Rapid changes in power have become the new normal in American politics. Here's why

[andym]

Rapid changes in power have become the new normal in American politics. Here’s why
Analysis by Ronald Brownstein, CNN
Sun, May 10, 2026 at 3:00 AM PDT
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/rapid-changes-power-become-normal-100050651.html

The article begins touting "the extraordinary run of volatility" in that has seen control of the Presidency, House and Senate change since 2000, which was not the case in the 20th century.

"Part of the explanation for this volatility is that whenever they do win power, both parties usually have only managed to scratch out small majorities. These smaller majorities leave them with little cushion for the midterm losses that have always been common for the president’s party."
-snip-
"In their book “Identity Crisis,” UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck and co-authors John Sides and Michael Tesler, argued that the 2016 election culminated a long-term shift in the basic conflict between the parties from economic to cultural issues. Around polarizing questions including on immigration, racial diversity and LGBTQ rights, they wrote, Trump tilted the axis of political debate “to competing visions of American identity and inclusiveness.”

“For most of our lifetime, politics was contested over the New Deal issues —the size and role of government,” Vavreck said. “Those days are so gone. We are not (primarily) fighting over the tax rate anymore. In 2016, Trump raised these identity-inflected issues (and) now … we are fighting about who deserves to be an American.”
-snip-

"Paradoxically though, the large number of voters firmly anchored in either party has increased the clout of the smaller group that is not. Swing voters tend to be the Americans who place less priority on the cultural and ideological firefights between the parties than on their own immediate economic circumstances — about which they have been persistently negative for years."
-snip-
more at the link.

-----
My opinion: This article raises points that are not as often discussed as they should be when trying to understand what the parties are appealing to and how American politics' dynamic is playing out currently.
-----
To give you a good idea of the article for those to busy to read it and due to copyright limitations on direct quoting, I've asked an AI to summarize (apologies in advance to the anti-AI slop obsessive, please don't read below if you care about this).
AI Summary:
The editorial argues that frequent shifts in U.S. political control have become a structural feature of modern politics rather than a temporary reaction to individual presidents or campaigns.

Its main points are:

American elections have become unusually volatile, with party control of Congress or the White House changing far more often since 2000 than in prior decades. One reason is that both parties now tend to govern with very narrow majorities, so even modest midterm backlash can flip control.

The deeper cause, according to the piece, is that the electorate has hardened into two large partisan blocs divided less by traditional economic policy and more by identity, culture, immigration, race, and social values. That leaves fewer persuadable voters, but those remaining swing voters become decisive.

Those swing voters are often less engaged in cultural battles and more focused on everyday economic stress. Persistent dissatisfaction over wages, affordability, inequality, grocery prices, housing, and inflation leads many of them to punish whichever party currently holds power.

The editorial also argues that presidents worsen the cycle by governing aggressively once in office. Both parties increasingly use narrow partisan legislation, reconciliation bills, and executive actions rather than slower bipartisan compromise. That approach energizes opponents and quickly produces backlash.

The piece compares today’s instability to earlier turbulent eras in U.S. history, especially the decades before the Civil War and the late 19th century, when rapid economic and social change also prevented either party from establishing durable dominance.

The conclusion is pessimistic: the cycle may continue until either living standards improve enough to reduce voter anger, a president successfully governs more cautiously and builds broader support, or a major crisis reshapes the political system and allows one party to form a lasting coalition. Until then, voters are likely to keep swinging between parties in search of solutions neither side has yet delivered.

[Freddie]

1. Bipartisan compromise? 😂😂

Don’t blame us. “Bipartisanship is date rape” - a prominent Republican (Gingrich I think). They’re that vile.
The good news is if swing voters base their votes on economic issues, November looks good.

[Skittles]

2. Dems have to waste so much time cleaning up repuke mess

then repukes get to hit the ground running and have more time to fuck things up again

it is a VICIOUS cycle