The big difference is that the country is in a lot more trouble going into this election than it was going into the first Clinton term, or coming out of his last one. That's the only asymmetry I can see in the usual partisan cycle.

We've been in a lot worse shape when new presidents have taken over. The end of Carter's term comes to mind, when the economy was a lot worse than it is now. Nixon's resignation. Johnson--an incumbent--actually deciding not to run at all. WWII. The Depression.

The bar for "things are awful" seems a lot lower than it used to be.

I think you're fairly accurate on how things will work after the election.

McCain, even if he was Reagan himself, would be essentially shut down by a Congress and Senate that may actually end up veto-proof Democrat. And McCain is anything but Reagan--look for a lot of "deals" and "meeting Democrats halfway" which is code for basically doing what the Democrats want.

In addition, if McCain wins (the conventional wisdom will be that this is a miracle), the mainstream Republicans will see this as a sign in the heavens that the future belongs to "moderate" Republicans, which are basically rewarmed Democrats. The conservatives will be even further out of the picture than they are right now (Bush isn't considered a conservative on many issues, and McCain is worse).

It's not surprising that a number of conservatives actually hope Obama wins, so the next four years have a solid Democratic nameplate on them. Their hope is that the disaster of the resulting drive to socialism (and you can bet there will be one) will create a conservative "Carter-style" backlash.

Myself, I think this is a lousy way to look at things. There are enough people around already who would happily see things go to hell if it proves them right somehow.

The other flaw in this is that I don't see any Reagans or Goldwaters available in the bullpen. I have some hopes for McClintock and a couple of others, but that's a very long shot for 2012.

If his administration is a catatstophe, again, whether it's his fault or not, it will be "It was all Bush's fault." Hey, it's what the Reps used on Clinton, right? It didn't really work, but it reassured the faithful.

It might work better than you think. I'm already astounded by how smoothly Democrats are able to avoid having their major policies connected in any way to things like teen unemployment or energy supplies. Heck, the Democrats took both houses in 2007, and the economy promptly went to hell over the next year and a half. As far as I can tell, not the slightest stain of this has been attached to the Democrats. To be fair, it's hard to connect any specific Congressional action taken during that time to our current economic issues--maybe with the exception of oil prices--but I have a hard time believing that this would be so if the parties were reversed.

No, it's the "Bush Economy" now (it wasn't for the previous four years) even though nothing Bush did during this time could really be connected to any of the economic mess either.

People seem to have no idea how little actual change a president can accomplish single-handedly, especially on economic issues.

Obama, if he becomes president, is going to find out, as other presidents have, that his "honeymoon" will also be a test of the miracles he promised. Historically, gods that have not delivered the goods have not been treated well.