Not that long ago, our Fed govt managed to get along better. Rs & Ds had some significant differences in their ideas, ideals and programs, but the two parties could work collaboratively when needed to produce sound legislation without a ton of grandstanding and bickering.

This collaborative spirit with the notion of a “loyal opposition” has flown out the window over the past 3 decades since Sainted Reagan. Now the rightwing plays to win ONLY on their terms. When an R is elected POTUS – see W – they pretty make things happen their way, no matter what the make up of Congress & the Senate.

I would argue that Obama hasn’t really had a “bad relationship” with putative R’s in the House & Senate. Frankly, he’s bent over backwards to accomadate them, and the R’s have pretty much gotten what they wanted with a lot of connivance by DINO/blue dog Dems.

Obama didn’t ever really bother to work with Dems in his first 2 years in office. Rather he wasted his time kissing the butts of the R’s, who kept – why how amazing! – pushing him ever rightward. I fail to see how electing a solid Dem House & Senate will make much of a difference in terms of legislation passed, but that’s just me. I’m cynical.

Frankly I think citizens, such as me, are effen sick & tired of seeing our good, hard-earned money being wasted on a bunch of blow-hard lying crooks in Wash DC, who play some partisan dance in order to kiss the butts of BigCorps and the MIC.

Thanks for the info. I disagree with this notion as some kind of “solution” (that’s not what Jon is saying; just my 2 cents worth).

Assuming for the sake of argument that President Obama gets re-elected along with Dem control of Congress, then what will be the excuse for not getting anything done for the 99 Percent?

Exactly, remember when the Dims converted the Bush tax cuts for the rich to the Obama tax cuts for the rich and the effect that alone had on the 2010 election? Besides, since when did the government respond to the wishes of the people?

“I fail to see how electing a solid Dem House & Senate will make much of a difference in terms of legislation passed …”

I am convinced that Obama has never signed anything that wasn’t exactly what he wanted to sign, despite the occasional protestation to the contrary.

When has he ever actually fought for a particular piece of legislation?

Stupid people! As if which brand of the uniparty duopoly appears to be in power. Didn’t we have one party control during the majority of the Dubya reign of terror, and during Obama’s early years? That sure worked out well for the 99%./s

He fought to have the NDAA changed so that he’d have the right to disappear people, rather than the Sec. of Defense.

I could not have said it better. Agree 100% as usual.

It didn’t use to be this way. And I think it’s because of two things, the new Republican policy of “win at all cost-take np prisoners” as you describe. Plus the money, money, money that the legislaturds need to keep their jobs. The lobbyists and the corporations own our government. That money generates obligations to something other than their constituents.

Only solution is reasonable term limits and campaign finance reform. Absent that, we are screwed.

Don’t those poled realize what a one party government is, especially now that we no longer have a working constitution. We need multiple parties not one or two.

I truly fear for my country… And@rmwarnick don’t look for any relief from an exclusively democratic victory across the board..aint going to happen.what I can guarantee is another war and a crashed economy the likes of which have never been seen before..am I not funny and light.

I would say that obama is a very dangerous man, just another Chicago pol, and romney is a clown car head on collison and we, left of center, are stuck with voting once again for mediocrity. And all you hillary fans watch this and be cured
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

I think the only phrase that can describe that is (concerning the new democratic party), “With friends like that, we don’t need enemies.”

Will Obama v.2013 do what Obama v.2008 promised. will the republicans with a m inority in BOTH houses still be able to control the agenda while the democrats, with control of BOTH houses, still search endlessy for their asses. Will the inequality of income in this country become more disparate? Will we see anything done to tax the rich, pay down the debt, and generate jobs to replace those that our government and our corporations offshored?

And lastly, OT, NFL referees make $184,000 for working 20 days a year???? And they were “on strike”????

Who said we have two parties? This article is based on the assumption of a genuine two party system and right off the bat, that’s an assumption with the facts not in evidence, as Perry Mason would have said.

See Coach. That show he took some initiative. /s

Jon, I just LUV your graphs. Nobody else at FGL even comes close.

Objection sustained.

“…he’d have the right to disappear people, rather than the Sec. of Defense.”

LOL. The prosecution rests.

