Chris Cillizza of The Fix offers a post on recent findings that Americans are – get this – not happy with their government and the future of the country. Not too suprising, I suppose, as our past two presidential administrations haven’t exactly topped the approval charts. Not to bum you out over the holidays or anything, but there are some interesting thoughts and numbers here:

Americans are deeply pessimistic about the state of the country and its future, according to a series of new national polls, a negativity that puts politicians in a difficult place as they try to woo voters and keep hold on office.

In the  new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 63 percent said the country was headed in the wrong direction, the highest number in President Obama’s term to date. A similar 67 percent said the country was headed off on the wrong track in a Washington Post/ABC News survey released earlier this week.

New Pew data paints an even darker picture of Americans’ views about our current standing — particularly in regards the economy. Nearly nine in ten Americans say the current economic conditions are either "fair" or "poor" and there is an overwhelming sense that we as a country are losing ground.

Fully 67 percent of the sample said the country was "losing ground" on the budget deficit — today’s expected House vote on the tax cut compromise won’t help there — while 64 percent say ground is being lost on "cost of living". Two thirds (63 percent) said the country is losing ground on the "availability of good-paying jobs" and 58 percent said the same about the "rich-poor gap".

The numbers are startling and make clear the challenge before President Obama — or any politician — hoping to convince people that better days are indeed ahead.

Republican pollster Bill McInturff said that the overall pessimism is intertwined with the state of the economy, noting that more people in the NBC/WSJ poll said that the economic recession was the issue that has impacted them most this decade — more so than even the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The only things that would significantly change the right direction number is a substantially better economy or an event like 9/11 that rallied the country," added McInturff.

Barring that, what’s a politician to do?

Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster, said consistency is the key to surviving the country’s bout with pessimism. "Once [politicians] decide upon the best policy/solutions, they need to spend more time than ever before in making sure the public is invested and are continually kept informed," said Yang. "Leadership is about good government, but it is also about communicating good government effectively."

That sort of constant education effort takes time — and money out of campaign coffers. But, with Americans seemingly ready to believe the worst about just about everything, it may be an elected official’s only path back to office in the coming months and years.

Though we’re now more than a month past the November elections, I still get the jitters when I turn on the television and see what looks like the potential for a political advertisement. I’m probably not the only one, either, following a particularly negative campaign season.

One of the biggest complaints heard about the election was the overabundance of negative political campaigns. Instead of hearing about what the candidate was actually going to do while in office, most just slammed their opponents – in print, television on the radio. After a while, you start to relate the candidates’ tactics to those you might see in a high school campaign for class president, except these political campaigns are for the men and women that will be deciding things like how much we’re going to pay in taxes. Yikes.

This growing trend of incivility in politics has not gone unnoticed. In fact, a study of this trend was recently released by the Center for Political Participation at Allegheny College, co-authored by Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) Associate Professor of Political Science Michael R. Wolf.

The most recent phase of the study, which was conducted during the last four days before the November election, shows that Americans are calling the atmosphere “increasingly nasty” and potentially harmful for continued democracy in our country. But, the study says, the good news is that a large majority see the potential for passionate and respectful campaigning in the future.

A little less than half (46%) of the registered voters who were surveyed said that the 2010 election was “the most negative” they’d ever seen and 63% of responders said politics had become less civil since President Barack Obama took office – though the responders blamed different sources. Whatever the cause, 64% of study responders said the current tone of politics is unhealthy for our democracy, with 17% saying the tone is healthy and 14% saying it has little impact.

While these numbers indicate the harmful effects of negative campaigning, it turns out that nine out of 10 registered voters are actually optimistic that candidates can conduct aggressive, but respectful, campaigns.

It seems we will just have to wait until the next election rolls around to find out if the candidates themselves are optimistic that respectful campaigning works. Here’s hoping they figure it out, so I can relax next time I flip on the tube.

Indiana’s 24 new members of the General Assembly make for an unusually large freshman class. But how about these House newcomer totals: 60 of 110 total in Michigan; 75 of 163 in Missouri; and 128 of 400 in New Hampshire? What will be the impact? Stateline reports:

If you see someone wandering around lost in the Michigan Capitol when the state House and Senate convene next month, there’s a good chance it will be a legislator. The 110-member House of Representatives will include 60 newcomers — all of whom will arrive in Lansing without any state legislative experience whatsoever.

The huge turnover in the Michigan House — the result not only of an unhappy electorate, but also of strict term limits that forced out 34 incumbents — has many political observers wondering what will happen when so many novices suddenly find themselves with so much power over the direction of state policy.

“It’s almost impossible to forecast,” says Craig Ruff, a Lansing political consultant who estimates more than 90 percent of all members of the Michigan House will have no more than two years on the job. At the very least, Ruff says, it could make for some interesting political theater, even within the newly elected Republican majority, as first-term members may not wish to be shepherded by their own legislative leaders.

“It’s much harder to enforce discipline when people aren’t accustomed to being disciplined,” Ruff says, noting that some lawmakers may be inclined to ask a simple question of their leaders: “I’ve got one vote. You’ve got one vote. What makes you so supreme?”

Similar scenarios may emerge in other capitols. The 2010 election cycle is frequently noted for its historic turnover in governor’s mansions, with 28 new chief executives about to take office in the coming weeks. But because of term limits, retirements and the ouster of hundreds of incumbents nationwide this year, there will also be a huge number of state legislators coming to the job for the first time. In many states, including Maryland, Nevada and Maine, incoming freshmen have already taken crash courses on everything ranging from the basics of legislative procedure to the right way to speak with reporters.

Nationwide, the turnover in state legislatures will be about 25 percent, a number that Tim Storey, an elections analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, describes as an “extraordinarily high” number in a non-redistricting year.

