grover Cleveland, win non-consecutive wins in 1884 and 1892; 1896-1928: D’s saw just one, Woodrow Wilson, win in 1912 and 1916; 1932-1964: R’s saw just one, Dwight Eisenhower, win in 1952 and 1956; 1968-2004: D’s saw a one-term president, Jimmy Carter, in 1976, and a two-termer, Bill Clinton, 1992 and 1996). I anticipate 2008-2040 or 2008-2044 will put the screws to the GOP — and they can thank George W. Bush.

Go ahead and bet on the 2012 Republicans, if you insist. Just bet on them winning the presidency and the Senate at the same time.

… Are we really going to look at a single poll and say there’s a trend in the population? From a Democratic pollster, especially?

TPM has the CGB at 40.5 D/44.5 R. Given that Rasmussen and PPP are the only pollsters that have done frequent polling on this question (according to TPM), and that at least one of them is empirically biased towards a political party and the other is a Democratic Party-affiliated pollster, it’s far too early and there are far too few polls to claim that ‘American voters [are] quickly [swinging] back to Democrats.’

Nixon’s “Southern strategy” — “the future of the Republican Party” — worked in the 1970s and 1980s for prevailing Republicans to the tune of electoral blowouts well past 400. It’s in elections like those that have a resoundingly successful candidate winning nationwide a minimum of 40 states and 80 percent of the available electoral votes. That’s how you can see opposing-view states like Michigan and Alabama vote the same.

By the end of the 1980s — look at Dukakis pickups of northerners Washington and Oregon, in the west; Wisconsin, in the upper-midwest; New York, in the east! — and the north caught on. From 1856-1988, no state was historically more reliable for the GOP than Vermont (hell, it backed 1912′s humiliating unseated William Howard Taft and 1936 debacle of a challenger Alf Landon). The only R it said no to was 1964 Barry Goldwater. But Vt. caught on, and turned its back of the GOP. That was the lynchpin state in Election 1992 — for the map that we’re seeing nowadays. So, it was no wonder Elections 2000 and 2004 gave us the red-and-blue states. It was the inverse of a post-Civil War (and establishment of the Republican Party and its first victor, 1860 Abe Lincoln).

Today’s winning Republicans will win like yesterday’s Democrats: all border-south and south states, plus bellwethers, and, if lucky, a vulnerable one on the opposition’s turf. Today’s winning Democrats will win like yesterday’s Republicans: the northeast (including New England), the mid-Atlantic, the upper-midwest, the pacific west, and bellwethers. Plus a select few in the border-south/south, worth no less than 25% of that region’s cumulative electoral votes.

Today’s Democrats have a minimum electoral-vote base in the 240s — 90 percent of the required 270 — with their 2000 and 2004 states (New Hampshire is the closest to a bellwether/swing state in New England). The D’s, not the R’s, have the advantage. In the old scenario, Republicans won the lion’s share of elections (much thanks to this). We’re now in a different era.

So much for the brilliance of Richard Nixon!

Nixon won two elections and then said, “I got mine. Nothing else matters.” Of course, he also lost (a lot of) his historical position with Watergate.

Today’s Republicans are somewhat different because the Wild West mavericks used to be a small minority with the northeastern financial Republicans and the southern bigots being important. Today there some of those still, but the western population is growing and the religious Right is a little muted. That helps explain the CPAC libertarian revolt. Also, the Internet enables more sub-culture groups to talk and organize to play a bigger role.

Democrats don’t have that same kind of problem as the growing west enables more latinos to join Dems and just increase our winning chances. If more women would see the futility of the party that redefines rape to make them 3rd class citizens, then Dems would be up even more.

Americans KNOW which of the two parties represent them – NONE!

Which party do you prefer, The Shitty Party, or the Really Shitty Party. Voters don’t get a very good choice here since neither has done much for the people who are suffering in this economic catastrophe, and it looks like nothing is going to get done. What’s even worse it that another economic crisis will get heaped upon this one since they haven’t bothered to really regulate the market casinos.
Americans are totally screwed and don’t seem to have a clue how to stop it.

bingo!

In one sence I think Americans are tired of the way the GOP operates.This 24/7 attack on our president gets very old and the way the GOP parades around, licking the face of the camara in front of the world has grown disgusting.

Harsh but true, the reality of American voting is based on the dumb factor. Dumb about history, dumb about issues and dumb about candidates. Put it all together and America gets a Congress that takes the short bus to work.