Given the dates and who was in office, the poll is saying that a majority doesn’t want gop control. It was high for don’t care when we thought the Dems and Obama would do more than they actually did. It isn’t so much that people want democrats,,,,its that they DON’T want majority gop control. It’s not the same thing. We don’t need more d

We don’t need more democrats, we need better ones.

“…what I can guarantee is another war and a crashed economy the likes of which have never been seen before …”

If Obama gets a more supportive Congress and doubles down on “austerity”, 2016 could be a replay of 2010 with the republicans winning in a rout. This could be the explanation for the Ryan pick, a set up for 2016.

Remember, the republicans play a much better long game than the Dims.

We had one party rule in 2009 – 2010. See how happy it made everybody?

Lots of people would claim we’ve had one party rule for decades. And they’d be right.

It will be interesting to see if this results in a significant reduction in split ballot voting this cycle. A solid Obama win, or even the widely held impression that Obama is going to win, could have a bigger coattail effect this year than in past elections.

IMO, there was a LOT of anti-republican voting in 2008. And then, because of the idiot democratic congress and several of their self-inflicted wounds, an anti-democratic vote in 2010.

My thinking is we will have a republican backlash in how they handled things past two years, an anti-republican vote for their platform issues that do NOT reflect the majority of American, and a anti-Romney vote because, well, he’s Romney. Worst campaign ever.

Accordingly, I think Obama will carry some candidates down ballot anda I expect and hopt the repuiblican lose the house and 2 senate seats.

Now, that being said, please see #9 as I don;t have much fatith that Obama and the democrats will do much better for the 99%. That’s why I’m voting for Jill Stein. Go (Boiling) Frog Party.

Ribbitt

Order in the court. ORDER in the court!!!
The president does not “disappear people”. Besidesa, when the president does it it’s not illegal.

Bailiff, remove that man laughing his ass off.

Where you been hiding steve. We need you here.

Thanks for the laugh..I really need to get over myself, most comments I make are just sheer frustration, because it would be so simple to solve a lot of our problems, which tells me they don’t want them solved..but thanks again, think I’ll get your back at the voting booth D:)

Don’t those poled realize what a one party government is, especially now that we no longer have a working constitution.

No and therein lies another big part of the “problem.” far too many citizens still buy into the R v D crap, as if it made *much* of a difference. I know some still insist that it does make *some* diff if Ds or Rs are in the majority. Perhaps, but not much. Basically we have a one-party system already, but that one party is hecka conservative, whilst the majority of the 99% – whether they know it or not – trend more “liberal” in terms of how they wish govt to operate. ‘Cept the 99% ain’t got the dough, so we ain’t got no power.

Won’t make much diff if D’s DO get a majority in the House & Senate with a likely Obama “win.” They’ll still do what their corp paymasters tell ‘em to do. The end.

So–yes–this would be a way to a) encourage people to vote and b) swing some votes, especially in places like Massachusetts. Does Obama get out and sell this meme; does the DNC finance it?

“This year, voters have a chance to make sure that Barack Obama can carry through on the agenda he was elected to carry out four years ago. . . Vote Democrat this fall.”

Does the guy even WANT to push through the kind of legislation holding both houses (or something close to it) might make possible? (Outside of health care–where he failed to coordinate well with Congressional Dems–we have seen precious little evidence that’s the case.) Or does he run for Imperial President, implementer/caretaker of the last stages of the neoliberal agenda, and nothing else?

Nailed it :D) or is it D:).
Since I already wear a tin foil hat given to me by my daughter last birthday I’ll just say that this is the Kali Yuga an age personified by exactly what you see. But we human beings in the best sense of the word will enter a time that is night and day to this we have. I am not a christian so this is not the apocalypse just a changing of our reality to a higher frequency, written about in ancient, ancient history lamenting its passing with great sorrow..ha ha now my fate is sealed, nuttier than a fruit cake.

Allow me my fun in a sea of madness.

We are indeed represented by no one. and they can take target practice, our asses being the bulls eye according to that lovely law the NDAA among many alphabetic horrors all designed to destroy us like boiling frogs.

