Your first two premises are correct; but, remember that only a small proportion of incumbents were not reelected. Almost all the Republicans and most of the Democrats were reelected. A gain of 60 seats may be large but it's only about 10% of the congressmen. And of course the Senate and the Presidency remain Democratic.

The new elections mean two years of gridlock. Two lost years.

What will happen in two years depends upon whether what was done during the last two years was enough for the economy to recover more fully by then.

Meanwhile the President will have to concentrate on foreign affairs, which he is particularly good at, and winding down the wars in the Middle East.

The Republican Party is doomed in the long run. The election showed once again that the super rich can't buy elections for themselves; even though their indirect attack ad campaigns can cause their foes to lose. Meanwhile their supporters die off from old age and even the rural poor, their most frequent dupes, continues to decline in population.

California, for better or worse, is probably the indicator of where the country is headed. They will probably pass a Prop 19 next time, or the time after.

I think that in the last two elections, voters realized the power of their individual votes. The 2008 election was historic in so many ways, not the least of which was giving a single party a super-majority. I think most American's realize that this is too much power in the hands of too few like-minded individuals.

Where there was notable apathy on the part of voters prior to the 2008 election, I think many were awakened to the power of not just their vote, but their voice and checkbook. They realized that by not directly aligning themselves with any party, by staying focused on issues rather than party or candidate loyalty, they could make a meaningful contribution to conversations with other concerned citizens. They realized that their $10 or $25 check, coupled with those from thousands of other out-of-area supporters to candidates in other districts, but who represent their views, could make a statement too.

I think these citizens truly want change in D.C. They do not want politicians working angles and making back room deals to get individual groups or affiliates advantages. Especially "under the radar deals" such as usurping bankruptcy law (again) and allowing GM to keep $45,000,000,000 in tax loss carry-forwards that other companies who enter bankruptcy would lose. (Note: This was not part of the original bail-out with disclosure but in a little known, quiet ruling months later). I think these citizens realize that that is going to cost a family of 4 about a $500+/- increase in their own taxes, or cost of goods; because that money has to be made up from somewhere. That's actually a big part of the citizens' point. Fiscal responsibility - eventually you do have to pay your bills, even if you are the Federal government.

The citizens see the seductive lure of having the power to make laws for 350,000,000 people spread out over 3,573,441 square miles from one central location, and how it effects their elected officials. They see how quickly and easily they become corrupt (vote their "conscience" rather than their constituency, which is a smoke and mirrors way of saying I'm going to do what's best for me and my cronies, not what my voters want).

I think in 2008 the people embraced the concept of "hope and change" that was expressed by one party, because it reflected what they wanted to see happen in D.C. While this party delivered on change that brought hope to about 10% of the population with lowest health and income, that party's definition of hope and change was not the hope and change the voters wanted. The voters wanted openness in how bills were designed and what was in them. They wanted less spending (which necessarily means less government although they hadn't had the opportunity for their conversations/thinking to progress that far prior to 2008).

Voters are getting smarter about how to read politicians, lobbyists and power-brokers. They aren't very sophisticated, so they are not taken very seriously by the elite media and D.C. inhabitants, but they are effective in their own way. Most notably, they can be credited with restoring balance back in D.C.

The 2010 lesson for party-die-hards (no matter what the party) is that the voters are now savvy and/or desensitized to the use of slanderous ads, celebrities and political hyperbole. They are much more informed and much more willing to participate in the governing of their nation (by their vote and campaign contribution dollars). They cannot be swayed by millionaires putting indecent amounts of money into advertising (although it's creating jobs - so good for them for that). The voters are paying more and more attention to who each candidate is, what their real track record is, and how close to ethical they can get. (Let's face it, this is 2010 politics and ethics has been missing for a lot of years, so no one is naive enough to think it's suddenly going to show up; but it is being endeavored, and ethical candidates are being fleshed out, election by election.)

What this particular election means is that the voters gave the country back its balance via a divided congress. Party leaders may shout about no cooperation, but that's actually how it's *supposed* to be. Through vigorous debate and dispute, the truly important issues survive and the personal interest projects die. It is a good thing for America when Congress is deadlocked. (And you will notice they are never deadlocked on crisis matters such as the Patriot Act for very long.) Our system works very well, in favor of the People, as long as the people don't get blinded by political gamesmanship and spins.

If I were to guess, I would say that the country will shift more in the direction of conservation, which given the state of national debt is not a bad thing at this time. I think that this is evident, not predominantly by this last election, but by the significant increase in personal savings of the last few years. It is now at +5% of earnings which is phenomenal compared to 5 years ago. I would also guess that the public is not going to tolerate monster 2,200 page bills that have to be passed so people can find out what's in them. I would guess that there is going to be a resurgence of States Rights if for no other reason than those in TX see the absurdity of having to do things the same way as those in NYC and vice-verse. They see the absurdity of one-size-fits-all drilled down to a level of minutiae over 3.7 million square miles and 350 million people.

As the majority of the population in the USA continues to age, it makes a lot of sense that the country becomes more conservative. This is not a problem as I see it. It's just a cycle that is in step with the majority of the people. As the dynamics of the majority shift over the years, the cycle will ebb and flow to reflect their principles and concerns.

Right now I believe we are seeing a shift toward less centralized power, less outside influence of partisan influences (unions, big business, environmentalists, etc) and a move toward more ethics, openness, responsibility and simplicity.

I don't think the legalization of marijuana in CA is going to happen for at least 30 years, if ever. The main voting block in this country knows from first hand Hippy experience that weed is not in the same class as alcohol, but is much more akin to drugs.

Most likely the 2012 election will be the most raucous we will see in our lifetimes. 2008 and 2010 were learning experiences for the average American voter. They are much more sophisticated at voicing their concerns and using their money (no matter how little). They have also had enough time to figure out what it is they are really dissatisfied about. This will be 2012 politicians biggest problem. The usual campaign rhetoric (spin, marketing, etc.) will fall on deaf ears. Candidates who have the conservative best interest of the country at heart and who are not entrenched in political machinery will probably fair the best.

In the meantime, State Governors are going to vigorously work on regaining the powers of States Rights. They are not going to be as readily bought by Federal leaders as has been the case in the past. More will challenge the Health Insurance Law and other over-reaching Federal regulations/agencies. The voters will back their efforts.

On the horizon for our country? Unfortunately, I think our growth is going to remain stagnant until at least 2018. Nothing will get this economy moving again until the average worker can buy the average house with 20% down and the monthly PITI does not exceed 25% of his income. Plain and simple. Present home-owners cannot accept what the real value of their homes must be, and until they do, and start selling them for the right prices, they *won't* sell, and the economy won't grow. Also, with the Feds latest move of buying $600 billion Treasury Securities I think we are going to see inflation. I think this move is going to cause more inflation than intended because even if the economy is stimulated, growth will not equate to more jobs, but as demand for goods increases, companies will naturally raise prices. (The Hotel industry bases price increases almost solely on demand rather than actual profit goals.) I think there is a growing disparity between national GDP (economic growth) and average voter economic growth. I think this is a new and untested twist to economics. I also think economic-great-minds deal with the same seductive lure of power and prestige as politicians. I think their decisions are with global corporations in mind, thinking that the benefits of corporate growth will eventually trickle down to the voter level. That is not going to happen in this decade (or not until the end of it). I think a wild card in what happens in D.C. is going to be voter dissatisfaction with the Fed and Treasury, and that future politicians will be closely watched re what economist company they keep. Voters might not have reached this level of sophistication yet, or even by the 2012 election, but it will be front and center in 2014, 2016 and 2018.

I think that America is going to stay the same or get better fairly soon. Republicans and Democrats want the same thing, though they have odd ways of making it happen. The economy will get better, but not until 2014 or later. Things take time to hit, and with more Republicans, the liberal standpoints may be overturned. (IE: healthcare issues and college tuition balance may change soon.)

As a state, I can say I hope that our Democratic population can help Ohio get out of the horrible economy we are in. We had some bad governors/senators and I can only hope the new people, despite their side, will help things get better.

I think the country is in for a Civil War personally. On one side I can see the "Like mother like daughter" situation and having us be highly taxed but more socialistic, like British rule. On the other hand, are we going to let that happen? Texas sure isn't, and I'm sure other states have the same feelings towards that. Civil war might occur again, or at least unrest.

Cant give you definite answer, coz it depends on every individual in America. But i think for them its a start of a new beginning, new hope. For those who are disappointed to the previous leaders will now have new hope for a brighter future..

These election results mean that america will grow stronger economically, socially and more healthy. Marijuana will take less lives now that california has voted it down. Also now we will all pay less taxes and we will use money for more important things like caring for our family or having fun. America is now in better shape!

I followed three elections: New York, California, and Iowa.
if the governors elected in these three states are any indication of a trend, I am VERY optimistic.

It seems to me that many of the Democrats that were defeated in the election were the moderate to conservative blue dog democrats. The South and the Midwest were the regions that saw the greatest turnover and these two regions generally are more conservative than the other parts of the country. The new Republicans that will make up the majority in the House of Representatives are mostly Tea Party backed and will have the expectation of their voters that they will stand up to Tea Party beliefs and not be compromising. In addition, because the middle-ground blue dogs were voted out of office, the Democrat Party will be more liberal as a whole. I believe the Republicans will pursue tax cuts and to repeal the heath bill while the Democrats will pursue further reform. However, due to the likely increase in partisanship there will be little incentive to compromise, they will only try and look good to their bases for 2012.