Why not wish for a unicorn while you're at it? None of these reforms are even remotely likely, and it's not clear to me that all are even desirable. (The single-term one sounds absolutely TERRIBLE to me). Most of them would require a constitutional amendment. good luck with that.

40% mid-term voter turnout in ohio = gop wins.

80% 2008 turnout = dems win.

ITS ALL ABOUT VOTER TURNOUT!

STOP OVER-ANALYSIZING.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39995283/ns/politics-decision_2010 - Citizens United put a nail in the coffin of democracy. Case should have been captioned "Corporations United"

I believe your 30 years is an under-estimation. The tide began turning after WWII. Mass marketing was in full bloom and the real deception of America was well underway. The dumbing down started way back then. Corporate America/an oligarchy, yes we are indeed. Bachmann, ... investigate members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." We apparently must relive McCarthyism to see if that'll shake any sense into us (and it won't)!

I was going to make a statement much to the same point. The only thing I'd add is that there were 2 other election cycles in which over 50 seats were lost. So on the extreme there's 70 in '38, two loses of 50+ seats, and one loss of 60 (between 1936-2010). To whatever extent you can believe polling, it seems that people are very disgruntled about our current government- in particular, our current Congress. After a bit of research what I found was that every time Democrats have suffered such huge losses (to be defined here as 50+ seat losses) it has coincided with a Congressional popularity rating of 20% or less. Our current Congress, for instance, is at 11% according to Gallup- the lowest it's been since that 70 seat loss. Contextually speaking this is a pretty significant loss, but I don't think it's significant for the reason that you'll be hearing on the news either. It is significant for the distrust factor it shows in legislative competency. Americans don't seem to trust Congress to do anything. I do not think it is accurate to state that this a tsunami of conservatism, but all data suggests that it is dissatisfaction with government in general that drove voters. Exactly what voters are dissatisfied with and what they want to see government doing in the future seems to vary from poll to poll. I can't seem to find many consistencies with exit polling data (looking on ABC's website) other than job dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with Obama. More specific data doesn't seem to be available. From what I can see of ABC's past polls, the general furor over Congress seems to be very similar to that of 1994 (with the obvious exception of more significant losses).

I should also add, in the sake of fairness, that there are 9 election cycles between 1936-2010 in which Democrats lost seats. 4 out of those 9, Dems lost 50+ seats. So in order to contextualize the losses Dems received fairly- it was more significant than the 2 50+ losses, but not as significant as the 70 seat loss. And also, it wasn't unexpected outside of the realm of elections in the sense of loss in general (out of 20 election cycles shown all but 3 saw losses and 8 were near, at, or beyond the 50 seat loss margin; out of those near, at, or beyond 6 were Dem and 2 were Repub). So again I wouldn't call this a giant omg everybody freak out cataclysmic loss, I just wouldn't say that it wasn't significant. It was, according to the data TRMS provided, an outlier election. The most journalists and pundits should be taking away is that this was a slightly higher than average loss to the Dems and to any party during a mid-term election which seems to coincide with higher Congressional disapproval ratings.

It's also interesting to me that Republicans have never suffered a 50+ seat loss (they've came close to it, though) during this time span. I wonder if that's because Republicans haven't, between 1936-2010, held as significant majorities or if it's because of the "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" adage? It's curious none the less.

What are you talking about?

Now you post a graph with historical data. You should have dug out that data prior to the election (maybe you did, which makes your statement that much worse) and in some way acknowledged there would be a sweep, a tidal wave – no, not a tsuanami.

Why is posting a graph with "historical data" (which, by the way, is the best kind) showing that, in fact, the windbag "experts" that clutter those tables on the Sunday mornings you speak of pedantically went far overboard in talking about this midterm election as the apocalypse for progressives. In fact, all this savvy graph shows is that voters did what they always do in midterms...from which we can conclude that 1) it's not a "tidal wave" against Obama specifically but against the sitting president and 2) it's not the big deal the "real news people" are saying it is.

Since you undertake your critique in such a condescending way my guess is that RM's analysis and, actually, her entire agenda (telling the truth) which she openly discusses over and over again has flown over your head, which is likely white male and full of social privilege. That's okay. It happens to the best of us, a category which your chicken-scratch writing suggests you may not be in...but honestly...you sound much more like Joe the Plumber than Rachel.

I'm not sure why I'm so compelled to respond to this except that RM is one of the only points of intellectual light in a political world full only of bluster and manufactured images (some tragically so). If you like the sleazy, underhanded world, fine.

