Support NeoGAF

[Measley]

Start? Santorum already has.

Damn, beaten!

Anyway, the Republican campaign for president is already going off the rails. Hard to say Obama wrecked the economy if the economy is getting better.

 

[empty vessel]

i highly doubt the money people save with the payroll tax cut is large enough to spur any significant economic growth. That's the same type of voodoo that Bush did with the refunds he gave to Americans. That helped very little indeed.

No, it's actually quite true. Although in this instance there was far more than just the payroll tax cut. The growth in the demand is the result of the sum total of government spending over the last few years, not just the payroll tax cut. It doesn't ever make sense to ask what one thing helped the economy. All that said, the economy is still far from out of the woods. If the government begins to implement a bipartisan austerity plan, the economy could well retrogress.

So, yes, Republicans are right that tax cuts can help an economy. What they don't tell you is that to help the economy, the tax cuts have to go to the working class. And given our high income inequality, tax cuts on income generally can't be directed that way because a good chunk of those working already owe zero taxes. So beware those who say that income tax cuts will help the economy. But the payroll tax cut is effective as a form of government spending because it is such a regressive tax.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Master Troll.

Don't forget the least active Congress in 50 years. Hopefully we get even less action in the coming years.

Definitely not one of his better pieces of work.

Wahhhh

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Master Troll.

Definitely not one of his better pieces of work.

 

[Crisco]

Now if only we can stop Israel from bombing Iran until after November 2. I can totally see Obama calling up Netanyahu and promising a full scale invasion in 2013 if he just wait until then.

 

[gkryhewy]

So when should we expect the GOP to start taking credit for the job numbers?

They can't do anything else, but it's not going to work.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I work at Sports Authority, and sales were pretty bad during the holidays to the point where they cut payroll. After-holiday hours were reduced for everyone, which is normal during the holidays, but only the employees who've been working at SA the longest got around 32-34 hours a week.

Although we have been doing alright in sales lately. I've seen my hours increase to 22 from 15.

Have you written to Mitt Romney to thank him for your job yet?

 

[Diablos]

The GOP will always distort. The question is whether people perceive things getting better. Signs point to yes. More than GOP spin, data feeds that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151550/Gallup-Daily-Economic-Confidence-Index.aspx

Personally, I think that's the graph that decides the election. If it continues to improve, GOP spin does not matter. And it changes closely with the actual economy (and feeds into it, as higher confidence yields increased spending, etc.).

We'll see. If the improvement is not profound enough or Obama does a poor job of communicating that he is making things better, Republicans will easily capitalize on that.

I think he got through most of the primary by keeping his mouth shut and letting the not-Romney's duke it out. But once he had to open his mouth, look at what happened:

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-romney

The man is currently in the good company of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin on his favorable spread. Independents have turned sharply against him, he has poisoned any shot he had at the Hispanic vote, and day by day he is reinforcing his persona as a wealthy corporate raider who protects his own. In this election cycle in particular, that is toxic. Look at the spread!

That can change once he really starts campaigning for the GE and not against baby boy Newt. I do not expect it to stay there. Mitt is going to try and capitalize on his "moderate appeal" aura to the best of his ability once he can finally get past the clowns he's been having to deal with in the primary.

I agree that he had the luxury of being in the company of a bunch of loons during the primary season. All he really had to do was chime in when asked, and keep his mouth shut at all other times. Now that's he is basically past that all, it can either help or hurt him depending on how he tries to sell the message to centrist voters. I wouldn't underestimate him.

He's not going to win PA. Or, thanks to his primary positions, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada. Which makes getting elected difficult (but not impossible).

I didn't say he was going to absolutely win PA, I said he will probably have the most potential to possibly win the state since the Reagan/HW Bush days. That's all.

It backfired on Republicans. It was during that showdown that polls such as the generic ballot measures began moving back toward the Democrats:

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-cong-generic-ballot

This was one of the factors behind the GOP caving.

Yep, I know. But Obama's poll numbers took a noticeable decline ever since, and his new high seems to be 46... which used to be 51, which used to be 56, etc.

 

[DasRaven]

Corporate Tax Rate Lowest in 40 Years. (warning: paywall)

But, but Romney said...

Love that short contrarian point just above the fold that receipts fall during a recession that's been officially over since 2009.
Since, you know, it couldn't be because they're paying less in the absolute and hiding more in the abstract.

 

[The Librarian]

But I was told it was Game Over yesterday!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

But I was told it was Game Over yesterday!

