Right now there is an increasing tendency for the media to suggest that the Democrats are about to gain seats an the house and senate during the next election. This may be true or not, but then it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, (Thanks CNN, MSNBC etc). Some will love this and some will hate it. Whichever way it is I have concerns for more than just party lines.

There has long been a lot of discussion about the economics of both parties, and there is a lot of difference between the two. Since the demise of Paul Volker there has always been firm financial control exerted by the Fed in the hands of Greenspan. This has mitigated economic choices made by presidents and congress in both parties.

The press has consistently gotten matters wrong where the economy has been concerned. Carter got the blame for his inflation, but really it was Volker for the most part. Reagan got a lot of credit for his economic programs, but Greenspan lead the way on that "recovery". Nobody got the blame for the crushing of American manufacturing when that was largely engineered by free trade agreements and Greenspan's economic policies. These free trade agreements have had bipartisan support through the years with some wrangling this way and that in both parties.

Clinton got credit for economic improvement during his term, but largely the change during his tenure was due to the tighter controls exerted by an increasingly strong Republican congress. Pork projects declined, but then resurged with the advent of a one-party system, with Republicans controlling the House, Senate and Presidency. For some time the happy marriage between the houses was just in a honeymoon. Its too bad for everyone there was no Newt in the speaker's chair to manage some of that.

Bush has gotten credit for ruining the economy, but largely the financial troubles he faces now are related to two things, one is leftover economic policies from his predecessors, going back through several administrations, and the other is the money spent on the war. Trade agreements are increasingly a problem as well.

I am thinking it might not be such a good idea to have a President the same as the party controlling both the House and Senate. If we had either in control of all three branches there would be no respite from the stupidity of our government.

There is always disagreement about what financial choices are going to help or hurt the economy. Unfortunately, since about 1900 or maybe 1930 there has not been a widespread interest in economics by the people or promoted in our education system. You would think the economy was a black box that managed itself. The media is unable to give good advice or to make reasonable interpretations. Letting them guide you in your choice of politicians to support might be unwise.

I would suggest people should try to inform themselves more of the issues so they could make better choices. But above all, do not vote for people who will go off half-cocked and blow our economy out of the water. Along that line you should think long and hard before giving too much power to either party.

they also said stevenson won

wish I could be optomistic about either party ...but since I see no
fundamental difference between them I see nothing but the same
old thing regardless of who wins either house or all...

Its a dangerous position to take when you say that it doesn't matter. That opens the door for your worst nightmare, even though voting in earnest might not get you your favorite dream.

my favorite dream??

oh oh oh oh oh..... i could SO hijack this thread!!!!

I'll continue to vote and call my reps..and stay involved...
and will vote 3rd party....for most races....

yeah..lets hear your favorite dream alex