Third, my hopefully main point.  I hate Americans more and more every day (yes I am an American).  I guess its probably always been this way forever, but I didnt think my cynicism and sheer disbelief of their collective stupidity could get worse, but it has plummeted even further.  I think I finally figured out how 'swing' voters vote.  They vote to win...
I am still baffled how any rational person can support the current Republican machine in any fashion.

I just don't get it.  How can President Bush be holding at a 40% approval rating?  His presidency has been nonstop lies, lies, lies, incompetence, lies, incompetence and corruption.  Godfuckingdamnit, we lost a whole major city to government incompetence.  Water levels in the central part of New Orleans never got up to the design elevation of the levees, but they failed anyhow. Nobody cares.  We went to war based on his lies, but nobody cares.  40% of us love him anyhow.

Didn't the Nazis take power with only 37.4% of the vote?  If we have 40% willing to approve of Bush, what exactly are they approving of?  What exactly would it take to make this last 40% disapprove of him?

I have a little more sympathy for supporting the Republican congress, because I've seen a lot of Republican congressional candidates winning their debates, which given the experience of a lot of their challengers really shouldn't be that surprising.  But approval of the Republicans in congress is running way below approval of the president, which I just can't understand.

I don't really think voters are "voting to win".  Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004 really strikes me as being very close to the national mood.  Both sides on this show made a lot of valid points, but I thought Jon Stewart himself took the worst hits while ducking any responsibility for the political debate, with the self-inflicted,  "If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard enough news questions.. we're in bad shape, folks."  Americans are so disgusted with partisanship that they'd rather avoid politics altogether, and they don't seem to mind that by disclaiming politics they are complicit in it.

We've allowed the truth to have a well-known liberal bias.  The worst and most obviously false political ads seem to have the most effect.  Collectively, we're as credible as a 75-year-old grandmother ponsi-scheme victim.  Nobody seems to turn against the advertisement maker for issuing falsehoods.  The most despicable ads of the presidential campaign, the demonstrably false swift-boat ads against Kerry, were the most effective.  All you have to do is keep questioning the truth, and do it consistently, and have your party do it with you, and buy up enough radio companies and have them do it as well.  The media doesn't have the guts to call you on it.  The truth becomes a political difference, and the media can't call you on your lies without seeming biased.  All the reporting is about who said what, and almost none is about what actually happened.

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

--- Mein Kampf

Due largely to gerrymandering the incumbency advantage is not just to the actual representative but to his party as well. So cleaning up districting regulations would be a better approach than applying term limits if you're looking to improve the electoral process.

Another major way to attack the incumbency advantage would be to improve the performance of the FEC.

I don't really like the idea that you can't re-elect a representative who you think did a good job. It's true running for re-election takes up time that could be used for doing their actual jobs, and pandering and pork are a lot more prevalent, but representatives are held to account (in theory) for their decisions in a re-election and that should keep their legislative behavior more representative of the will of the people.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

a two party system sucks.  There are things I hate about all the parties and not one of them will ever serve all my needs, not that I expect government to serve all my needs.  But with only two parties, its too hard to find balance, you will have people like me that cant (unlike wetkarma) vote for the party I really want to (libertarian) because I see more evil in letting Republicans stay in power than not voting by my conscience, so I will vote for the Democrats and then puke in the garbage can next to the polling station.

I think what we really need, is a reform in our voting system.  This 'first-past-the-post' voting system is a large driver in our 2 party system.  There are pluses and minuses to all voting systems, but for me it basically boils down to the fact that there are about a half-dozen voting systems that are more fair (and more complicated) then our current system.

Anyone of those where you can vote for more than one candidate (via ranking or acceptance, etc.) would allow people to not have to hold their nose for fear they would 'waste their vote' and  would be a huge step (maybe the only one necessary) towards eliminating the 2-party strangle hold.

For more info check out these wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Single-winner_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Come on - the reason for the letdown and the likely loss of control of the Congress is not due to predictable electoral cycles. The following factors are probably the most important if you ask me (as an observer who is safely distant from the campaigns):

1. war in Iraq - worst casualties in two years, a "change in tactics" from the administration and the mask is beginning to drop, plus

2. So many financial and "moral" scandals in the Republican administration it's hard to keep track of them (Foley the most recent, but what about K-Street, Abramoff "The Hammer" and the still pending trial in Plame-gate?), plus

3. Abrupt and decisive shift in media coverage of the administrations conduct of the war on terror (evidence of a change in the prevailing winds I would submit), compounded by open dissent among the military and political division even within the Republicans, plus

4. Some excellent campaigns being run by Democrats, the netroots movement and a new willingness to hit back and the GOP smear ads.

