DeMarco thinks and acts like he works for the big banks and Wall Streets.  He doesn't.  He works for the American people.

The banks and Wall Street may know how to feather their own pockets but they have no idea how to grow an economy or how to promote the common good.

FDR's growth rate was 8.5% per year with little difference between peace time and war time.  He may have been "a traitor to his class" but he knew what he was doing.  The real unemployment figures were comparable or lower to real unemployment figures today except for 1933 and 1934.  Government employees during the New Deal were counted as unemployed by the traditional statistics.  Today part time employees and those not "acticely searching" for a job are eliminated from the statistics.

Jesse Jackson said that a rising tide lifts all boats.  It is true, of course.  However, it is probably true that lifting all boats produces a rising tide as well.

Polls showed jobs and the economy as dominating the election.  Since Obama did not cure the problem or make substantial improvement, Republicans (with poor solutions) were the alternative.   The comparison with FDR (whose party continued to gain seats) is huge.

Voters punished Democrats for high unemployment and plummeting home values.  Current unemployment figures, the U-3, were redefined by Ronald reagan in 1986 to minimize the stated unemployment and make policies that were anti-inflation and pro-rich more palatable.  Comparable unemployment is really above 15%.  This really is the worst economy for most of us since the Depression.

Depression unemployment figures per Wikipedia were overstated as those emplyed by FDR programs like the WPA were not counted as employed.  The real figures per Darby were still astronomical but considerably lower, especially once the New Deal got rolling.

Darby's figures and the traditional Lebergott numbers were:

1933  D 20.6%  L 24.9%

1934 D 16.0%  L 21.7%

1935 D 14.2%  L 20.1%

1936 D 9.9%  L 16.9%

1937 D 9.1%   L 14.3%

1938 D 12.5% L 19.0%

1939 D 11.3%  L 17.2%

1940 D 9.5%    L 14.6%

1941 D 8.0%    L 9.9%

1942 D 4.7%    L 4.7%

1943 D 1.9%    L 1.9%

1944 D 1.2%    L 1.2%

1945 D 1.9%   L 1.9% 

GNP sunk to 68% by 1933 but was recovered past 1929 levels by 1937.

The deficit and health care were not the major concerns.

Surprisingly, 6 of the 20 most leberal House Republicans are gone: Cao, Djou, Castle, Ehlers, Kirk, and turncoat Democrat Parker Griffith.  Cao and Djou lost to Democrats in the general election.  Castle lost a primary for the Senate toa Tea Party candidate who was hugely weird (Christine O'Donnell).  Griffith lost a primary.  Ehlers retired and Kirk was elected to the US Senate.

As for the losing Democrats, 39 had Progressive Punch scores over 200 meaning around 71% of the more conservative House Democrats were shown the gate. 

Voters in 2010 wanted a clear distinction and clear direction, not moderation.

In 1930 with a stock market crash and rising unemployment, voters punished Hoover and the Republicans by taking away 52 House seats.  Two years later things were much worse and Hoover was booted out and the Republicans lost 97 more House seats.  When the economy improved , Democrats were rearded in 1934 and 1936.  When the balanced budget experiment led to renewed depresssion, Republicans rallied from a pathetic 89 House seats and nearly doubled their numbers.

The same pattern happened in the previous large, sustained slide (5 years of unemployment over 10%) from 1893 to 1898.  In 1894, voters threw out the ruling Democrats in the House.  The losses were an astounding 125 seats in a 357 seat House.  Two years later both the uncumbent Republicans in the House and uncumbent Democrats in the White House were tossed out.  The Democrats went so far as to nominate a virtually unknown 36 year old outsider opposed to both the status quo and the White House.  The establishment Democrats ran their own slate in some states (the Gold Democrats) and even won a few.

Voting for change, any change is an established pattern in times like these.  Too bad we didn't offer the real article when we had the chance.

This is not the third worst election loss or even near it.  Early elections were with a smaller House so a percentage change would be more accurate but just using raw numbers here are elections that are worse than this year's.

1894 D Was 218 Is 93 Change -125

1932 R Was 218 Is 117 Change -101

1874 R Was 199 Is 103 Change -96

1890 R Was 179 Is 86 Change -93

1938 D Was 334 Is 262 Change -82

1922 R Was 302 Is 225 Change -77

1948 R Was 246 Is 171 Change -75

1854 D Was 157 Is 83 Change -74

What unites most of these are bad economic times: The Panic of 1893, The Great Depression (1932), the famous recession within the Depression in 1937, the Panic of 1873.  Given the economic meltdown (mpst similar to the Panic of 1893), Pelosi actually did OK to keep losses to 65 or so. 

Somebody, actually a lot of somebodies, need to get fired for this and it shouldn't all be at the bottom.  Why did the NC corrections people turn him over to ICE?  Who was responsible? 

The irresponsibility and malevolence is staggering. 

Maybe at least one of these fools needs to go to jail hmeself/herself to put an exclaimation mark to "hands off."

The answers are so simple and they come mostly from the FDR New Deal era:

1) Put people back to work, lots of people.

2) Regulate the big banks and Wall Street.

3) Rebuild the infrastructure

4)  Get rid of the mercenaries.  And wind down the expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a hurry.  Richard Nixon brought home 15,000 troops per month; Obama ought to be able to match that.

5) Take Social Security off the table.  Kill the Cat Food Commission and not Social Security.

6) Raise taxes on corporation and the ultra rich back to the level of the 60s and 70s (pre Reagan).  Eliminate all tax breaks for hedge fund managers.  That will pay for a lot.