Dax, are you aware of the Konex curse by chance?

Read

Konex is our very own Cloudy. As I have said, Phoenix is the PoliGAF equivalent.

 

[Cloudy]

This whole SGK backlash makes me think pissing off the right-wing Catholic groups might have been less bad than pissing off the pro-choice groups. The latter would actually lose you votes since they were inclined to vote for Obama unlike the former

Edit: lol @ curse

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Romney looks all good but the things he says about Obama are as despicable as other Republican candidates. But this gets ignored by the Media because it doesn't fit their Romney narrative.

The best person I have seen documenting this is Greg Sargent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ys-dishonesty/2012/02/03/gIQAlRrhmQ_blog.html

Romney first made the claim that Obama made the recession “worse” in his announcement speech back in early June. It was swiftly debunked by independent fact checkers here at the Post and at the Associated Press, both of whom pointed out that the recession actually ended on Obama’s watch. Undaunted, Romney repeated the claim a few weeks later.

Soon after that, an NBC reporter confronted Romney over his falsehood, and Romney backtracked, claming: “I didn’t say that things are worse.” More recently, Romney reverted back to his old line, trotting out the highly dishonest claim that the “net” job loss on Obama’s watch proves he is a job destroyer — another way of saying he made things worse. Fact-checkers then questioned that claim, too. Since then, Romney has begun to acknowledge that, okay, the economy is “getting better,” but only in spite of Obama’s policies.

Now Romney is back to saying Obama made things worse again.

Then you have...http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/romneys-afghanistan-dilemma.html

Remember, a major part of Romney’s foreign policy critique of Obama is that Obama callously mistreats and neglects U.S. allies. The allies, however, want the 2013 timetable.

These kinds of things and the continued attacks Romney makes on Obama saying he doesn't believe in Ameirca, "he is not American enough", we all know what those attacks are meant to be for. Plus, add his son's "joke" about Obama's birth certificate/grades and the open embrace of Donald Trump, I now just want to see Obama chew Romney up in a debate when he question's Obama's love for America.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

This whole SGK backlash makes me think pissing off the right-wing Catholic groups might have been less bad than pissing off the pro-choice groups. The latter would actually lose you votes since they were inclined to vote for Obama unlike the former

Edit: lol @ curse

lol

 

[Cloudy]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/02/fox-news-buries-the-jobs-numbers-113410.html

Oh Fox

 

[Learn2read]

Romney looks all good but the things he says about Obama are as despicable as other Republican candidates. But this gets ignored by the Media because it doesn't fit their Romney narrative.

The best person I have seen documenting this is Greg Sargent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ys-dishonesty/2012/02/03/gIQAlRrhmQ_blog.html



Then you have...http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/romneys-afghanistan-dilemma.html



These kinds of things and the continued attacks Romney makes on Obama saying he doesn't believe in Ameirca, "he is not American enough", we all know what those attacks are meant to be for. Plus, add his son's "joke" about Obama's birth certificate/grades and the open embrace of Donald Trump, I now just want to see Obama chew Romney up in a debate when he question's Obama's love for America.

Krugman's column yesterday was pretty masterful:

Romney Isn’t Concerned
By PAUL KRUGMAN
If you’re an American down on your luck, Mitt Romney has a message for you: He doesn’t feel your pain. Earlier this week, Mr. Romney told a startled CNN interviewer, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.”

Faced with criticism, the candidate has claimed that he didn’t mean what he seemed to mean, and that his words were taken out of context. But he quite clearly did mean what he said. And the more context you give to his statement, the worse it gets.

First of all, just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have “massive overhead,” and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy “very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare?

Also, given this whopper about how safety-net programs actually work, how credible was Mr. Romney’s assertion, after expressing his lack of concern about the poor, that if the safety net needs a repair, “I’ll fix it”?

Now, the truth is that the safety net does need repair. It provides a lot of help to the poor, but not enough. Medicaid, for example, provides essential health care to millions of unlucky citizens, children especially, but many people still fall through the cracks: among Americans with annual incomes under $25,000, more than a quarter — 28.7 percent — don’t have any kind of health insurance. And, no, they can’t make up for that lack of coverage by going to emergency rooms.

Similarly, food aid programs help a lot, but one in six Americans living below the poverty line suffers from “low food security.” This is officially defined as involving situations in which “food intake was reduced at times during the year because [households] had insufficient money or other resources for food” — in other words, hunger.

So we do need to strengthen our safety net. Mr. Romney, however, wants to make the safety net weaker instead.