But keep your beer to yourself. She's not interested. And you're not funny.

emare, what Rachel Maddow actually said on Meet the Press October 24 was:

I think that the initial diagnosis that Democrats don't care and were going to be--weren't going to be able to turn out, that they weren't going to be able to get off their hands and actually get out to the polls this year has turned out to be a little bit of--a little bit wrong. We're seeing the high Democratic numbers in terms of early voting, for example. But, you know, it was less than two years ago that this country turned out and elected Barack Obama by seven points, by 10 million votes, and it was--for the second straight election, elected a hugely greater number of Democrats to Congress and the Senate than they did Republicans, and that was less than two years ago. I don't think the country has changed that much. We, at that time, in 2008, saw people screaming about the president's birth certificate and imagining everybody was a Muslim and fainting at the sight of Sarah Palin. I mean, those people existed in 2008, as well, but they lost. And so I think that the narrative has been very exciting on the Republican side, but I don't think the country has changed as much since 2008 as the narrative would suggest.

You can look it up. Meet the Press posts transcripts of their shows. Based on the early voting numbers that were available at the time, that was a very reasonable statement. Was it also a bit hopeful? Perhaps. But later in the discussion, Rachel also said:

I'm a bad predictor, I have to say. I think that it's going to be closer than people think. I do not think it's going to be a Republican landslide, but I do think we're going to get a lot more red.

Pretty accurate assessment of the whole election, I'd say. Closer than many thought, and not a Republican landslide - not if you consider both the House and the Senate.

The graph above was prepared by Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly, and he posted it on November 3rd. So I am not sure why you state that Rachel "should have dug out that data prior to the election".

Perhaps you have not been watching the show, but Rachel has been saying for some time that history indicated a lot of Democratic seats would be lost during this midterm election, even without Benen's graph for support.

I would much rather hear Rachel Maddow's take on issues of the day from the MTP roundtable than, say, Harold Ford Jr., David Brooks or Rick Santelli.

The Democrats "buried us in debt". Bush came in with a surplus and left us with a record deficit. It may not be fashionable in your circle, but try reading!

I did not say we were in great financial shape when Bush left office. However, do a little reading yourself. Compare the debt now to two years ago.

Please, do. If you look at the debt now, you will actually notice the strides the Obama administration has made in the two years to get the country back on track. The strides could've been even longer were it not for the "Just say No" politicians and lobbyists.

No, the Obama administration and Democrats do not have all the answers, but at least they have a feasible plan. Where is the Republican economic plan? Where is their medical plan? Their housing plan? Their education plan? Their fiscal "plan" for the past 8+ years has proven deplorably unworkable. But yet, their attitudes suggest "the plan" will somehow miraculously flourish if given another chance. Their politics do not boil down to a plan for the people. It boils down to a mere question of power.

George Orwell must have had a crystal ball when he wrote "1984":

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

So Charles, then I suppose you will not have a problem agreeing with the President that we should not extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich which, as Mitch McConnell even admits, will add $700 billion to the US deficit

Actually yes, for now. For a couple of reasons.

1. Short term, I don't believe raising anyone's taxes during this economy is the right thing to do. Someone may have announced "the recession was over months ago", but ask one of the near 10% of Americans out of work if they believe it's over and see what they tell you.

2. Longer term however, a complete analysis of the budget and spending needs to be done. I don't think you can point to one thing and say "we need to change this" in order to improve things. I would likely be in favor of across the board spending cuts of all discretionary spending and a thorough review of our entitlement programs needs to be made. It just may be that those programs could be more effective if tweaked or overhauled.

Those things aren't popular with many people but it's what I believe is the right thing to do. But, I'm not running for office so I can safely suggest such things.

What we can't do, is continue to spend money thus increasing the size of the debt and grow government even bigger. Our problem is not that we're not taxing people enough. The problem is government is spending too much - way too much.

More government is not the solution to our problems. It IS the problem.

I love Rachel, but to some degree this is a bit of spin. First of all, if you look at that graph, the last bar close to the size of what happened in 2010 was in 1994 and it hadn't been this bad since the 1940s. I think it's a mistake to just say "oh, this was normal" and do nothing. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but pretending that this was no big deal isn't the answer. Honestly, I think it will be difficult for democrats for a while until there is something done to deal with the huge amount of anonymous corporate funding for GOP candidates that was unleashed in that horrible Citizens United ruling.

