Laboratories of Democracy: the rise of one-party control of state governments provide clear contrasts in what works

As usual, Michael Brown writes an interesting piece about America’s “laboratories of democracy.  One of the strengths of our Republic is the division of individual states with their respective sovereignty. Much like our economic system, built on underlying free-market and competition, these individual states are free to govern themselves and compete outside the direct control from Washington (well…for the most part). The results should be instructive.

First, we are starting to see the intraparty disputes, where factions within either political establishment are challenged. Second, we are seeing the overall product of either Democratic, or Republican rule.

For the national public, one-party Democratic and one-party Republican states provide a look at how each party governs — and the results.

In California, voters just gave Democrats two-thirds majorities in both houses and a tax increase, as well. We’ll see if their policies help California reduce its dismally high unemployment and resolve its enormous pension underfunding.

In Illinois, Democrats won again, despite increasing the state income tax from 3 to 5 percent in 2011, after which the state’s unemployment rate went up, while declining in neighboring states. Democrat Michael Madigan has been speaker of the Illinois House for 28 of the last 30 years.

Many Republican governors and legislatures have gone in another direction, holding down spending increases and seeking to cut taxes or hold rates even, rather than raise them.

Texas’ low taxes (no income tax) and light regulation have been followed by some of the most robust job creation in the nation. Texas’ population grew so rapidly in the last decade that it gained 4 U.S. House seats from the 2010 Census.

No-income-tax Florida gained two seats, and no other state gained more than one. California, for the first time in its history, gained none.

States are laboratories of democracy, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote. Citizens of every state can monitor their experiments and judge which set of one-party states is getting better results.

Bill O’Reilly echoed this sentiment on his show:

Michael Barone explains why so many pundits (including himself) misjudged the election

As usual, Keith Backer at the Battleground Watch blog has some really good information about the election. ¬†(If you don’t frequent his blog, and you’re an¬†enthusiastic¬†election follower, then I would recommend checking it out.)

Michael Barone: Obama won by going negative

Michael Barone has bad a chance to look at the numbers and has come away with one undeniable fact: the candidate who strove to unite America in 2008, did just the opposite to win reelection in 2012.

This year, the Democratic president was re-elected with a smaller majority, while House Republicans have won or are leading in 235 districts, the most they held between 1994 and 2006. Based on the latest count, they lost only seven seats, even though Democratic redistricting plans cost them 11 seats in California, Illinois and Maryland.

This despite the fact that almost every House Republican supported Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, which were supposed to cost Republicans votes — but didn’t when they had a chance to explain that people over 55 aren’t affected and that Obamacare cut $716 billion from Medicare.

So Obama owes most of his victory margin to negative personal campaigning, while Republicans held the House despite — or because of — their opposition to big-government policies.

The president claims a mandate because, as he said in 2009, “I won.” But Speaker John Boehner has some basis for claiming a mandate, too, as the fiscal cliff negotiations begin.

New campaign strategy: next time let’s not nominate “wackos and weirdos and witches”

The loss of the White House was bad…the missed opportunity in the Senate was worse.  Michael Barone breaks it down: