There is an interesting essay in the Aug. 30 _New Yorker_, Louis Menand, "The Unpolitical Animal: How political science understands voters." I'm not sure if I have any particular response to it myself, but it does at least suggest that the kind of political analysis and debate that occurs on this list (or in the NYT for that matter) does not have much relevance to elections. The thrust of the article, as I understand it from a casual skim, is that voters do not have the remotest idea of what it is they are voting for or against.
I subscribe to J.K. Galbraith's analysis from _The Culture of Contentment_, which, to me, is still the best explanation of reality I've seen. Most Republicans are apolitical, but mostly because they hate people, not because they're entirely confused. Half of them vote for tax reductions and the other half for mean cultural discourse. Their party is excellent at delivering on the former, and screws over the latter faction. Democrats, meanwhile, are generally out-to-lunch about what they think they're voting for, but the blame for that lies in the DP, not the media. The post-New Deal, Republican-lite DP is a very muddled and dishonest thing.
It's indisputable that the quality of discussion is about as low as you can get. But again, that's a "bipartisan" thing. It's monopolistic co-respective behavior, in Schumpeter's term.