It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
Fair enough. Pew does good work, and I won't take issue with their methodology. 20 years is a long time to be doing this kind of study with relatively consistent questions, but it's a short time to be measuring division and polarization over the course of the country's history. We really have no idea if 1994 was a good or bad benchmark year to start measuring (like when climate change people use a specific start year to highlight or minimize change over a certain period).
Two things jumped out at me on my first reading:
1) Polarization, as they measure it, increased at a much greater rate among the politically engaged (1/3 of respondents, those who "follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time") than among the less engaged (2/3, those who, uh, "don't"). Apart from the depressing implication that the majority of respondents don't give that much of a shit about politics, it would seem that those who don't give a shit about politics didn't become polarized that much, even though they live in the same world as those who are politically engaged. This suggests that those who are politically engaged are affected by the environment of political engagement - that the environment itself may be a factor in their increasing polarization. What might be causing this polarization among those who are paying attention?
2) Polarization among elected officials in Washington predated polarization among the politically engaged: "Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap." By their methodology, a huge move toward polarization occurred between 1973 and 1993. This move toward polarization coincided with a worsening of the geographic integrity of congressional districts (gerrymandering) that had begun in the 1960's. The more gerrymandered a district, generally the more polarized the voting in it, and the more polarized the elected official was going to be, either because he/she conformed to more polarized views, or he/she felt compelled to be more polarized in DC due to the fear of being voted out.
I don't want to go all institutionalist here, but there's a saying among them that rules determine outcomes. You make the rules, and you create incentives and constraints on actors in the system, and you can pretty much determine what's going to happen. In this case, redistricting creates an incentive for polarized representation, which goes to Washington and creates a polarized environment where less bipartisan cooperation can occur. That polarized environment then affects the politically engaged who are following "what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time," who, seeing their elected officials acting polarized, take their cue and become more polarized themselves (the less politically engaged, not paying that much attention to the polarized political environment, remain less polarized themselves). It's a vicious cycle caused by noncompetitive redistricting that got out of hand 50 years ago.
Clinton News Network poll on Clinton. Unbiased I'm sure.
I am voting for Trump. That said, you'd have to be sort of blind to not see that unless some huge unforced errors occur with Hillary, she is going to win, and win big. And fuck, she has already survived the e-mail scandal, Benghazi, and the leaked DNC e-mails re: Bernie. She's teflon. It's over.
Clinton News Network poll on Clinton. Unbiased I'm sure.
I am voting for Trump. That said, you'd have to be sort of blind to not see that unless some huge unforced errors occur with Hillary, she is going to win, and win big. And fuck, she has already survived the e-mail scandal, Benghazi, and the leaked DNC e-mails re: Bernie. She's teflon. It's over.
Like I've said before, The Dems essentially punted on this election. They knew they had to run Hillary at some point just to make her go away. A marginally good candidate would have already wiped the floor with Hillary.
The GOP fumbled the punt and are currently kicking it backwards towards their end zone.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
Fair enough. Pew does good work, and I won't take issue with their methodology. 20 years is a long time to be doing this kind of study with relatively consistent questions, but it's a short time to be measuring division and polarization over the course of the country's history. We really have no idea if 1994 was a good or bad benchmark year to start measuring (like when climate change people use a specific start year to highlight or minimize change over a certain period).
Two things jumped out at me on my first reading:
1) Polarization, as they measure it, increased at a much greater rate among the politically engaged (1/3 of respondents, those who "follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time") than among the less engaged (2/3, those who, uh, "don't"). Apart from the depressing implication that the majority of respondents don't give that much of a shit about politics, it would seem that those who don't give a shit about politics didn't become polarized that much, even though they live in the same world as those who are politically engaged. This suggests that those who are politically engaged are affected by the environment of political engagement - that the environment itself may be a factor in their increasing polarization. What might be causing this polarization among those who are paying attention?
2) Polarization among elected officials in Washington predated polarization among the politically engaged: "Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap." By their methodology, a huge move toward polarization occurred between 1973 and 1993. This move toward polarization coincided with a worsening of the geographic integrity of congressional districts (gerrymandering) that had begun in the 1960's. The more gerrymandered a district, generally the more polarized the voting in it, and the more polarized the elected official was going to be, either because he/she conformed to more polarized views, or he/she felt compelled to be more polarized in DC due to the fear of being voted out.
