Washington now a two-person, two-party town

Sad reality checks. Neither party can offer fast delivery solutions to America's deepest problems. Expecting either to do so will simply lead to more polar shifting in the American voting swing.

Neither party truly represents the electorate. They both say they do, but how much of what they do actually benefits the working people?

The new split in Washington is most likely to result in lots of bickering and very little movement. This is largely true due to the fact that neither party have solid solutions. But it is more the case because both parties are fixated on the next election cycle and have largely lost sight of what real working people want. They only see the needs of their most influential or noisey supporters. Average families are not represented here.

Working class people want jobs, job security, affordable health care, education for their kids and safe functioning communities. The GOP denies that people want health care, while the DEMs enact programs that fall well short of what is required. So where does anyone really see either party helping working people acheive their objectives?

Washington now a two-person, two-party town

Make that three, Fed Reserve building's in Washington DC too. They're entirely different entity afterall, and equally important.

Maybe America would be better off splitting into three autonomous states.

Just 2 years ago Obama came into office with the mantra of change and now again change the course is the public vote as Republicans take the House and win more governorships. Should be an interesting next 2 years!

Will Obama move to the center as Clinton did? He is in nearly the same position as Clinton was in 1994 but I don't see him being able to let go of his agenda. Bill Clinton was a pragmatic politician and less of an idealogue. By the way America would probably elect him again if they could.

"Plus la change, plus la meme." How is it said in Japanese? Anyway, nothing will change in DC except the names on the office doors.

@noriyosan73

Actually, it's "plus ça change, plus c'est pareil" or "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

@usaexpat

There is a major difference between the position in which Clinton was in 1994 and the position Obama is in right now. In 1994, the economy was doing well and the prospects were positive, so inaction was, though not the best option, not a disastrous course of action. So Clinton could put his agenda on ice. However, now the economy is barely recovering and is still unstable and weak, Obama can't compromise with the Republicans for inaction as Clinton did. Not without taking the risk of hurting the recovery.

If you're on a boat on a calm sea, you can take the hands off the steering wheel to start an argument with your first mate. If you're in the middle of a storm, it's not the time to do it.

An additional problem is that the present crop of Republican representatives has a very high amount of crazies, people who will not compromise on anything and who not only not see the possibility of grinding government to a halt as a problem, but who may actually think it would be a good idea to do so. People who are ready to let the country burn if it prevents them from having to say they might have been wrong. There are little Republicans left who are ready to reach across the aisle, and those who are left have been scared by the extremists' ability to primary them out, so a lot of them are acting like them to save their skin (see John McCain, a maverick no more).