In several states, as in Michigan, first-time legislators will comprise roughly half of all members in one or both chambers, bringing a new and unpredictable dynamic to statehouses where clout and experience often rule. In Arkansas, for example, where term limits ensured plenty of turnover even before ballots were cast, 44 of 100 members of the state House will be new next year, with no state-level legislative experience under their belts.

In next-door Missouri, 75 of 163 House members will be state legislative novices. So large is the class of “true freshman” GOP representatives in the Missouri House that it outnumbers the chamber’s entire Democratic caucus, as well as the number of returning Republicans.

In New Hampshire, which does not have term limits, the 400-member House of Representatives — the largest state legislative chamber in the nation — will have 128 fresh faces next year, all of them new to the business of state lawmaking.

As was expected, Nancy Pelosi retained her post as Democratic House Leader yesterday by a vote of 150-43 over Blue Dog Heath Shuler. See a full Politico article and video of Shuler’s takeaways from the vote here.

Pelosi’s win as Democratic leader was expected, but the bumpy ride was perhaps the greatest challenge to her authority since she claimed the speaker’s gavel four years ago. Pelosi defeated conservative North Carolina Democrat Heath Shuler, who ran for minority leader saying, “We need to include others in leadership.”

Pelosi’s victory all but assures that the Democratic leadership team will remain intact despite a historic loss of at least 61 seats in the Nov. 2 election. Several moderate lawmakers in the anti-Pelosi camp used two days of private meetings to vent their frustrations, and in some cases blame Pelosi for the heavy Democratic losses. (See: Democrats in chaos over Nancy Pelosi’s power)

Separately, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who declined to challenge Pelosi for minority leader, was elected minority whip by acclamation on a quick voice vote.

"She is the face that defeated us in this last election," said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), who lost reelection on Nov. 2. “The truth is Nancy Pelosi’s season has passed, and she’s the face of the defeat two weeks ago at the polls.”

Three Democrats in the Shuler camp — Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike Ross of Arkansas and Larry Kissell of North Carolina — have already vowed to vote against Pelosi on the House floor in January.

Shuler was surprised he did as well as he did; the 43 votes represent more than 20 percent of the Democratic caucus.

OK, we know the election of two weeks ago brought a bigger tsunami wave of new faces to Congress than even the National Weather Service could have predicted. But how new are they as a group when compared to the 2006 class?

A few of the demographics (for just the newcomers):

• Advanced degree: two-thirds in 2010; 80% in 2006
• Medical or dental degree: 8% in 2010; 2% in 2006
• Military veterans: 25% in 2010; less than 12% in 2006
• Women: 13% in 2010; 18% in 2006
• Minorities: 11% in both years

Demographics aside, the big question is how will they govern? Stay tuned for the answer to that one.

Media research company Experian Simmons recently documented the top 15 shows watched by Republicans and Democrats. As you’d expect, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann top the respective lists. However, there is NO crossover between the two lists. Here are the top 5 (and read a post on the survey at Outside the Beltway):

Republicans

1. Glenn Beck
2. The Amazing Race
3. Modern Family
4. American Idol
5. V

Democrats

1. Countdown with Keith Olbermann
2. Mad Men
3. Dexter
4. Kourtney & Khloe Take Miami
5. 90210

Look, let’s all agree the sitcom gold standard is still "Family Ties," and just move forward … together.

Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan and Chamber staffer Chase Downham.

Rumor has it that three members of Congress (Democrat senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, as well as Republican senator Olympia Snow) are at least thinking about switching parties. The results of past such moves are definitely mixed.

According to Congress.org:

The biggest reason that people speculate about lawmakers switching parties is that it might help them get re-elected. (Manchin, Nelson and Snowe are up in 2012.)

But will it? We took a look at some recent lawmakers who switched parties to see what happened next.

Failures

The government’s most recent party switcher is Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA). He spent almost 30 years as a Republican and switched to the Democrats in 2009, at least in part because he thought he had a better chance of winning reelection.

That logic turned out to be highly flawed: Specter didn’t even make it to the November general election, as he lost the Democratic primary to Joe Sestak.

A couple of months later, Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL) suffered a similar fate. Griffith was elected as a Democrat in 2008, switched parties just a year after joining Congress, and lost the Republican Party primary in Alabama’s fifth district by nearly 25 points.

And then there’s Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

Crist was elected as a Republican in 2006 and decided to run for Senate this year, but when it appeared he was close to losing the Republican primary to Marco Rubio, he dropped out of the party and ran as an independent.

Rubio won the general election by 20 points anyway.

Successes

In contrast to those three, a handful of politicians have successfully made the switch in recent years.

Most prominent among them is Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, who was elected to the Senate in 1986 as a Democrat. He traded teams and joined the Republican Party in 1994 as part of the Newt-Gingrich-orchestrated wave election, and he has cruised to reelection three times since, including this year.

Shelby isn’t the only one to have turned on his original party and lived to tell about it.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) is the oldest man in Congress—he was first elected in 1980—and always considered himself a conservative Democrat.

Hall even helped found the Blue Dog Coalition, the fiscally conservative group of Democrats that lost two dozen seats in last week’s midterms.

But Hall has been able to hold onto his since his switch to the Republican Party in 2004, and it looks like he can serve until he’s ready to retire: He won 73 percent of the votes last week.

And the rest

There are also several recent examples of Congressmen who switched parties with limited aims.

Former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) served 12 years as a Republican, then left the party to become an independent and caucus with Democrats in 2001. He never sought reelection, so it’s hard to draw any particular lesson.

The experience of Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) is similar to Jeffords’.

Campbell was elected as a Democrat in 1992, changed parties three years into his term, won reelection in 1998 and retired in 2004, so the switch didn’t appear to do any harm.