Reply #20: You're thinking that the majority of voters oppose UI, and that this

[mbperrin]

was the singular cause of the midterm changes?

Here's a very good analysis of midterms in general -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081203591.html

The myths are:
1. Midterm votes foretell future election results.
2. It's an anti-incumbent year.
3. The president's message is crucial.
4. It's always about the economy.
5. Midterms provide mandates.

Read the article: it's good.



Because if you are right, and government control rests on being opposed to UI, then UI is dead, and justifiably so. If the huge majority of people simply don't want UI to exist, it shouldn't. And if opposing it is the only way to win elections, we need to oppose it. I find this view a little extreme.

What I really wish is that there was more definition between the parties at the national level. Here at the local level, there are noticeable differences, but at the top, it's looking more like just one party: money.