I don't want to go all institutionalist here, but there's a saying among them that rules determine outcomes. You make the rules, and you create incentives and constraints on actors in the system, and you can pretty much determine what's going to happen. In this case, redistricting creates an incentive for polarized representation, which goes to Washington and creates a polarized environment where less bipartisan cooperation can occur. That polarized environment then affects the politically engaged who are following "what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time," who, seeing their elected officials acting polarized, take their cue and become more polarized themselves (the less politically engaged, not paying that much attention to the polarized political environment, remain less polarized themselves). It's a vicious cycle caused by noncompetitive redistricting that got out of hand 50 years ago.
The thing I see with polarization that's changed the last 30 years is the 24 hour news cycle. Every action is being watched now. So the idea of backroom deal between Republicans and Democrats is over with. Clinton and Newt had a few of those and they worked well. If that happened now, conservative news networks work blast Republicans for caving to Democrats and liberal news networks would do the same to Democrats.
Then as a populace, I do think with Facebook and Twitter, people freak out more about stupid shit, on both sides. Or shut gets blown up without the proper facts quicker. Shit that 30 years ago, no one would have even heard about. One example is people think crime and police shootings are way worse now, when the statistics show that is less crime and police shootings.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
Fair enough. Pew does good work, and I won't take issue with their methodology. 20 years is a long time to be doing this kind of study with relatively consistent questions, but it's a short time to be measuring division and polarization over the course of the country's history. We really have no idea if 1994 was a good or bad benchmark year to start measuring (like when climate change people use a specific start year to highlight or minimize change over a certain period).
Two things jumped out at me on my first reading:
1) Polarization, as they measure it, increased at a much greater rate among the politically engaged (1/3 of respondents, those who "follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time") than among the less engaged (2/3, those who, uh, "don't"). Apart from the depressing implication that the majority of respondents don't give that much of a shit about politics, it would seem that those who don't give a shit about politics didn't become polarized that much, even though they live in the same world as those who are politically engaged. This suggests that those who are politically engaged are affected by the environment of political engagement - that the environment itself may be a factor in their increasing polarization. What might be causing this polarization among those who are paying attention?
2) Polarization among elected officials in Washington predated polarization among the politically engaged: "Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap." By their methodology, a huge move toward polarization occurred between 1973 and 1993. This move toward polarization coincided with a worsening of the geographic integrity of congressional districts (gerrymandering) that had begun in the 1960's. The more gerrymandered a district, generally the more polarized the voting in it, and the more polarized the elected official was going to be, either because he/she conformed to more polarized views, or he/she felt compelled to be more polarized in DC due to the fear of being voted out.
I don't want to go all institutionalist here, but there's a saying among them that rules determine outcomes. You make the rules, and you create incentives and constraints on actors in the system, and you can pretty much determine what's going to happen. In this case, redistricting creates an incentive for polarized representation, which goes to Washington and creates a polarized environment where less bipartisan cooperation can occur. That polarized environment then affects the politically engaged who are following "what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time," who, seeing their elected officials acting polarized, take their cue and become more polarized themselves (the less politically engaged, not paying that much attention to the polarized political environment, remain less polarized themselves). It's a vicious cycle caused by noncompetitive redistricting that got out of hand 50 years ago.
Fair and Chinteresting points. Thank you for your service. I guess we'll see how it plays out.
My best guess is we see a margin on the electoral map no more than Obama/McCain. And at this point I would take that as a sign of significant polarization if Donald Trump still garners that level of th popular vote.
Clinton News Network poll on Clinton. Unbiased I'm sure.
I am voting for Trump. That said, you'd have to be sort of blind to not see that unless some huge unforced errors occur with Hillary, she is going to win, and win big. And fuck, she has already survived the e-mail scandal, Benghazi, and the leaked DNC e-mails re: Bernie. She's teflon. It's over.
Like I've said before, The Dems essentially punted on this election. They knew they had to run Hillary at some point just to make her go away. A marginally good candidate would have already wiped the floor with Hillary.
The GOP fumbled the punt and are currently kicking it backwards towards their end zone.
It'll narrow. An upstart Obama only beat McCain by 7% after 8 years of a rep president with an approval rating in the 30s and worldwide economic collapse. Politics are too polarized these days to have a regan/Mondale populous beat down in the 15% range.
But Trump is done on the electoral map, pending some type of disaster email leak. Even a fuckup at the debate (like Obama had in 2012) won't matter. Enough said on that.
The country is no more polarized than any other era. It's the representation that's more polarized and which creates such a toxic atmosphere. That's why we need competitive redistricting at the national level (California did this a few years back and is already seeing a better political climate) to get more cooperative representation, and comprehensive campaign finance reform to limit special-interest influence.