7) Make it a war of being for the "rest of us" vs. Wall Street.  Lincoln had a fondness for "the common man."  We casn't save capitalism (or shouldn't) if it means selling America down the drain.

At this point, focus on this and avoid the side issues of religion, guns, and climate.  If they come up, do not back down.

8) Never apologize.  Looking weak plays into the hands of the GOP.

9) Start using phrases like giving money to the rich creates jobs ... in China.  Ian Welsh had a diary to that effect on his site.

10) Go after the GOP on immigration.  Pete Wilson lost California to the GOP for at least 20 years by going the anti-immigrant route.  We can never out anti the thugs.  Why lose the votes of huge ethnic communities for a generation trying to win the Fox News crowd.

It is not obvious at all that the problem is government involvement.  Krugman and other economists say that the stimulus was both too small and badly designed with too much in the way of tax cuts.  The healthcare was too complicated.  Medicare for all or even Medicare for some would have been a lot better and a lot more popular.  The student loans was a good idea.  I agree with you on the bailout.

Obama's best shot remains that the recession will end or at least moderate enough that he can run a "morning in America campaign."  The odds of that would have been much better if he had a properly designed and implemented stimulus.

Given Jerome's comment, "Bush is gong to go down in history as having set the military agenda abroad and within for a generation" it seems that the motto of this administration and the curse upon the American people has become "I'm with stupid."

Republicans mostly run sitting Presidents (2004, 1992,1984, 1976, 1972, 1956, 1932, 1924) or Vice Presidents (1988, 1960) with a fall back of a former VP (Nixon, 1968).  They have had little success recycling candidates who failed to win the nomination in the past (McCain, Dole, Reagan).  The other option is someone already famous (Ike in 52) or the Governor of a very large state (W, Dewey).

Second chances, like many of the names on the list, have fared poorly.  McCain, Dole, and Dewey going down; Reagan winning with Nixon also a former VP.

I see McDonnell as a likely candidate unless someone emerges in 2010.  Christie is locally a disaster and he is very, very stupid. (I live in NJ).  Unlike Pawlenty and the bridge repairs he vetoed, McDonnell would have no record to defend.

Interesting point about state size.  Hoover was from Iowa (then 10 EV) and California (13 EV) but had no elected background.  Goldwater was from Arizona (then 5 EV) but was trounced.  Going beyond Pierce, Zachary Taylor was from Louisiana (then 6 EV) in 1848.

I used to live in Westchester for about a dozen years.  The real divide is NYC, the suburbs and Upstate.  IIRC, 53% of NY Democrats live in NYC.  A good part of the rest live in Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, and Putnam.  The "power" of upstate outside the state senate is way overrated.  Metro NY burbs are bad for Ford or his ilk except for some black areas.  from what I've seen the Albany area would not be a good fit either.  That leaves what?  Buffalo?  Rochester?  Nowhere near the votes.

One other carpetbagger attempt was former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey who dabbled with the idea of a run and abandoned it.  Kerry and Weld were paper candidates.  Ford is the same.  Ford and Patterson will basically run identity politics campaigns.  I hope they both lose very badly so we can bury that practice in a hurry.  Patterson seems like a terrible governor whose only skill is to threaten to run a campaign calling any opponent a racist.  Opposing a black candidate in a primary without using anti-black statements is not racist.  Patterson, otoh, is running a blatantly racist campaign and deserves to lose badly as he also sucks as a governor (I live in Jersey now so I get to see his circus).

The article is laudatory claiming Bernanke saved the country.  Time didn't think Bernanke was another Hitler, Stalin or Hoover.  They thought he was great.

What fools and tools the MSM are.

Just keep up there with the mass murderers.  Josef Stalin needs to be on the list.  Pol Pot is certainly ahead of Jimmy Carter.  What Republican could fail to place Saddam Hussein on the list?  

Acts do have consequences.  Pete Wilson's immigrant bashing lost previously Republican-leaning California to the Republicans for a generation.  FDR's leadership ensured Democratic dominance for a generation.

Currently, "hispanics" hold 5 Republican House seats and one Senate seat (Mel Martinez).  The Senate seat is likely to change, either to Crist or to a Democrat.  The three Florida House seats seem likely to flip as the current group of older Cubans loses its grip.  That leaves Devin Nunes in California, Trent Franks in Arizona.  When Devin and Trent become what is left of "hispanics" you have a problem. (Nunes is Portuguese, btw).

I believe that at the Prsidential level it is more important to sound confident than to be center, left, or right.  That may or may not work at the Senate level but it has less of a hold at the House level.  Democrats, according to Progressive Punch represent 56 points on their voting scale; Republicans slmost exactly half the range.  The median Democratic score is 89.97; the median Republican score is 5.55.

Republicans are more compact ideologically from top to bottom and shrinking.  One encouraging sign is that the two most moderate GOPers in the House are freshman, a huge swing from the past.  Leonard Lance may stay but Joe Cao is a goner.

Almost intuitively, Republicans seem to have grasped that their only immediate shot is to scuttle any accomplishments of the Democrats.  They are pursuing a scorched earth policy.  Too bad some of our own Blue Dogs haven't caught on to that.

I see this as a 20 year Democratic cycle unless we screw things up, maybe more.  So Steny and Jim, take a chill pill.

She got picked on because she is the one and only liberal in a real position of power.  Everybody else is a centrist in one form or another.

When the military lies to support their civillian bosses bad policy results and we spend American and nonm-American lives and lots of money.  We saw that in Vietnam and we saw it in Iraq.  It is absolutely the right fight at the right time.  Absolutely.  The right wing war mongers are at the weakest that they have been in half a century.