Excluding the war, most of the points you make are relate to election cycles. The longer a president is in office, the more likely he is to be tainted with scandal - it's just a matter of time until something will come out - nobody's perfect. Almost every two term president that's server has had something come up. The negative press coverage goes along with that - the press tends to give newly elected (and reelected) presidents a chance to follow through on their platform. When they don't (and they rarely can, due to the relative lack of power that the US presidency has, in comparison to our expectations for the office), then press starts to get nasty. Your fourth point could go either way - are they really running good campaigns, or are the Republicans self destructing? From where I'm sitting, it looks more like self-destruction. Anyway, I'm not saying that every election cycle is the same - both Clinton and Bush defied the odds (in the '98 midterm election Democrats made substantial gains, and the Republicans did as well in 2002), but it does appear that this one will follow the typical trends, and for reasons similar to the past.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

My bet is that it will be a November surprise with Bush accompanied by Rumsfeld, Attorney General Gonzalez, and the heads of the CIA and the FBI announcing they have smashed a major al-Qaeda plot to do something really, really bad to the US.  Of course, the best thing would be to produce Osama in US custody but I'm thinking if they had him in custody already that would be one airtight conspiracy to keep it quiet.

I wonder how much bounce local Republican candidates can expect to get from something like that.  Although part of the dissatisfaction with Republicans has to do with unhappiness over the course of things in Iraq, capturing Osama or busting up an al-Qaeda plot doesn't really go to answer any of the concerns over Iraq.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

the likely loss of control of the Congress is not due to predictable electoral cycles.  The following factors are probably the most important if you ask me

Oh how I wish it were so:

war in Iraq - worst casualties in two years,

As other have pointed out, the casualties are few in relative numbers to, say, Vietnam. I think there is growing disappointment with the handling of Iraq, but I'm not sure it's going to translate into many center-right voters going Dem.

a "change in tactics" from the administration and the mask is beginning to drop,

That's getting no play in the media here, certainly not in media that isn't left of center. In fact, even some of the media outlets you would expect would go after this kind of duplicity (their claim that it's not a change of tactics at all) aren't. As an example, NPR stories routinely drill down about as far as "The White House has announced what appears to be a change of tactics, now here's Tony Snow explaining to everyone why it isn't a change of tactics..."

So many financial and "moral" scandals in the Republican administration it's hard to keep track of them (Foley the most recent

Gay.

but what about K-Street, Abramoff "The Hammer" and the still pending trial in Plame-gate?), plus

What, who, and what again? Wasn't Abramoff some Injun shyster?

Abrupt and decisive shift in media coverage of the administrations conduct of the war on terror

The Media is part of the problem, undermining the efforts of the American people to win the War on Terra. Seriously though, so many people are so sick of hearing about it, that I think alot of that coverage is preaching to the choir or, in actuality, making people more certain something has to be done.

(evidence of a change in the prevailing winds I would submit), compounded by open dissent among the military and political division even within the Republicans, plus

Some excellent campaigns being run by Democrats, the netroots movement and a new willingness to hit back and the GOP smear ads.

Yes, Michael J. Fox "acting" sick to gain sympathy, or that black guy who's mackin on all the white chicks.

I think the American people, or at least, a large enough portion of American voters, are being swayed by the following: when it comes to Iraq, the popular sentiment is that we wish we didn't have to be there but a.) we support our troops (i.e., if St. Dubya wants us there, we'll stay) and b.) it may be ugly but it's necessary, because Dubya tells us so, because if not, we'll be "cutting and running" and the terrorists will have won and the next 9/11 will be nukular. And that's just Iraq. As faithful conservatives and Fox watchers are being told daily, giving the Democrats control of even a single house will raise our taxes, open our borders to smelly Mexicans and their terrorists friends, invite further attacks from Osama bin Democrat and will otherwise destroy all the good the Bush administration has been laboring so hard to achieve. The President himself has had the gall to say that unless the Republicans control all the Legislative branch, America is doomed.

I would love to see more balance in gov't. I don't think, for example, that an all Dem gov't is the way to go, but I do think this administration sucks and I think the majority Republican Congress is doing nothing to make that any better. Will there be crooked, money-gurbbing Dems still paying themselves fat stacks of bacon if there's a Dem Senate? Sadly, yes. But I would like to see more compromise forced on the system, because that's the least we could ask for. But I'm not convinced the Dems are going to be winning even one of the two houses of Congress. I don't see them working hard enough to put forth a cohesive party message based on positive answers to the problems voters are worried about. I hope I'm wrong though.