I really find it Ironic that we Americans now want to return to one party rule, we had it from 2009 through 2011, and it did work.
I also find it Ironic that it seems that whatever President Obama says Mitt Romney wants to do is actually what he IS doing.
Does anybody else notice this?

I’ll list a few examples in case you haven’t noticed it yourself.

1) President Obama says that Mitt Romney wants to return to the Bush Economical policies that got us into this mess in the first place.
I’m sure you’ve heard him say that over and over, right? … Well let’s take a look at those failed Bush Policies.
President Bush increased Federal Government spending, and also reduced the amount of revenue the Federal Government collected.
President Obama has increased Federal Government Spending, and reduced the amount of revenue the Federal Government collects.
The only thing different is that President Obama increased spending even more than President Bush.

2) President Obama says Mitt Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy.
Again I’m sure you’ve heard him say that over and over. . . Let’s take a look at his actions.
When the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, President Obama stepped in and argued that the economy was too fragile to raise taxes so he signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, which was just President Obama doing want he always does follow whatever President Bush was doing.

I have a teacher who says that there’s not much difference between the Kali Yuga and the Golden Age (or whatever it’s called). There’s always strife & oppression bc it’s part of the human condition and what we are learning.

So one can see that in many ways. Certainly things go in cycles. I have no idea how this will end up.

The factual reality is that for a brief spell after WWII, this nation was less dysfunctional in how it was run and operated. There was much less discrepancy between what those at the top could earn v. 99%. It still meant that the 1% had a pretty fantastic lifestyle, while the rest of us had to be frugal & so on.

Somewhere after Nixon, though, the 1% began using a lot of different methods – Hate radio/tv/televangelists being pretty powerful – to spread propoganda and lies that the 1% should have way MORE, and that being “fair” was akin to worshipping Satan. And the rest is history.

Will we be better off with Barry Zero at the helm v. Bishop RMoney? Who knows? I can guarantee, however, that whoever “wins,” will mean a big blow to the 99%. You can kiss good-bye at least substantial parts of Soc Sec & Medicare, FOR SURE, no matter who “wins.”

Go figure. Maybe Obomba will toss one more tiny-ass crumb than RMoney. Maybe Obomba will look, uh, more “presidential” than RMoney, and so, not be quite so jaw-clenchingly disgusting when he sallies forth to international hot spots.

That’s my prediction, and I’m sticking to it! We’re screwed. Now back to the weekend…. ;-)

I really question if this poll is REALLY saying that US citizens want to return to “one party rule.” I think it’s all in how questions are phrased, etc.

I think Americans are FED UP with the dysfunctional and delusional “system” that’s in place right now. Citizens are pretty much just clutching at straws. I think if citizens actually really paid attention, they would NOT want “one party rule” – whatever the heck that means anyway. I think citizens want politicians who actually represent them/us, the 99% and stop kowtowing to the 1%.

That’s my take. Ain’t gonna make it so, sadly.

That’s my prediction, and I’m sticking to it! We’re screwed. Now back to the weekend…. ;-)

Amen..I would respectfully disagree with your teacher but enjoying our lives as much as we can makes for a good environment. So I will join you from afar and do the same with family.

We get what we give. Thanks for your words put kindly to post.

Better ones or none at all.

Democrats who are middlin’ in every possible way are more dangerous than Republicans.

Same excuses and a jaw dropping new one.

Democrats will blame Republicans. (See, for example, Obama.)

The President will blame Republicans and Congress. (See for example, Truman and Obama.) Or liberals. (See, for example, Obama)

Democratic voters will blame Republicans, the media, Congress in general, DINOs and Lieberman (probably even after he leaves the Senate), liberals and the way of the world of politics, roughly in that order.

The jaw-dropping new excuse? No one in Washington can change Washington.

To which I say, fine, disband it, then and refund our money.

Oh, and stop running for re-election.

Eliminate the 60 vote Senate rule and finally let people in Washington DC be accountable.

Both term limits and campaign finance reform require a Constitutional amendment.

A controversial Constitutional amendment has not been adopted since the 1950s and anything to do with campaign finance or term limits would, of course, be highly controversial.

Besides, which member of Congress is going to sponsor a bill to amend the Constitution for term limits and limits on his or her campaign spending?

This one would never make it out of Congress or the White House, let alone through the ratification process.