American democracy has ground to a halt.

[Annatar]

Although I am opposed to corporate money in politics this idea out there that getting it out of politics would de-polarise things is completely wrong. Corporate money often goes to moderate and centrist candidates. If donations only came from small time donors, only conviction politicians who were not centrists would get elected and politics would polarise far more. Normal partisans are not going to give money to centrists, only corporations will, in fact  I would argue big money has prevented American politics from polarising at a faster rate.

Now I think polarisation is occurring because unlike the 1950’s the population is far more heterogenous in its world views, and different voting groups have radically different world views, a fact that inevitable leads to polarisation. Elites are not responsible for polarisation, when you have for example one group that is traditionalist and believes in traditional gender roles and family organisation and another who is totally opposed to that worldview and wants to get rid of the old family structures you are going to get polarisation, it’s not a question of whether some people are good or evil it’s just that with very different worldviews you get polarised politics.
Another example would be if some voters believe in god and are highly religious and that is the foundation of their life and their moral guide and another group think believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy and don’t recognise religion as a valid reason for someone to think something is immoral behaviour you are going to get intense polarisation.

Just on corporate money, I want to get to rid of it because it stops the people from choosing their politicians properly, I think polarisation is a good thing as it allows for a real clash of ideas and corporate money advantages candidates who just want power and not those that have strong ideological convictions. I want to see debates between Old Testament believers and militant atheists on the floor of congress.  

[darklordoftech]

Although I am opposed to corporate money in politics this idea out there that getting it out of politics would de-polarise things is completely wrong. Corporate money often goes to moderate and centrist candidates. If donations only came from small time donors, only conviction politicians who were not centrists would get elected and politics would polarise far more. Normal partisans are not going to give money to centrists, only corporations will, in fact  I would argue big money has prevented American politics from polarising at a faster rate.

Now I think polarisation is occurring because unlike the 1950’s the population is far more heterogenous in its world views, and different voting groups have radically different world views, a fact that inevitable leads to polarisation. Elites are not responsible for polarisation, when you have for example one group that is traditionalist and believes in traditional gender roles and family organisation and another who is totally opposed to that worldview and wants to get rid of the old family structures you are going to get polarisation, it’s not a question of whether some people are good or evil it’s just that with very different worldviews you get polarised politics.
Another example would be if some voters believe in god and are highly religious and that is the foundation of their life and their moral guide and another group think believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy and don’t recognise religion as a valid reason for someone to think something is immoral behaviour you are going to get intense polarisation.

Just on corporate money, I want to get to rid of it because it stops the people from choosing their politicians properly, I think polarisation is a good thing as it allows for a real clash of ideas and corporate money advantages candidates who just want power and not those that have strong ideological convictions. I want to see debates between Old Testament believers and militant atheists on the floor of congress.  

A good thing about polarization is that sometimes The Horseshoe Effect results in the two extremes being correct and the center being wrong and there’s certain things where ideologues on both sides tend to agree on something but the establishment feels otherwise. For example, William F. Buckley and the hippies both wanted to legalize marijuana, but the establishment and centrists wanted to escalate the War on Drugs.

[smoltchanov]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Agree. But when it's these "activists" and parties, who decide everything, results are hardly normal. After all - theoretically parties must reflect thoughts and desires of the people. For US liberals Democratic party more or less does that (though even among liberal-leaning people not all will support "bold progressism" in every detail), the same - for conservatives and Republican party. But for other? Zero.

[smoltchanov]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

I would disagree (as a person who observed events with my own eyes). But i mean "party polarization". In 1960th and 1970th Democratic party still elected considerable number of conservatives on federal and state level. In 1980th - much less. The same - for Republican party, which, after Reagan campaign of 1976, began "self-cleaning" of the party from liberals.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

I would disagree (as a person who observed events with my own eyes). But i mean "party polarization". In 1960th and 1970th Democratic party still elected considerable number of conservatives on federal and state level. In 1980th - much less. The same - for Republican party, which, after Reagan campaign of 1976, began "self-cleaning" of the party from liberals.

In that way that’s true but look at the fact that Reagan won huge landslides while Dems won big in Congress.  Look at how often states changed hands during the decade .Look at the fact that Reagan’s support in both his elections was pretty uniform across the nation.


And during the 1980s probably the largest tax reform bill passed on bipartisan consensus

[OSR stands with Israel]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

Once again...voting patterns weren't that polarized in the 80s because the political elite that made-up the parties weren't polarized and still tried to find common ground. (remember this was before right wing talk radio and FOX ''news'') That shiit is gone today. Mitch McConnell is a sociopath who has no problem tearing down whatever norms exist in his way and Trump has no problem launching a borderline civil war to keep himself in office.

