The same things were said about Clinton in 94. After a time, everyone realized they needed to play nice to get re-elected. The freshmen GOP will come in like barnstormers but they'll calm after a bit when they realize their next election date is just around the corner and nothing has been accomplished.

Deliberate obstructionism, when you're not the minority to a supermajority, can work, or not. It's like Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in a six shooter, because it all depends on whether the public blames you for obstructing (in this case, if the Republicans go through with an effort to just paralyze and destroy Obama, if they then get blamed for whatever problems the country has in 2012, or they could effectively destroy him as the only roadblock to a Republican agenda, it's a fifty fifty shot)

As rocketpig said, it's politically advantageous for everyone to play nice with each other, but that secures both Obama and the new Congress.

You could easily turn that same statement around, you realize that?

As you said, it CAN work but I doubt these new House freshmen are going to be so eager to take the risk of putting themselves in a martyr position just to get rid of Obama. At the end of the day, it will be everyone for themselves (the way it should be).

The house of representative is the most corrupted place when it comes to government, these are the people that waste millions of tax dollars every year through pork spending and they get less attention because they do this in huge groups which makes them less visable. If moderates and liberals were spread out as conservatives are, the majority of the house would be democratic today just as the senate still is.

Being 'spread out' in terms of population distribution has very little effect on the number of congressional apportionments, and their relative parties. Since apportions are based on population, gerrymandering can only go so far. For example, where I live (Ohio), Cleveland has 2 congressmen in a very small area of space (Cuyahoga County).

If you want to argue it so badly, you can usually see that gerrymandering favors Democrats and not Republicans.

I disagree, gerrymandering helps the conservatives gain the vote of the uneducated.

You can disagree... but your disagreement apears to be devoid of any actual facts, reasoning or arguement.

As you've not provided any.

I can disagree the sun is needed for life on earth.  I'd guess people would want that backed up by some kind of arguement though.

To be the devil's advocate here, we can't prove that as the sun hasn't gone out yet.

My post came out glitched so I just did a quick edit to point out my stance.

Gerrymandering sole purpose is for electoral purposes, this is how we get the extreme conservatives elected to the house. There are no extreme liberals in the house because there is no such thing as a major minority of liberals living in the countryside of each states. This is how the tea pary came to be, there will never be such a movement from the left in the United States. Certain situations and unequalities create communism, we are way passed that.