I'm not saying the response should be a horrible gnashing of teeth of "Oh, woe is us, we were shellacked", but rather a serious thinking of a strategy for what to do to fix whatever the issues were. Some were obviously beyond anyone's control, since a weak housing market, 9.6% unemployment, and a foreclosure crisis were going to hurt the party in power no matter what you try to do in terms of messaging. One thing did seem to be clear was there was no coherent party message. Some candidates embraced democratic policies, and others ran away from them. Yes, more blue dogs lost than progressives, but I wonder how much of that is from the nature of the district. Blue dogs are more likely to be in swing districts than progressive members. I'm getting a little rambly, but I guess my point is that one needs honest analysis of what happened in order to figure out how to fix it.

"A bit of a spin"? Come now. It's nothing but spin!

The "all or nothing" Electoral college system is a state-by-state issue and in fact there are 2 states that do not have that in place. In fact Obama got one electoral vote from NE because they don't have an all or nothing system. Having a ranking system sounds nice, but the question is which one. All of them have flaws. (Google "Arrow's Impossibility Theorem").

State by state or not the fact remains that the vast majority of states use this archaic system. As for the flaws of ranked voting, no system is perfect but it would still be leaps and bounds better than our current one.

I might suggest you start your version of the Tea Party. Like them or hate them, there is no denying they had an impact on the outcome and, at the very least, stirred interest and involvement in the most recent election.

If you don't think the Democratic party is liberal enough for you, rather than overhaul the voting system in order to craft an outcome you will find satisfactory, start a movement for liberals. The true test of success will be in the numbers who enthusiastically embrace it and, most importantly, who votes accordingly.

This is an issue beyond liberal or conservative, this has to do with democracy. I'm not interested in starting my own party, I'm interested in elected officials having a broader and more accurate representation of their constituents.

You're still wishing for unicorns though. I'd probably like IRV and a Maine/Nebraska style system for the electoral college as well, but changing each state is a difficult task and amending the constitution is even more difficult. And as to a parliamentary system, I prefer the flaws of our 2-party system to the multi-party parliaments in countries like Italy or Israel. When no major party gets an outright majority of the votes, what happens is they have to form coalitions. This gives minority parties huge influence because how they choose to align can make a huge difference. I'll pass on that.

Our two party system works. Just because the outcome of an election isn't what you'd hoped isn't a reason to change a time-honored, proven system.

Any thinking person is not going to agree with every proposal for "their" party or candidate but you have to choose the best of the options and go with it. It's that same spirit of compromise we demand from our elected officials. You size up the candidates and pick the one you believe is the best suited for office.

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, not because I'm a liberal and die-hard Democrat - in fact I'm a life-long Republican. I voted that way because I thought a fresh start and change was what was needed and the best choice of candidates at the time was Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. Of course, I would have preferred a better option on the Republican side but that was my choice and I made my decision accordingly.

The system works just fine. We just need better candidates from which to choose - on both sides of the aisle.

You must be kidding - what proven system? A system of corruption, a system of bought-out candidates, ... an oligarchy. Bring back Jesse Ventura, "...the two-party system, it — to me, it gives you one more choice than communist Russia..." I was disillusioned with the lack of a system years before Ventura came into politics but he nailed part of the problem very succinctly.

I'm sick and tired of voting for someone to vote against the other fellow. This system is long corrupted and long broken. My god, what choice - 1) He's really bad or 2) Maybe on the outside he doesn't seem quite as bad as 1). No, we're falling off a precipice.

Well first off the last line of your post was certainly cute, I enjoyed that very much thank you.

