...is it possible that the change they wanted wasn't the change Democrats gave them?
There are a lot of statistics being thrown around at the moment, and it is a distinct possibility. The thing that I cannot fathom is that the level of distrust for the Republicans is still at an all-time-high, and yet, Independents voted them in without thinking twice about it. Obviously, Independents for whatever reason have grown impatient with the Democrats and subsequently wanted them out (I'd include general incumbency distrust here as well). Blue-Dog Democrats lost out big time, yet Progressive candidates (with the exception of Feingold and Grayson) held their offices. These are very strange figures, I wish I was still at Aquinas to break this down with my professors.
Basically, were non-party people looking for a change in the problems that aren't confined to a single party and wound up getting more, so were sending the same message again?
The logical reasons you said there, sure, I think there are a lot of people who voted out the Democrats because of that. There are plenty of Independents who have legitimate reasons for doing so, and I can't be upset with them. I am just as frustrated as they are, but, I could never bring myself to vote for these kinds of Republicans to fix the problems they created during the last administration. Maybe it's just me. Who knows. I'm still wrapping my head around this one.
I wonder if we are likely to see power balances bouncing back and forth frequently like this until we have an overall change to how things have worked for decades now.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The Legislature will probably turn over every session now, and I doubt it will change much unless the redistricting for 2010 jacks things up, or we finally get serious about changing the way the system works.
Or it really could be a case of the loss of young voters that only ever turn out in larger numbers for presidential elections. But then you have to ask, are we having leaders being ultimately chosen by those who think the president is such a powerful role that no other positions matter?
Considering how low the youth turnout was, I think it played a pretty big role in the way things turned out. As a young person, it is really disappointing that even as I can see that we are, on average, voting more than we used to, it's still not enough to put on the political pressure and gain the attention that we deserve. I had to talk my brother into voting yesterday, he gave me the usual speech that it "didn't matter when the President isn't on the ballot." I lost my damn mind. Too many young people think that way, and I don't know how to change it. Clearly the education system is lacking, and of course, the media isn't helping either.
Things are slightly better. We're not even close to where we need to be
=-=-=-=-=-=
One kid in my class is fresh out of high school, wears skinny jeans and beanies and looks like a walking fashion catalogue. I said "Look at this democrat", and then he mentioned something about Murray Rothbard. I was like "..." Things are looking up, but obviously not as much as I'd like.
You'd be surprised by the number of hipster libertarians around here. The great thing about the internet and people learning about what is going on out there, people are learning about things that they normally wouldn't be taught in school. I've met a lot of great kids, on the right and left, that are young and very excited about politics. I think it's awesome, personally. I can't remember the statistics that were being thrown around back in 2008 and 2009, but there are a lot of young people who are strongly invested in the libertarian movement. Of course, on the flip side, there are a lot more young people who are just as accepting as socialism as well.
LOOOOOOOOL.
