Talk Elections

Read more at http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/

Some images:

()

()

()

()

I think we've known this for years.  And the loss of Senators like Hagel and Feingold haven't helped the situation.

Unfortunately, the partisanship of the country will most likely continue to increase in upcoming elections.

Feingold wasn't a moderate.

I didn't say he was.  But he was willing to work with the Republicans to move legislation forward.  He realized that compromise was better than gridlock.

Absolutely. I follow American politics for 40 years, and it never was so polarized and, i dare to say, as predictable and boring, as it's now. 40 years ago (despite Democratic party being, generally, more liberal of two) there was a substantial overlap between parties - there were such Republicans as Case, Brooke and Javits in Senate (and similar people in House), while Democrats still had McDonald, Gramm, Eastland or (in non-Southern states) Runnels and Stump. The most liberal Republicans were not "comparable" with most conservative Democrats - they were much more liberal.. And what do we have now?

2 parties dominated by "activists" (with substantial number being open loonies) marching one to the left, and another - even more speedily  - to the right. The most conservative Democratic Senator or Representative is substantially more liberal then most "moderate" Republican. No real "conservatives" among Democrats, and no real "moderates" (i don't even speak about "liberals") among Republicans. If this tendency will continue - soon 435 Nancy Pelosi-clones will run against 435 John Boehner-clones... (i support Nancy Pelosi-style liberals in liberal distiricts and John Boehner-style conservatives in really conservative ones, but not everywhere).

The same tendencies in state legislatures: try to find really conservative Democratic legislator even in Deep South or really liberal Republican even in New England. There are still some (very few), but they are more and more an "endangered species"....


It's bad and boring, folks...... ESPECIALLY - under 2-party system.  If US would have 5-8 parties and parliamentary system of Europe - it could be ok: everyone would have it's favorite party (and political niche) and then - coalition government, which could smoothe the most acute "angles". But under American 2-party system it becomes simply dangerous. And, given the role US plays in modern world politics - not only for US itself..

Yep, we are quite polarized now.  That's exactly the way the modern parties want us.

And that's why i hate "modern parties" a lot))). Very much hate))))

I'm totally with you.

Thanks!

Doesn't much surprise me -as Baby Boomers move into retirement (and thus their most active voting years), the political parties are reflecting the sharp divisions that have always characterized this generation since the 1960s.  So of course they are going to be extremely politically polarized. 

my opinion is that it accelerated in the 1990s where it became frighteningly apparent that people in both parties were creating there own echo chambers. The conservatives were moving to areas such as the districts of Dick Armey, Joel Hefley, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay etc to create their own echo chamber while the liberals tended to congregate in areas such as Manhattan, the lakefront wards of Chicago and San Mateo County CA.

Generally agree. And when i visit partisan Internet-sites (even the best one's, like DKE and RRH) - i frequently feel myself in the above mentioned "echo chambers" (virtual, of course). We will see it later today, when election results will come))))

What's wrong with polarized political parties? The Dem coalition up until the 1980s didn't make any sense for public policy, and the trade of a lot of conservative southern Dems for a smaller number of liberal and moderate northern Republicans is very good for coherence of policy, if bad for "polarization."

The major problem we have is that our parties now operate like a parliamentary system but our institutions (notably, the senate) haven't evolved to reflect that. A smaller problem is how local elections get tainted by association with the federal parties which distorts the process so no Republican can get elected to local government in D.C. and no Dem in Texas.

This precisely. This "problem" would not be recognized as such in parliamentarian systems. The government and opposition, after all, are expected to paint two very different pictures. And to be honest, I don't quite understand why we should want our politicians to have to "compromise" to get anything done. Let the majority govern, and vote them out at the next election if you don't like the result of their policies.

