The Rise of Partisanship
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:43:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  The Rise of Partisanship
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Rise of Partisanship  (Read 1798 times)
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 02, 2010, 12:27:03 PM »

We've heard how Bush should have won by a landslide in 2004, but garnered only 51%. Or how Obama should have won by an even bigger landslide in 2008 with the financial crisis, but received only 53%. (Indeed, 46% for McCain was quite impressive in my opinion.) Perhaps, and perhaps unfortunately, we won't be seeing more landslides a la Johnson/Nixon/Reagan anytime soon, for either party.

I'd say that this is evidence of the fact that there are less and less real independents whose votes can and do change, and more and more partisans on both sides. Partisans who say "nothing could make me vote [other party]". But why is our political system growing more and more partisan, and more polarized?
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,030
Czech Republic


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2010, 02:54:51 PM »

No takers?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2010, 04:23:36 PM »

I have an answer, but I'm pretty sure you won't like it. Wink
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2010, 01:32:30 AM »

I'd say the precedence of cultural over economic issues is one reason. Cultural issues seem to divide people like nothing else. Also, the decline of the media into partisan talking points is another reason.

Finally, you have a good deal of moderates and Independents who are indifferent to or turned off by the whole process. That means that partisans on both sides get to carry the debate.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2010, 08:02:52 AM »

Well, I know that I would only vote Democratic if it was moderate (D) against moderate (R), or moderate (D) against nut (R), and the Democrats was qualified, unlike a certain candidate in 2008.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2010, 03:35:54 PM »

Only the parties themselves and their portrayal in the media are more polarized. Most people aren't. The parties are more polarized along ideological lines as a natural end result of the Southern realignment and the Reagan revolution. This is played up by the media for ratings and drama, and the elected politicians are eager to cater to that narrative for personal gain.
Logged
Free_Eagle
Newbie
*
Posts: 10
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2010, 10:25:05 PM »

The partisan elites are much more polarized than the American public.

Of course our political sphere here will show very strong opinions.

I think most of our problems in political discourse stem from the Gingrich-Clinton era.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2011, 11:23:26 AM »


I'd say that this is evidence of the fact that there are less and less real independents whose votes can and do change, and more and more partisans on both sides.

^ Matthew Dowd made that same mistake in thinking this.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2011, 02:04:19 PM »

I'd say the precedence of cultural over economic issues is one reason. Cultural issues seem to divide people like nothing else. Also, the decline of the media into partisan talking points is another reason.

Finally, you have a good deal of moderates and Independents who are indifferent to or turned off by the whole process. That means that partisans on both sides get to carry the debate.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Precedence of the cultural/social issues over economic issues is more than likely the main reason. I think there's more room for compromise on economic issues as opposed to cultural issues. Both parties have their wedge issues. Republicans exploit God, guns and gays to mobilize their base; Democrats tend to use the minimum wage, Social Security/Medicare to get their base out to vote. It's all about getting out the vote, and ultimately, more people are going to get out to vote if they feel passionately enough about an issue. That was the case in 2004 when the Republicans put so many anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot to increase "evangelical" turnout, and in 2008 Democrats made George W. Bush their punching bag.

The media is also to blame. We really do not have a watchdog media anymore, and the "mainstream media" has turned into partisan talking heads. There really is no impartial, objective reporting in the MSM. Americans tune into their echo chambers to hear the commentators just enforce their world views and ideological principles, not to obtain factual and balanced information. Just my opinion, though.

I agree with the person who posted that most Americans aren't as partisan as the media and politicians in general. It's really cliched but I think most ordinary people don't care whether you have an R or a D after your name as long as you have real solutions that's going to better their lives, you'll get their vote. That's why independents still decide our elections.

But, for better or for worse, I think people who really pay attention to politics and contemporary issues are skewed one way or the other. You almost have to be when your whole world revolves around nothing but the subject.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2011, 05:25:56 PM »
« Edited: January 02, 2011, 05:27:59 PM by Mecha In Name Only »

I'd say the precedence of cultural over economic issues is one reason. Cultural issues seem to divide people like nothing else. Also, the decline of the media into partisan talking points is another reason.

Finally, you have a good deal of moderates and Independents who are indifferent to or turned off by the whole process. That means that partisans on both sides get to carry the debate.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Precedence of the cultural/social issues over economic issues is more than likely the main reason. I think there's more room for compromise on economic issues as opposed to cultural issues. Both parties have their wedge issues. Republicans exploit God, guns and gays to mobilize their base; Democrats tend to use the minimum wage, Social Security/Medicare to get their base out to vote. It's all about getting out the vote, and ultimately, more people are going to get out to vote if they feel passionately enough about an issue. That was the case in 2004 when the Republicans put so many anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot to increase "evangelical" turnout, and in 2008 Democrats made George W. Bush their punching bag.

The media is also to blame. We really do not have a watchdog media anymore, and the "mainstream media" has turned into partisan talking heads. There really is no impartial, objective reporting in the MSM. Americans tune into their echo chambers to hear the commentators just enforce their world views and ideological principles, not to obtain factual and balanced information. Just my opinion, though.

I agree with the person who posted that most Americans aren't as partisan as the media and politicians in general. It's really cliched but I think most ordinary people don't care whether you have an R or a D after your name as long as you have real solutions that's going to better their lives, you'll get their vote. That's why independents still decide our elections.

But, for better or for worse, I think people who really pay attention to politics and contemporary issues are skewed one way or the other. You almost have to be when your whole world revolves around nothing but the subject.
Wow I completely agree with you.

I mean when you really think about it a lot of the landslides of the past 100 years or so really did revolve around how the people felt about the economy, fiscal issues, or foreign policy.  I mean even in the 1964 Election the threat of nuclear war probably weighed more on the minds of people than Civil Rights or other social issues (though let's be honest, even without the "BARRY GOLDWATER WANTS TO PLAY GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR ONEONEELEVENTY11111111!" commercial Johnson still would've walloped his ass, just not as badly).
Logged
The Economist
Rookie
**
Posts: 106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2011, 02:47:36 AM »

I think the notion that cultural issues being the divider and the media being partisan is a little off. To start with, our partisanship didn’t begin to reach these kinds of levels till the 1990s. Even to the end of the George H.W. Bush administration, you had a certain level of bipartisanship and amicability.

I think the real culprit is the rise of easy social media and communication. It’s now virtually so easy to have a blog up and running, to basically spread a meme within hours, and to have that reach the cable networks and then simply spread the meme. Back in the 1980s and the 1970s, it took a bit longer.

The other issue is that the New Deal era of 1932-1981 wasn’t some halcyon bipartisan era. It’s just the fact that Democrats had no real opposition for almost 50 years. The general prevailing attitude was deeply liberal and that’s been challenged since then. (Although even under Reagan and the elder Bush, there was still nowhere near the modern day level of partisanship).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.222 seconds with 11 queries.