The voters have no real opinions on anything. Their opinions are whatever the party tells them to believe and under Trump, they will continue to be borderline insane with a fervent need to punish the other side for made-up reasons.

They were less polarizing the they were in the 60s and 70s as well .

[smoltchanov]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

Once again...voting patterns weren't that polarized in the 80s because the political elite that made-up the parties weren't polarized and still tried to find common ground. (remember this was before right wing talk radio and FOX ''news'') That shiit is gone today. Mitch McConnell is a sociopath who has no problem tearing down whatever norms exist in his way and Trump has no problem launching a borderline civil war to keep himself in office.

The voters have no real opinions on anything. Their opinions are whatever the party tells them to believe and under Trump, they will continue to be borderline insane with a fervent need to punish the other side for made-up reasons.

First of all - i disagree. I am the voter (it doesn't matter - where, in this case), and i have real opinion on almost everything.  And MY opinions are NOT what any party tells it's adherents - they are MY opinions, which sometimes coincide, and sometimes - not, with positions of this or that party on particular issue (in fact - in different situations that may be different parties). And i haven't the slightest desire "to be told what to do" by ANY party or person. Even less - to play the role of ram escorted to slaughterhouse.

[darklordoftech]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

Once again...voting patterns weren't that polarized in the 80s because the political elite that made-up the parties weren't polarized and still tried to find common ground. (remember this was before right wing talk radio and FOX ''news'') That shiit is gone today. Mitch McConnell is a sociopath who has no problem tearing down whatever norms exist in his way and Trump has no problem launching a borderline civil war to keep himself in office.

The voters have no real opinions on anything. Their opinions are whatever the party tells them to believe and under Trump, they will continue to be borderline insane with a fervent need to punish the other side for made-up reasons.

They were less polarizing the they were in the 60s and 70s as well .

I think the 60s and 70s would be better described as “social polarization” than as “political polarization”. Nonetheless, that ultimately lead to “polarization burnout”.

[smoltchanov]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

I would disagree (as a person who observed events with my own eyes). But i mean "party polarization". In 1960th and 1970th Democratic party still elected considerable number of conservatives on federal and state level. In 1980th - much less. The same - for Republican party, which, after Reagan campaign of 1976, began "self-cleaning" of the party from liberals.

In that way that’s true but look at the fact that Reagan won huge landslides while Dems won big in Congress.  Look at how often states changed hands during the decade .Look at the fact that Reagan’s support in both his elections was pretty uniform across the nation.


And during the 1980s probably the largest tax reform bill passed on bipartisan consensus

Here i agree, but Civil Rights laws of 1960th were passed only because of similar bipartisan consensus. So it's at least debatable. In 1960th-1970th there was a number of extremely polarizing issues (from Civil Rights to Vietnam) - that's true as well, but parties were infinitely less polarized, then now...

[smoltchanov]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

Once again...voting patterns weren't that polarized in the 80s because the political elite that made-up the parties weren't polarized and still tried to find common ground. (remember this was before right wing talk radio and FOX ''news'') That shiit is gone today. Mitch McConnell is a sociopath who has no problem tearing down whatever norms exist in his way and Trump has no problem launching a borderline civil war to keep himself in office.

The voters have no real opinions on anything. Their opinions are whatever the party tells them to believe and under Trump, they will continue to be borderline insane with a fervent need to punish the other side for made-up reasons.

They were less polarizing the they were in the 60s and 70s as well .

I think the 60s and 70s would be better described as “social polarization” than as “political polarization”. Nonetheless, that ultimately lead to “polarization burnout”.

My opinion too. Still, as i may consider himself a sort of expert on "Bolshevism", what i see now in US is a two absolutely Bolshevicks (by methods) parties. Or, if you prefer -  our Russian "Reds" and "Whites" of Russian Civil War time. And - a country torn into two big camps visceraly hating each other (again - the same as in Russia 100 years ago) without any meditating and balancing forces.  You, probably, know how it's all ended in Russia. And i don't want the same fate for America. But you are definitely moving in that direction. In last decades - by leaps and jumps, not steps...

[darklordoftech]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Ok let me say voting patterns were the least polarizing in the 80s then it has in any decade since the 50s

Once again...voting patterns weren't that polarized in the 80s because the political elite that made-up the parties weren't polarized and still tried to find common ground. (remember this was before right wing talk radio and FOX ''news'') That shiit is gone today. Mitch McConnell is a sociopath who has no problem tearing down whatever norms exist in his way and Trump has no problem launching a borderline civil war to keep himself in office.

The voters have no real opinions on anything. Their opinions are whatever the party tells them to believe and under Trump, they will continue to be borderline insane with a fervent need to punish the other side for made-up reasons.

They were less polarizing the they were in the 60s and 70s as well .

