Ok, you can agree or disagree on this.

I have been reading many opinions, news, listening to people talk and so on...and early on, probably around the Summer of last year, when the elections were still going strong, I have realized something.

Regardless of party affiliation, most people wanted a much more radical change in politics and way of life than any of the candidates could offer. Yeah, Ron Paul has offered radical changes indeed, but perhaps he scared off many people with some of his ideas.
What ideas were those, are the ones that make Americans even more isolated than they were already. Bush managed to do great harm in international relations and many will not be so eager to jump into anything that USA will ask for and on top the "fear of terrorism" pushed the people into even more isolation and made them to be more concerned and worried than ever....and to top it off, we got a giant economic recession turning into a nightmare.

Ron Paul had really good points about the wars and the negative effects of meddling in the middle-east and having armies on places where there is no point (germany for example) of having armies anymore and so on, and voicing back what the Constitution says. I think his Achilles' heel was of being a republican , even if he is a good republican, I think Bush really managed to destroy the credibility of the party for most people.
Meanwhile we had Obama and Clinton, which were kinda confirmed to be the party leader figures to be the candidate and Obama built his movement on "change".
Many people thought, that Obama's "change" thing is only a beginning of "change politics" and soon more changes to follow.
Unfortunately this entire thing is turning into a big noise for nothing, since there is no 'change' in sight and many people feel cheated by this new administration, which isn't doing enough to crawl out of this mess we're having today.

People wanted more and the first disappointments came in when Obama decided to keep on board some of the figures from the Bush government and on top of it, selected his executive branch from the Clinton-era, which is kinda going back for the past for help, and that's rarely a good idea.

In my opinion, to "change" Washington, Washington needs fresh blood completely. Out with the old and tried (and failed) and in with new faces and new ideas. This is what most people wanted. Be a republican, democrat or independent, the only way to earn new politics is to change the people who are put in charge for it.

Change, cannot be done with the old ones, who are all have some sort of baggage from the past or connections, that lead back to the old governments somehow.

So.....going back for the title..what I meant, is "What people really want" is change and entirely new way of dealing with things..but unfortunately we have yet to see any sign of real change from the new administration, and to tell you the truth, I have my doubts, that we will see anything significant from these tried-failed politicians, and the people are desperate to hear new ideas and new approaches.
That is why many are dissatisfied, regardless of party affiliation.

That is an interesting observation. I do not understand, why Ron Paul keeps an affiliation with a party, that hasn't done anything good, while being at power so many times.

When he said "abolish FED", people fainted. Their whole life they were being told that FED is there for a good reason.

As for the change, from my observation, and I know it sound as if I do not like Americans (as if liking should have anything to do with interpretation of our observations), most people expect one and the same thing: They expect politicians to make it so that they work less, get more benefits and that their stupid debts would turn into well-performing investments.

Is anything really changing? Were these expectations any different from those of ancient people, looking at their high priest, sacrificing something or somebody for the change?

I agree with your post for the most part, but the "old and tried" WERE replaced with new and fresh, and look what's happening. Change to achieve an objective is great, but change for the sake of change is very bad.

We'd have to wipe the slate completely clean, from the most junior senator up to the President, in order to achieve the "changing of the guard" you're speaking of. Great idea in theory, but imagine the chaos that the nation would face as a result. Could we endure that chaos and come out of it intact? My cynical side says no, because we're too fragmented as a nation when it comes to our priorities and ideas.

I think what we need to do is start listening to the candidates and researching their stances on key issues, not merely making note of party affiliations and voting a straight ticket.