IMHO - 2 things. You mentioned one himself - difference between how party acts and how Congress works. I mentioned another above - there are only 2 big parties. If they become (and they became!!) too ideologized - a lot of people (in this case, for example - like me: generally centrist, with some reasonable fiscal conservative streak, but at least somewhat socially liberal) have no place in party systemv at all.  I am "too conservative" for Democrats and "too liberal" for Republicans. And there are millions of people like me and millions of "vice versa" - socially conservative, but economically liberal (or, at least, populist) as well.. If there would be 3rd and 4th parties for all of us, and parliamentary, not FPTP, electoral system - everything would (or, at least, could) be ok. But at present there is a system that works along the lines of old Russian saying: "I am a boss - you are a fool, you are a boss - i am a fool!"... Simply count number of Democrats and Republicans in given legislature - and you will have a good approximation of how all important votes will go. No more coalitions, compromises, just "brute force"..

Long ago politics was characterized as "art of compromise". You offer a brute force instead. We (in Russia) know all too well where it leads - we didn't forget 1937th still. I think - Germans didn't forget 1933th as well, and how easily the "majority" can change "rules of game" to assure its very-long-term domination, while opposition may find itself ... even in camps.... and hold their meetings there. It's almost impossible when you have a lot of parties and, thus, almost always a coalition government, which almost always presupposes compromise, but much more likely when you have only 2... There is even a chance that ypu may have only one relatively soon..

Well obviously I'm assuming normal parliamentary conditions, including the existence of multiple parties. Of course, depending on your election system, that can also lead to majorities, see UK or Canada.

Centrists still have a place because you define whether a party wins or not. Only the conservatives can sort of get to 50% in an election (liberals can't) and that's in special cases where they then overreach and get thrown out. Parties have to decide for themselves how they woo centrists.

In UK as well as Canada there is more then 2 big parties, and, while they are more ideologized then American parties of the past - i wouldn't say so abot present day US political parties. So, there is more initiative for compromise there. US had it's "local dictators" like Huey Long already - now try to imagine such person in WH with solid congressional majority. Will there be a place for second party in such case? Not sure.

My experience on even "advanced" partisan sites, like above mentioned DKE and RRH, goes contrary to your logic - no one likes to hear unpleasant things about themselves, even if you agree with them in other cases. I was banned twice on one site and once on another (with logic being "you irritate too many people here and don't play by the rules") simply for disagreeing with majority rather often))). So i didn't noticed big "wooing"))))). But i heard a lot of slurs and offensive words)))

Forget commenters on the Internet. That doesn't count.

Then look at present day american politics. With centrist  politicians almost permanently attacked by "activists". The only difference being - from the left in Democratic case, from the right - in Republican. And with "DINO!" and "RINO!" accusations flying left and right)))))

Our institutions make it impossible for either party to carry out its agenda except under extraordinary circumstances like the 6-month period when the Dems had 60 senators. Frustration breeds resentment.

Then why it's different in Germany, UK and Canada? Theoretically - a multiparty parliamentary system must lead to greater number of stalemates, and thus - to more frustration then relatively "straightforward" American one. But we don't see anything like "tea-party movement" there... And much less extremism as of late. May be their politicians finally learned that "politics is an art of compromise", while American - did't?????

In normal cases, how can a "stalemate" result when 50% +1 allows you to pass a law? Has little to di with the "art of compromise".

It's completely different in the UK. Governments there can be very effective.

Canada has the complicating factor of Quebec nationalism, without which things are quite effective.

Germany has a system that discourages powerful parliamentary majorities, presumably there's a preference for consensus over strong government because of the history.

If you have a rigidly ideologized parties 50% +1 seats allows you to pass ANY law, and its not bad- it's EXTREMELY bad. If your parties are like US parties were in 60-th - 70th (more or less "big tent" parties), or if you have a lot of parties, so 50% +1 seat is almost mathematically impossible - you need to compromise to enact even a something. And it's good IMHO, because "truth" is, usually, "somewhere in between"...))))