Specifically, the candidate has endorsed Representative Paul Ryan’s plan for drastic cuts in federal spending — with almost two-thirds of the proposed spending cuts coming at the expense of low-income Americans. To the extent that Mr. Romney has differentiated his position from the Ryan plan, it is in the direction of even harsher cuts for the poor; his Medicaid proposal appears to involve a 40 percent reduction in financing compared with current law.

So Mr. Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.

Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor. What I don’t believe is his assertion that he’s equally unconcerned about the rich, who are “doing fine.” After all, if that’s what he really feels, why does he propose showering them with money?

And we’re talking about a lot of money. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would actually raise taxes on many lower-income Americans, while sharply cutting taxes at the top end. More than 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to people making more than $200,000 a year, almost half to those making more than $1 million a year, with the average member of the million-plus club getting a $145,000 tax break.

And these big tax breaks would create a big budget hole, increasing the deficit by $180 billion a year — and making those draconian cuts in safety-net programs necessary.

Which brings us back to Mr. Romney’s lack of concern. You can say this for the former Massachusetts governor and Bain Capital executive: He is opening up new frontiers in American politics. Even conservative politicians used to find it necessary to pretend that they cared about the poor. Remember “compassionate conservatism”? Mr. Romney has, however, done away with that pretense.

At this rate, we may soon have politicians who admit what has been obvious all along: that they don’t care about the middle class either, that they aren’t concerned about the lives of ordinary Americans, and never were.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The funniest part of Romney's gaffe wasn't that he's not concerned with the poor because they have a safety net, or that he'll fix the safety net (if necessary!), it's that he's running for President because he cares about Americans.

 

[Measley]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/02/fox-news-buries-the-jobs-numbers-113410.html

Oh Fox

They're a disgrace to cable news.

And that's saying a LOT.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Krugman being his willfully obtuse self, so he can jam in as many talking points as possible.

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.

 

[The Librarian]

Check it – banks are being sued.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

For those of you thinking it's going to be easy for Obama or a sweep for the Dems, take a look.

More States Move to GOP in 2011

Democrats have lost their solid political party affiliation advantage in 18 states since 2008, while Republicans have gained a solid advantage in 6 states. A total of 17 states were either solidly Republican or leaning Republican in their residents' party affiliation in 2011, up from 10 in 2010 and 5 in 2008. Meanwhile, 19 states including the District of Columbia showed a solid or leaning Democratic orientation, down from 23 in 2010 and 36 in 2008.

The findings make it clear that U.S. states have undergone a dramatic political transformation since 2008, the year President Obama was elected, moving from a Democratically dominant political environment to one of parity.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Krugman being his willfully obtuse self, so he can jam in as many talking points as possible.

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.

"You see, what he really meant was..."

Pathetic.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I didn't expect you to actually think for yourself.

Keep regurgitating pablum and patting yourself on the back for it.

 

[Tim-E]

Oh noes! Obama is going to lose Washington DC!

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I didn't expect you to actually think for yourself.

Keep regurgitating pablum and patting yourself on the back for it.

Projecting?

 

[Averon]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-on-debt-limit-deal-defense-cuts.php?ref=fpb

Bait And Switch: GOP Leaders Renege On Debt Limit Deal Defense Cuts

Republican leaders in Congress have all but reneged on a key agreement they reached with the White House last summer rather than reconsider their unwavering stance against new tax revenue.

Relations between the Obama administration and the congressional GOP were already just about as bad as can be. But even so, this sets a precedent future Congresses and White Houses will remember when partisan mismatches force them to strike deals and govern.

That's some BS, man. Defense cuts wouldn't even be on the table if the GOP hadn't taken the debt ceiling hostage. Now they want to back away from an agreement they signed on knowing what may happen if the Super Committee failed.

 

[sc0la]

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.

But that is class warfare!

Mitt Romney told me that.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Oh noes! Obama is going to lose Washington DC!

I can't even imagine what it would take for him to lose DC.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

For those of you thinking it's going to be easy for Obama or a sweep for the Dems, take a look.

More States Move to GOP in 2011

I wouldn't read too much into that Bulbo. Anyone can come back from the low number of 5 states in 2008. I mean when the bar is that low, everything should be going back to the mean. Here are the maps from 2009-2011 Gallup is talking about:

Pay attention to the dark red. Gallup is just showing the South coming back to the fold after the horrible Bush years. Would be interesting to see how it was before 2008, when it wasn't at it's low point.

I found this more interesting. Here are the electoral votes in order for those states.