The problem is with generalizing voters at all. It's impossible to ultimately know why anyone votes ever unless that person self admits. Study wise, though, there is too much variance within political science to know for sure why someone votes or why they vote the way they vote. Even when studies are released paraphrasing exit polling data- this is still skewed information being that a. usually the percentages you'll get are around 50% of respondents (implying that 50% have a differing view) b. exit polling is self service response (which means those who're inclined to answer are usually those who're more passionate and who have more...let's say loud views...) c. exit polling typically tries to assume the voter's animus, which skews polling towards answers pre-meditated by those giving the survey (even when done non-partisanly, there is still a problem of skewed answer response).
Roughly every election we have, only about 40% of the nation comes out (on a good election). Mid-term elections typically see less than that, and local elections typically see around 20% or less of the electorate turn out. The majority of Americans do not vote. If you consider that in 2008 when Obama was elected roughly 50% of those eligible to vote actually did and that Obama won by roughly 51% of the electorate, that means only roughly 26% of America voted for our current president, while roughly 24% voted for McCain. That's kind've the sad nature of our politics when you realize it.
Why people don't vote is an entirely different question. Prejudicing my generation as if we're all lazy and obsessed with twitter, while funny, isn't necessarily fair or accurate. Some people don't vote because they can't get the time off work (this would apply to states that don't have mail-in ballots, I should add). Some people don't vote because they can't physically be present in a line (for disability reasons or what have you) and are unable to do mail in voting. Some people aren't capable of getting to a polling place without assistance (lack of reliable transportation)- I should point out that this is often why you will have Democrats and "Get Out the Vote" elections because if you can provide transportation to polling places, the number of people who vote goes up dramatically. The same is also true when you have mail in voting. A great many people don't vote because they don't know enough about politics and economics (the issues) to feel safe voting (I.E. I am too uniformed to make a decision). Many people don't vote because they don't feel their vote matters. Some don't vote because they see it as a form of protest of the way government is running (I.E. I am disgruntled with government and therefore refuse to participate in government as a result). Others don't vote because they hate politics and hate discussions of. Some don't see what happens in Washington as affecting them. Some vote because they feel satisfied enough with their lives to not see any immediate necessity behind voting (I.E. I'm happy so there's no need to change anything). And many more don't vote because they feel they have no good or applicable choices to make (I.E. I hate all eligible candidates/policies).
Voting in America for political means is not as convenient as it is on American Idol or by other means. So yes, you will always have more people (especially people my age) voting for things that are easier to access than you will a general election. If you put voting on cell phones, you would likely see the turn out go up. If you made mail-in voting available to every state/county/city, turn out would go up. If you provided public transportation to and from voting places on election day, turn out would go up. If elections lasted for more than 1 day, turn out would go up. There are many things that can be done to increase voter turn out (although the multiple day voting thing I think would require a constitutional amendment but yeah). Blaming my generation for low turn out isn't necessarily fair.

You are correct though- pretending like the Tea Partiers have some mandate by all of America is wrong. Just like it's wrong to pretend that anyone else who won an election had a mandate. The fact is Jackson was wrong when he came up with the idea of a political mandate, but this idea will not be rescinded by any president or party because with it comes something called the bully pulpit. And as long as that exists, parties and politicians will always claim they represent "America" instead of just "the people who voted for me."

"Most of those re-elected were liberals."

That is because the largest number of seats up for re-election were House seats that represent a particular district. Districts made up primarily of Liberal voters, voted for Liberal candidates. To suggest the country didn't vote out Liberals based on how they voted in House elections is only telling a small part of the story.

Barney Frank being re-elected in his liberal district, for example, is no surprise at all. A more telling story are the state-wide elections such as Senate and Governor races.

When you have a Republican in Mark Kirk taking the President's old Senate seat in Illinois, that's significant!

When a long time liberal Senator such as Russ Feingold loses a state wide election in Wisconsin, that's significant!

When "rust belt", long time Democrat states such as Michigan and Ohio elect Republicans for Governor, that's significant!

When the Democratic Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) barely squeaks by against a very weak and arguably unqualified candidate, that's significant!

As Paul Harvey would have said... "Now you know the rest of the story!"

Reid won by over 10 points, the hell are you smoking? Mark kirk won by less than 2 points. Again, what are you smoking? And you're assuming Ohio and Michigan are liberal states. The problem with your bias is you don't understand MI or OH. People make these generalizations about states that because a state has voted more blue for President in the past, that suddenly means the entire state is a liberal lefty state. OH and MI are very conservative (OH especially). The only portions of those states that aren't very conservative are the more popularized cities. And guess what- that is true of every state in the damn nation. Typically speaking more people live in the larger cities and district wise usually you end up with people getting voted in who're blue more often than red. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the larger cities always trump out the rural areas. I suggest you look up the electoral history of MA, MI, and OH instead of making assumptions *eye rolls*

Actually
A. America has moved further right than it has left- there are only 80 liberals in office so I'm not really sure what you're basing this idea that the country went radically left on
B. The same logic you use about Republicans can be turned to use on Democrats so it's probably safe to say your analysis is incorrect in either case
C. Explain where and exactly how Obama has grown government more so than other presidents have in their first 2 years in office?
D. The deficit wasn't out of control before Obama took office? do tell; also unemployment wasn't spiraling and skyrocketing before Obama took office? do tell
E. You do not know anymore than anyone else why someone voted in this election- all you know is why you voted and possibly why those whom you associate with voted. It is statistically impossible to accurately assess why anyone votes the way they do. This has always been true in political science. Figuring out why people do or don't vote and why they vote the way they do (or don't) is the hardest question to answer in political science. You cannot generalize voting results into any category- and for the record this is why people don't turn to you for punditry advice.