That all supports my conclusions: present-day political polarization in US (without corresponding "tradition of consnsus" and past "big tents") is not only bad, but dangerous thing. Both for US and the world. I wouldn't be so concerned if such polarization took place, say, in Rwanda))))

Right. That's why we need to seriously scale back or eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and yes, I'll support that when the GOP takes the chamber this fall or in 2014.

Actually, Dubya did hit the wall on most everything except for tax cuts and war. His Social Security initiative crumbled immediately.

What I noticed from the Pew Research Report is the GOP has tacked more to the right on economic issue as well as environmental and immigration issues in the last 20 years or so. White Liberals or White Democrats on the other hand have tacked more to the left on issues having due to with minority well-being like on topics like immigration and affirmative action.

My conclusions as well. Though i wouldn't say that GOP became much more moderate on social issues too. But it really became thoroughly anti-labor...

But in the US the voter does not expect to vote for a party, they expect to vote for a person. Their party affiliation is an important attribute, but not the only one. For an incumbent in a general election the voting record and constituent service is more important than the party. An incumbent who played the part of the loyal opposition voting against all major initiatives of the majority would not last except in the most solid partisan districts. In a 55-45 district that just won't do.

Coming from you, muon2, I trust that this is true, and it does make me feel better about things.  Even a cursory think would lead one to the conclusion, I suppose, to assume that, in districts with margins of 10 or less, there would be enough swing votes to cost a rep. their seat if they themselves were overly partisan and did not deliver for their constituents.  In fact, I remember even when growing up in North Dakota, when one of our U.S. Senators Quintin Burdick ran for reelection, his campaign ads were all about his "clout" and seniority, and how little sense it would make to send a newbie to Congress who was in a worse position to bring home goodies for the state; he never mentioned his party affiliation.

On the other hand, at least since the mid-'90's in Congressional elections on the national level, campaigns have become "nationalized" and party machinery on both sides of the aisle have, it seems to me, tried hard to polarize the voters along partisan lines, with some success.

This does not seem consistent with the last three congressional elections.

One of the other major reasons for increased partisanship in the U.S. comes from moving patterns in voters. Individuals are now more likely to move to communities where they surround themselves with others that share identical views rather than live in a community where they're surrounded by those who differ from them. For example, gated communities and housing developments tend to attract like-minded people and filter out those different. I've read a few books on this, plus just experience from doing canvassing and stuff in the past, I've found that you can clearly differentiate from "liberal" housing developments and "conservative" ones in the right cities.

Others in this thread have mentioned the echo chambers that have arisen in the party organizations, but echo chambers for voters like these are also pretty important. Parties become more extreme, voters follow then demand parties to go even farther from the center, and the parties do so, thus creating a cycle where parties get more and more extreme.

IL-17 went to Schilling in '10 only in part by the wave election. Hare did not have the constituent service or personal touch of his predecessor Evans (ironic since Hare ran Evans' office). Hare's voting record was too much on the party line for a district that was lean D so it flipped.

Like Hare, Mark Kirk was also a former chief of staff for a congressman in the same district. Unlike Hare he held a very Dem-leaning IL-10 in the bad GOP years of '06 and '08 by matching some key positions to his district and excelling at constituent outreach.

That's just one pair of counterexamples to illustrate each direction. In many lean R or D districts party flips occur precisely for the reasons I stated. The incumbent trusts the intrinsic partisan affiliation of the district too much, when that is only one factor. When the other party gets a good year, those seats go first. Conversely when an incumbent works the other factors besides party affiliation they can hold up against strong waves for the other party.

Well yeah the GOP doesn't like Unions because they give money to the Dems. Likewise the Dems do the same thing to the oil companies because big oil are big donors to the GOP. Thats why the Dems like to name drop "oil companies" all the time.

By the end of this decade the republican party will be controlled by Libertarians and social conservatives and Neo-cons will slowly fade out the party

...What?

I'm hoping that means it'll be controlled by libertarians, and social conservatives/neocons will fade from existence.