11, 4, 16, 9, 10, 13, 6 - Negative numbers, favor Republicans, Total 69
15, 18, 5, 29, 6, 7, 10, 20 - Positive numbers, favor Democrats, Total 110

Take that for what you will.

 

[remist]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...e-on-debt-limit-deal-defense-cuts.php?ref=fpb

Bait And Switch: GOP Leaders Renege On Debt Limit Deal Defense Cuts


That's some BS, man. Defense cuts wouldn't even be on the table if the GOP hadn't taken the debt ceiling hostage. Now they want to back away from an agreement they signed on knowing what may happen if the Super Committee failed.

As a conservative this kind of stuff really disappoints me. I agree with most of the general principles of the tea party, but the people they helped elect have been an embarrassment.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Good jobs report but we're not out of the woods yet. Expect the UE rate to rise in the coming months as more people re-enter the search for jobs, gas prices go up, and concern over the Eurozone increases

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

As a conservative this kind of stuff really disappoints me. I agree with most of the general principles of the tea party, but the people they helped elect have been an embarrassment.

If you don't mind me asking, what general principles of the tea party do you agree with?

 

[remist]

If you don't mind me asking, what general principles of the tea party do you agree with?

Limited government, more fiscal responsibility and strict adherence to the constitution.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Limited government, more fiscal responsibility and strict adherence to the constitution.

When you say strict adherence to the constitution, would you mind illustrating examples of big government of say the last few years that have been unconstitutional?

 

[remist]

When you say strict adherence to the constitution, would you mind illustrating examples of big government of say the last few years that have been unconstitutional?

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has too much power.

I probably disagree with the tea party on a lot of stuff. For instance, I'm not sure whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but I don't necessarily think its a bad thing.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has to much power.

I probably disagree with the tea party on a lot of stuff. For instance, I'm not sure whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but I don't necessarily think its a bad thing.

Thanks for answering the questions. Patriot Act I fully agree, as I do with the NDAA. I think in the beginning the Tea Party folks truly just wanted a fiscally conservative government which while I disagree with them I won't fault them. Unfortunately they became co-opted by the social conservatives and have since become something entirely different than what the early members were looking to accomplish, IMO.

 

[Learn2read]

Krugman being his willfully obtuse self, so he can jam in as many talking points as possible.

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.

How is he in anyway being obtuse?
- Romney previously lied about $'s in safety net programs wasted in bureaucracy.
- Romney claims his focus will not be on the poor as they're supposedly taken care of by the safety net.
- Romeny's plan is to gut the safety net.

All of these things are true, sorry if Krugman is a big meanie for saying it.

 

[Chichikov]

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has too much power.

I'm sure there are many area with differ greatly, but I'm 100% with you on these issues.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Thanks for answering the questions. Patriot Act I fully agree, as I do with the NDAA. I think in the beginning the Tea Party folks truly just wanted a fiscally conservative government which while I disagree with them I won't fault them. Unfortunately they became co-opted by the social conservatives and have since become something entirely different than what the early members were looking to accomplish, IMO.

You mean that they became bigoted hillbillies and suburbanites? I agree. The beginning of the movement seemed honest and good, but has since turned into a running joke.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You mean that they became bigoted hillbillies and suburbanites? I agree. The beginning of the movement seemed honest and good, but has since turned into a running joke.

Well, yes =/

 

[Learn2read]

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has too much power.

Is any of this actually the focus of the Tea Party?

 

[remist]

Thanks for answering the questions. Patriot Act I fully agree, as I do with the NDAA. I think in the beginning the Tea Party folks truly just wanted a fiscally conservative government which while I disagree with them I won't fault them. Unfortunately they became co-opted by the social conservatives and have since become something entirely different than what the early members were looking to accomplish, IMO.

Yea, I'm kinda disappointed there hasn't been a conservative backlash against some of the crazier representatives in the house. I always felt the even the social conservative establishment wouldn't have wanted things to go as far as they have and would put a stop to it.

 

[Puddles]

I know, imagine if we had more austerity measures. We could have doubled the positive effect on the economy.

That's how economic arguments work on Poligaf. X happens in one year and the Y result a few years later is proof it works.

Why would more austerity have a greater positive effect on the economy? When Krugman makes the opposite argument, he uses quantifiable data. Where's the evidence for this argument?

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

When you say strict adherence to the constitution, would you mind illustrating examples of big government of say the last few years that have been unconstitutional?