I think the 60s and 70s would be better described as “social polarization” than as “political polarization”. Nonetheless, that ultimately lead to “polarization burnout”.

My opinion too. Still, as i may consider himself a sort of expert on "Bolshevism", what i see now in US is a two absolutely Bolshevicks (by methods) parties. Or, if you prefer -  our Russian "Reds" and "Whites" of Russian Civil War time. And - a country torn into two big camps visceraly hating each other (again - the same as in Russia 100 years ago) without any meditating and balancing forces.  You, probably, know how it's all ended in Russia. And i don't want the same fate for America. But you are definitely moving in that direction. In last decades - by leaps and jumps, not steps...

I think a big turning point was 1994, when Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey (who also organized the “Tea Party” protests in 2009 and 2010), and Tom Delay purged the Republican Party of moderates and declared all compromise to be “socialism”.

[smoltchanov]

^ One of the turning points - sure.

P.S. BTW, if we continue historical analogies - Russia now is similar to itself in pre-1905 year period: empire, seemnigly strong "tsar", and disorganized opposition, part of which is very tame. In few years it's all changed drastically. It seems - history tends to repeat itself...

[Sumner 1868]

For those who denounce polarized politics, please remember in the early W. Bush years both parties had the same foreign policy and disagreed only slightly on domestic policy. That was only a decade and a half ago.

I sometimes have a chill down my spine when I hear people complain about polarization. It seems to me many would rather see the public mindlessly cheering any autocratic action for the sake of "national unity" then have unpleasant democratic debate.

[smoltchanov]

For those who denounce polarized politics, please remember in the early W. Bush years both parties had the same foreign policy and disagreed only slightly on domestic policy. That was only a decade and a half ago.

I sometimes have a chill down my spine when I hear people complain about polarization. It seems to me many would rather see the public mindlessly cheering any autocratic action for the sake of "national unity" then have unpleasant democratic debate.

Present day "debates" are neither "debates" nor "democratic". It's a "brute force politics" of "i am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool" type. Greatly prefer even "early W. Bush" years over present day full idiocy.

[darklordoftech]

For those who denounce polarized politics, please remember in the early W. Bush years both parties had the same foreign policy and disagreed only slightly on domestic policy. That was only a decade and a half ago.

I sometimes have a chill down my spine when I hear people complain about polarization. It seems to me many would rather see the public mindlessly cheering any autocratic action for the sake of "national unity" then have unpleasant democratic debate.

I absolutely agree with this. The “liberal” media fell in love with W as soon as he started running and demonized Gore, a bunch of Democrats voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, No Child Left Behind was passed almost unanimously by both Houses of Congress, the Democrats didn’t talk about Tora Bora or W’s environmental policy anywhere close to as much as they should have, the 2004 Democratic convention banned negative speeches while the Republican convention was ungrateful for the all the support that W received from Democrats, 9/11 resulted in anyone who wasn’t a gun-owning Evangelical getting called “unpatriotic”, etc., and to cap it all off, an actual child molester was Speaker of the House from 1999-2006.

If there was a  “golden age”, it was November 6, 1996 - April 19, 1999.

[freepcrusher]

am I the only one who, while thinking polarization in and of itself is a bad thing, that a lot of the reason I hate it is because its hurt the democratic party a lot more than the republican party? I mean that's one thing I'm honest about.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

"No one wants to be in the Senate" is something I feel a lot of posters on the Congressional Elections board really fail to grasp.

Like, I think Steve Bullock would legitimately rather be retired than be a Senator.

Sure, but on the other hand Republicans don't have that problem. It's not like Josh Hawley skipped running for Senate because he hated the institution. So is it a problem with the Senate itself, or how established Democratic politicians view politics?

Like ordinarily, Steve Bullock should have some ideological commitment to the Democratic Party's goals, or at least the desire to prevent Republican control of Congress, which he could best serve by contesting and winning a Senate seat. If he doesn't care enough about that, then OK. But "I want to advance the party's goals except I hate serving in the Senate" isn't a good enough excuse.

[smoltchanov]

For those who denounce polarized politics, please remember in the early W. Bush years both parties had the same foreign policy and disagreed only slightly on domestic policy. That was only a decade and a half ago.

I sometimes have a chill down my spine when I hear people complain about polarization. It seems to me many would rather see the public mindlessly cheering any autocratic action for the sake of "national unity" then have unpleasant democratic debate.

I absolutely agree with this. The “liberal” media fell in love with W as soon as he started running and demonized Gore, a bunch of Democrats voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, No Child Left Behind was passed almost unanimously by both Houses of Congress, the Democrats didn’t talk about Tora Bora or W’s environmental policy anywhere close to as much as they should have, the 2004 Democratic convention banned negative speeches while the Republican convention was ungrateful for the all the support that W received from Democrats, 9/11 resulted in anyone who wasn’t a gun-owning Evangelical getting called “unpatriotic”, etc., and to cap it all off, an actual child molester was Speaker of the House from 1999-2006.