Another 59-41 rout like 1984 is entirely possible.
You're one of my favorite classy poasters, so I respectfully disagree that these aren't more polarized than 30 years ago. Lot of data out there that would back it up.
Agree on your point of redistricting and campaign finance reform will help address.
I'd like to see data on how the US of 1986 was less polarized than it is now. The electorate, not the representation. We argued over involvement in the Middle East and Central America, over whether an ex-actor could be trusted with the nuclear codes and to deal with those crafty communists, we had the Moral Majority telling us what to do in the bedroom, what to do with deficits and taxation, school busing, the crack epidemic and gang violence, etc.
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
Fair enough. Pew does good work, and I won't take issue with their methodology. 20 years is a long time to be doing this kind of study with relatively consistent questions, but it's a short time to be measuring division and polarization over the course of the country's history. We really have no idea if 1994 was a good or bad benchmark year to start measuring (like when climate change people use a specific start year to highlight or minimize change over a certain period).
Two things jumped out at me on my first reading:
1) Polarization, as they measure it, increased at a much greater rate among the politically engaged (1/3 of respondents, those who "follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time") than among the less engaged (2/3, those who, uh, "don't"). Apart from the depressing implication that the majority of respondents don't give that much of a shit about politics, it would seem that those who don't give a shit about politics didn't become polarized that much, even though they live in the same world as those who are politically engaged. This suggests that those who are politically engaged are affected by the environment of political engagement - that the environment itself may be a factor in their increasing polarization. What might be causing this polarization among those who are paying attention?
2) Polarization among elected officials in Washington predated polarization among the politically engaged: "Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap." By their methodology, a huge move toward polarization occurred between 1973 and 1993. This move toward polarization coincided with a worsening of the geographic integrity of congressional districts (gerrymandering) that had begun in the 1960's. The more gerrymandered a district, generally the more polarized the voting in it, and the more polarized the elected official was going to be, either because he/she conformed to more polarized views, or he/she felt compelled to be more polarized in DC due to the fear of being voted out.
I don't want to go all institutionalist here, but there's a saying among them that rules determine outcomes. You make the rules, and you create incentives and constraints on actors in the system, and you can pretty much determine what's going to happen. In this case, redistricting creates an incentive for polarized representation, which goes to Washington and creates a polarized environment where less bipartisan cooperation can occur. That polarized environment then affects the politically engaged who are following "what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time," who, seeing their elected officials acting polarized, take their cue and become more polarized themselves (the less politically engaged, not paying that much attention to the polarized political environment, remain less polarized themselves). It's a vicious cycle caused by noncompetitive redistricting that got out of hand 50 years ago.
1. Gerrymandering. 2. Rise of identity/cultural politics. Before the 1960s minorities were largely excluded from the political system, and their increasing inclusion has widened the frame of what should be contested. 3. Increased speed of the news cycle, and social media driving people toward self-selected reporting (Hi Derek), creating confirmation biases and distrust of supposedly apolitical arbiters of the system.
Clinton News Network poll on Clinton. Unbiased I'm sure.
I am voting for Trump. That said, you'd have to be sort of blind to not see that unless some huge unforced errors occur with Hillary, she is going to win, and win big. And fuck, she has already survived the e-mail scandal, Benghazi, and the leaked DNC e-mails re: Bernie. She's teflon. It's over.
Like I've said before, The Dems essentially punted on this election. They knew they had to run Hillary at some point just to make her go away. A marginally good candidate would have already wiped the floor with Hillary.
The GOP fumbled the punt and are currently kicking it backwards towards their end zone.
Tend to agree. No crystal ball or anything, but I am guessing a moderate establishment type like Rubio or Kasich would be crushing her. But, everyone wanted to throw a fit this year and show DC how much they hate them. Well, I support that vitriol and hate DC as much as anyone, but look what we got for it. Hillary. Fuck.
I do find it odd that all the shit Trump talked and gaffes he had through the primary season caused his numbers to go up, but since the general kicked off it has been the opposite. The swagger and bombastic tirades are no longer working. I like that he is a non-scripted dude and not owned by anyone (yet), but he is just so far off message and the message he has is so muddled that the GOP is literally going to lose the election to the worst candidate the Dems have run in a generation.
You actually have to try to lose to someone with the off the chart negatives of Hillary. How do you do that? Run the one guy in America with worse negatives. I want to kick something.