Some of the Tea Party principles are not bad. They are right to be afraid of run away spending on things like healthcare. That is a big black hole that is eating more and more of our tax dollars and raising tax rates won't solve it. I hope Obamacare fixes the problem with costs. But if it doesn't, then Medicare and Medicaid need to be placed on a budget and rationing needs to begin. More money for healthcare means less money for other items like education or infrastructure.

It is too bad that both parties use any changes made to these programs to attack the other party to get back into power. Any solution a Romney government comes up with will eventually lead to its downfall. I believe a second term for Obama might actually encourage Republicans to work with him because they will have failed Mitch McConnell's number one priority.

As an aside, I do not support the Tea Party because I believe that liquidity in our society has been trapped at the top because tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has reached a 40 year low. I support raising tax rates on the rich in order to redistribute that income to better help society as a whole.

 

[Princess Carl]

Krugman being his willfully obtuse self, so he can jam in as many talking points as possible.

It's pretty clear that Romney was trying to make a point that his focus is on middle-class America, the ones who start the small businesses that create jobs, the ones whose consumer dollars help energize the economy. Romney just said it in a poor, awkward way. Which is what Romney does.

Well at this rate, everything every GOP candidate says may or may not at any point be what he meant, and that means anything stupid doesn't count, and anything remotely credible of course it does.

The "Obvously what I meant now that I'm not Pathetically Pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator is..." Party.

 

[The Librarian]

Some of the Tea Party principles are not bad. They are right to be afraid of run away spending on things like healthcare. That is a big black hole that is eating more and more of our tax dollars and raising tax rates won't solve it. I hope Obamacare fixes the problem with costs. But if it doesn't, then Medicare and Medicaid need to be placed on a budget and rationing needs to begin. More money for healthcare means less money for other items like education or infrastructure.

It is too bad that both parties use any changes made to these programs to attack the other party to get back into power. Any solution a Romney government comes up with will eventually lead to their downfall. I believe a second term for Obama might actually encourage Republicans to work with him because they will have failed Mitch McConnell's number one priority.

As an aside, I do not support the Tea Party because I believe that liquidity in our society has been trapped at the top because tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has reached a 40 year low. I support raising tax rates on the rich in order to redistribute that income to better help society as a whole.

Or just expand Medicare to everyone and let Medicare directly negotiate with drug companies and such. Besides, Medicare has already been placed on a "budget" so to speak with the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

 

[empty vessel]

Limited government, more fiscal responsibility and strict adherence to the constitution.

What does it mean for a government to be "fiscally responsible"?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The Patriot act, NDAA and I think we need to declare a war before before we take any major military action. I think the executive branch has to much power.

I probably disagree with the tea party on a lot of stuff. For instance, I'm not sure whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but I don't necessarily think its a bad thing.

Back when the Constitution was written, military action unfolded very slowly. A treaty could be signed, and weeks later, thousands of miles away, two armies would continue to fight some of the bloodiest battles of The War of 1812 before they would know.

Now, military actions are carried out very quickly, intelligence is gathered instantly and we are capable of acting on that intelligence instantly.

 

[Puddles]

Thanks for answering the questions. Patriot Act I fully agree, as I do with the NDAA. I think in the beginning the Tea Party folks truly just wanted a fiscally conservative government which while I disagree with them I won't fault them. Unfortunately they became co-opted by the social conservatives and have since become something entirely different than what the early members were looking to accomplish, IMO.

Have we forgotten how the whole thing started?

Rick Santelli was criticizing efforts to help troubled homeowners, saying these efforts amounted to "subsidizing the losers' mortgages."

The very beginning of the Tea Party was about a complete lack of empathy and compassion and a prioritizing of dollars over human beings.

You know what my plan would have been? Any homeowners with subprime mortgages who could have made the payments at their initial, lower interest rates could have kept paying that amount.

 

[Jackson50]

Don't forget the least active Congress in 50 years. Hopefully we get even less action in the coming years.

Could you imagine if we had experienced a shutdown? Roaring 90s all over again.

I wouldn't read too much into that Bulbo. Anyone can come back from the low number of 5 states in 2008. I mean when the bar is that low, everything should be going back to the mean.

Right. Obama defeated McCain by a substantial margin. Absent meteoric growth, the gains from 2008 are likely unsustainable. Thus, as I have noted previously, the electorate will likely shift towards Republicans. Or, as you note, revert back to the mean. This shift is reflective of a less propitious environment for Democrats. Moreover, it should be expected. Conditions were especially inimical to Republicans in 2008.