If there was a  “golden age”, it was November 6, 1996 - April 19, 1999.

It was much earlier. I count all period of 1961-1976 as "golden age".... And it was substantially more bipartisan, then 1996-1999

[smoltchanov]

am I the only one who, while thinking polarization in and of itself is a bad thing, that a lot of the reason I hate it is because its hurt the democratic party a lot more than the republican party? I mean that's one thing I'm honest about.

It hurt Democratic party more because a conservative Democratic wing was almost always bigger, then liberal Republican one. So, the loss of this wing hurt Democrats much more (numerically) then loss of relatively small liberal Republican wing hurt Republicans.

Example: I have first edition of "Almanac of American Politics" (1972) at home. About 40 Democrats in House belong to "more or less solid conservative" camp, with median ADA/ACA rating for previous 2-3 years less then 17 (roughly - 1/6 from maximum 100). Republicans? Exactly 2 in House have more then 83 ("more or less solid liberals"). It's less unequal in Senate, where theere were at least 4 rather liberal Republican Senators (Case, Javits, Brooke, Mathias), but Democratic conservatives still "prevail"....

[Fuzzy Bear]

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

I very much agree with this.  The 1980s were the Second Era Of Good Feeling.

Somewhere, politicians of both parties (although it was, arguably, the Republicans first) came to the conclusion that bipartisanship led to "win-win" situations where your rival won along with you.  That meant it would be harder for YOU to become Governor or President when you were a mere legislator.  Working together to help the President or Governor achieve something positive doesn't help a Senator, Representative, or State Legislator move up, unless their goal is to move up the legislative leadership ladder, and even then, there are backbenchers with delusions of grandeur that view bipartisanship as an obstacle to their ambitions.

[HillGoose]

idk why you guys are so down on America, from what I can see it's pretty chill rn.

[smoltchanov]

idk why you guys are so down on America, from what I can see it's pretty chill rn.

Chill? I can't remember it's being so down, and in worse condition, then now. And i remember Kennedy's murder... And Vietnam war. And Watergate. And many other events...

[junior chįmp]

Congress worked fine until Reagan got elected and inspired an entire generation of true believer legislative bomb throwers to go into politics. Polarization is primarily the GOP's fault but the media with its insistence on bothsidesism doesn't want to say so.

Yes, Polarization Is Asymmetric—and Conservatives Are Worse

Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.

Political Scientist: Republicans Most Conservative They've Been In 100 Years

The 1980s were one of the least polarizing decades since the 50s at least when it comes to the public.

 

The public is never polarized. The public has no deeply held political beliefs. It is the elites and activists who are polarized, not the public. For the umpteenth time....only the political parties are polarized.

Agree. But when it's these "activists" and parties, who decide everything, results are hardly normal. After all - theoretically parties must reflect thoughts and desires of the people. For US liberals Democratic party more or less does that (though even among liberal-leaning people not all will support "bold progressism" in every detail), the same - for conservatives and Republican party. But for other? Zero.

The problem with this viewpoint is that most voters dont have desires. They are essentially lemmings who's viewpoints are dictated by their identity and/or partisanship. Read this article for a better explanation.

We've all seen how Republican voters change positions on a whim just as long as Trump tells them to. Keep in mind that more ''informed'' voters are actually the biggest hacks of all. They are smart enough to know they are being hacks so they hide behind well written talking points. These are like the Trump supporters of Atlas who routinely change their mind when Trump does and just make up the reasoning as they go along.

[junior chįmp]

In that way that’s true but look at the fact that Reagan won huge landslides while Dems won big in Congress.  Look at how often states changed hands during the decade .Look at the fact that Reagan’s support in both his elections was pretty uniform across the nation.


And during the 1980s probably the largest tax reform bill passed on bipartisan consensus

Reagan won big landslides because of the economy. Most voters didn't even know what Reagan was campaigning on and the few who did didn't even like his policies.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In that way that’s true but look at the fact that Reagan won huge landslides while Dems won big in Congress.  Look at how often states changed hands during the decade .Look at the fact that Reagan’s support in both his elections was pretty uniform across the nation.


And during the 1980s probably the largest tax reform bill passed on bipartisan consensus

Reagan won big landslides because of the economy. Most voters didn't even know what Reagan was campaigning on and the few who did didn't even like his policies.

Even then he won the largest electoral landslides since FDR in the 1930s (If you average out both his wins ).


Even IKE despite being a war hero and also presiding over a great economy didn’t win as large of a win