CNN Poll: Solid economy lifts Obama approval to 2014-high

[Mehmentum]

The president's party always get's credit or blame for the economy.  Democrats held both houses of congress when the economy crashed in 2008, but Bush got all of the blame.  Obama got the blame for the poor economy throughout his tenure despite Republicans controlling the House for most of it.

[Mehmentum]

Partisanship isn't a bad thing.

Hyper-partisanship, the kind that yourself, Tom DeLay and even many Democrats are advocates for is a bad thing. Taking credit for someone else's successes in order to mislead people to advance your is not a good thing. Opportunism has it's place sure but when everything decision is motivated by partisanship, pure ideology and desire for power and not by any sort of good will towards ones colleagues or ones electorate, it becomes a problem. This is why Congress is so unpopular.

The best kinds of politicians are the ones the pragmatic ones. The ones willing to work with the other side if it helps, not work against them purely out of some kind of tribalism.

If you looked at the election of 1800, it was just as partisan as our current elections are.  Jefferson and Adams were motivated by partisanship, ideology, and the desire to win power.  Jefferson won (so did his party).  So partisanship has been around as long as the republic has been around. And in several cases partisanship has helped clarify choices and set clear directions for the country. So it's, on balance, a force for good.

Jefferson governed with a united government (there was no filibuster back then).  Obviously if you have a united government, you can implement your policy goals without ill effects. 

However a united government is essentially impossible today because of the filibuster.  So the options are work with the other party or do nothing but shout at each other.  Sure, inaction will hurt the economy overall, but if you only care about partisanship (and not frivolous concepts such as 'doing the right thing' or 'serving your constituents', then hurting the economy is better than giving the other party anything they want. 

If you're the minority party and you only care about partisanship, you have even more incentive to not work with the other party since you'd be expected to make more concessions and any economic trouble will be blamed on the majority party.

If you actually like that, then I can't stop you.  I wonder if you'll like this system so much if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016, and they can't get anything at all done because the Democrats refuse to work with them.

[Mehmentum]

To answer your last paragraph, if my party won power in 2016, I certainly would not object to the Democrats refusing to cooperate.

Well then, your doing a pretty horrible job of being partisan.  Any partisan Republican worth their salt would blast the Democrats for filibustering or obstructing anything.  Maybe you should start drinking your own Kool-aid.  (Of course, I 100% expect you to change your tune once your party is in power, but that's beside the point.)

Most of the rest of your post isn't that important.  You demonstrated how a hyper-partisan system could theoretically work in the U.S, sure.  However, two parties constructively working out a deal that is acceptable to both of them is vastly preferable. 

Why?

A.) It better represents the interests of the electorate.  A compromise between the two parties will result in a bill somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, and be supported and liked by a larger portion of the electorate.

B.) It will lead to a less hostile and divided country. 

C.) A decline of partisanship will lead some voters to consider candidates for qualities other than their party label.  Incompetent or scandal ridden politicians can win in safe districts due to high partisanship.