Now with caps!

The Saddam trial verdict is scheduled for Nov 5.  What a coincidence.

There's a lot of sentiment, particularly amongst Democrats, that somehow the Republicans, led by Karl Rove, will be able to create an October surprise, and turn the tide against them and keep the House.  It's not going to happen.  Barring something on the scale of 9/11, they're just too far behind to make up the ground they need.  This can be seen by comparing the generic ballot trends for other recent elections; even in the post 1992 computer-aided gerrymandering era, the Democrats are still ahead by well more than they need to capture a majority.  Karl Rove (alternate link here for those having trouble with NPR/Microsoft javascript bugs) (God, what a softball interview from NPR) has claimed that the Republicans are going to keep the House because the Democrats are looking at the generic ballot and not the individual races, but this is a transparent attempt to get more Republican voters to the polls by giving them the hope that they have a legitimate chance to win, as well as fewer Democrats by reducing their enthusiasm.

The Republicans have gotten more movement out of their political ads, but with the generic ballot this unbalanced, they're still well behind in more than enough races to change the control of the House.

In the Senate, the news is that the Democrats, defending 18 races vs. the Republicans' 15 and needing to pick up 5, ever pulled up to even in the polls for control of the Senate.  The most probable pickup now looks like +3 Democratic.  Note that in 2008, the Republicans defend 22 seats and the Democrats defend 12.

Why do you figure telling us that you'll be voting libertarian/Nader/green is likely to avoid the flames?  Next you'll tell me that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

Thalia

   if you voted Republican 2 years ago, there has not been a lot that has changed that would cause you to change your vote

    Well, if you're talking the big three determinants (church attendance, race, and whether you own a gun), then certainly those things won't have changed much, and never will. But the question is, how many voters are going to be required to make a difference, and will they turn out? I don't think it's going to take that many, and that there's plenty of reasons to believe the hype that conservatives are dispirited, and in enough numbers to swing the midterms.
    What's changed since 2004? Leaving aside Iraq- a big deletion, to be sure- what has happened to make Republicans happy with their legislators since then? There's been a fight to keep the early tax cuts in place, but it hasn't been touted highly, and besides, keeping defending a victory is rarely as inspiring as winning in the first place. If tax cuts are so good, why haven't there been more?
   Well, because government spending is soaring, and you don't even have to read liberal sources to know this-- Michael Savage makes it his key criticism of Bush, and by extension the Republican majority. (This point has been driven home by the book Imposter, written by Bruce Bartlett, so conservative he refused to vote for Nixon in 1972 because of economic policy.) Now, there are a lot of conservatives who readily agree with Savage's later reason for supporting Bush- "he drives liberals crazy"- but the question remains, how many older style conservatives hear Bartlett's criticisms and ask, "when is this going to stop?"
   What other disappointments have there been since then? Social Security reform,for one; if you thought is was worth doing, then the Republican legislators who killed it are not going to earn high props. (And if you didn't, chances are you're a Democrat.) Eminent Domain is an issue on the rise, as evidenced by the backlash to Kelo, yet despite a few perfunctory bills and an executive order (of dubious potency) by Bush, Republican politicians haven't seized on this issue like they have immigration-- a self-inflicted wedge issue, IMHO, as conservatives are free to wonder where a Senator or Congressman will stand on the issue when push comes to shove. The base is ready, and is already acting in the form of ballot initiatives, but the leadership remains out of step.
   There's also Medicare prescription reform, which, while passed in 2003, is really before voters for the first time, as it was plausible to argue in 2004 that the changes hadn't run long enough to vote on yet. Well, it's been three years, and whether Republican (and swing voter!) seniors are happy with what their representatives passed will be seen in a week or two. Is there real anger over the issue? Well, besides a few bits here and there about "going to Canada for cheaper medication", I can't recall too much serious discussion on the matter-- yet this is exactly the kind of "pocketbook issue" that could- could!- be driving the anti-Republican wave analysts like Charlie Cook are sensing. The issue is too complicated for a three minute story on CNN or Fox, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. Food for thought, at least.
   Will all this lead to Republican defeat in two weeks? Maybe not, but I'd also say it puts the lie to conservative claims that this is all a matter of "liberal hype." Republicans have given conservative voters plenty of reasons to stay home on election day, whether the fanatics like Goldberg and Hewitt admit to it in public (be interesting to read their spin should Dems sweep in November, eh?)  
   Having voted Nader in 2000 (in Washington State), I'm not going to chastise you for voting third party. Just wanted to quibble with your assertion in the parent post :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras