This is not 1933 and Barack Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt

"Our system of government depends not only on how many votes you win, but how broadly distributed those votes are. This prevents one section or faction from railroading another. It is evident in the Electoral College and the House, but above all in the Senate, where 44 senators come from states that voted against Obama last year. That's a consequence of the fact that Obama's election - while historic in many respects, and the largest we have seen in 20 years - was still not as broad-based as many would like to believe."

I cribbed the title of this post from Jay Cost, where it appeared in the article with the excellent analysis above. I am unhappy that its obviousness escaped me. Despite Obama's vaunted veto proof Senate majority (60 senators), 44 senators come from states that did not back Obama's election, and 13 members of the majority came from states where Obama lost. This means that-- even assuming Obama had maintained his initial popularity (he hasn't)--Obama has only 47 senators who can back him unconditionally.

While I know something is wrong in the White House, I thought it boiled down to name calling, ridiculing, and bullying of the American populace. Turns out it is name calling, ridiculing, and bullying of the American populace plus a grave overestimation of Obama's mandate by the Obama people themselves. Do read the article.