Comments
This country has always been made up of people with vastly divergent viewpoints, and issues to divide us. Twenty years before that you had the Vietnam War and civil Rights movement. Thirty years before that you had a depression that drove some (fortunately not many) to fascist and communist parties here in the US. Twenty years before that you had income inequality that resulted in the original Progressive/Bull Moose movements, and a few years before that you had Grover Cleveland lampooned with Ma Ma where's my pa, gone to the White House ha ha ha. Before that you had issues of Reconstruction, a result of a little squabble about secession and slavery. The weird thing now is that we're as rich, healthy, prosperous and secure as we've ever been, with fewer real reasons to get at each others' throats, yet the impression is that things are worse. One big factor is information/media; a cop gets shot in a flyover state today, and the whole country knows about it and is talking about it within hours, whereas even, say, 30 years ago, it wouldn't have made anything but local news.
Gerrymandering serves to exaggerate the divisions within the country by electing polarized candidates (and placing a premium on polarizing behavior once they're elected). The more cooperative candidates elected through a system of more competitive redistricting will serve to temper those divisions. But the divisions are always there, in some form or another.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/#interactive
Two things jumped out at me on my first reading:
1) Polarization, as they measure it, increased at a much greater rate among the politically engaged (1/3 of respondents, those who "follow what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time") than among the less engaged (2/3, those who, uh, "don't"). Apart from the depressing implication that the majority of respondents don't give that much of a shit about politics, it would seem that those who don't give a shit about politics didn't become polarized that much, even though they live in the same world as those who are politically engaged. This suggests that those who are politically engaged are affected by the environment of political engagement - that the environment itself may be a factor in their increasing polarization. What might be causing this polarization among those who are paying attention?
2) Polarization among elected officials in Washington predated polarization among the politically engaged: "Forty years ago, in the 93rd Congress (1973-74), fully 240 representatives and 29 senators were in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Twenty years ago (the 103rd Congress from 1993-94) had nine representatives and three senators in between the most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat in their respective chambers. Today, there is no overlap." By their methodology, a huge move toward polarization occurred between 1973 and 1993. This move toward polarization coincided with a worsening of the geographic integrity of congressional districts (gerrymandering) that had begun in the 1960's. The more gerrymandered a district, generally the more polarized the voting in it, and the more polarized the elected official was going to be, either because he/she conformed to more polarized views, or he/she felt compelled to be more polarized in DC due to the fear of being voted out.
I don't want to go all institutionalist here, but there's a saying among them that rules determine outcomes. You make the rules, and you create incentives and constraints on actors in the system, and you can pretty much determine what's going to happen. In this case, redistricting creates an incentive for polarized representation, which goes to Washington and creates a polarized environment where less bipartisan cooperation can occur. That polarized environment then affects the politically engaged who are following "what is going on in government and public affairs most of the time," who, seeing their elected officials acting polarized, take their cue and become more polarized themselves (the less politically engaged, not paying that much attention to the polarized political environment, remain less polarized themselves). It's a vicious cycle caused by noncompetitive redistricting that got out of hand 50 years ago.
Anyway, similar to Boorswiin's points:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/
The GOP fumbled the punt and are currently kicking it backwards towards their end zone.
Then as a populace, I do think with Facebook and Twitter, people freak out more about stupid shit, on both sides. Or shut gets blown up without the proper facts quicker. Shit that 30 years ago, no one would have even heard about. One example is people think crime and police shootings are way worse now, when the statistics show that is less crime and police shootings.
Just my thoughts, fuck off.
My best guess is we see a margin on the electoral map no more than Obama/McCain. And at this point I would take that as a sign of significant polarization if Donald Trump still garners that level of th popular vote.
2. Rise of identity/cultural politics. Before the 1960s minorities were largely excluded from the political system, and their increasing inclusion has widened the frame of what should be contested.
3. Increased speed of the news cycle, and social media driving people toward self-selected reporting (Hi Derek), creating confirmation biases and distrust of supposedly apolitical arbiters of the system.
I do find it odd that all the shit Trump talked and gaffes he had through the primary season caused his numbers to go up, but since the general kicked off it has been the opposite. The swagger and bombastic tirades are no longer working. I like that he is a non-scripted dude and not owned by anyone (yet), but he is just so far off message and the message he has is so muddled that the GOP is literally going to lose the election to the worst candidate the Dems have run in a generation.
You actually have to try to lose to someone with the off the chart negatives of Hillary. How do you do that? Run the one guy in America with worse negatives. I want to kick something.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/