Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2014, 03:26:00 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate
| | |-+  Book Reviews and Discussion (Moderator: Beet)
| | | |-+  Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America  (Read 11811 times)
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15993


View Profile
« on: November 22, 2005, 04:45:29 pm »



Author: Morris Fiorina

Some claim the media is liberal, others, that it is conservative, but perhaps both can agree that the media has a tendency for exaggeration: the media establishment, like the popular punditry, can create a story and run with it, puffing up a narrative of variable validity until it seems as if the most exciting thing in the world is going on. As long as they have a story to tell, and as long as it is exciting, it often doesn't matter what that story is, or even whether it is true. And so it is with the myth of the polarized America. Released just as the media crescendo of a "polarized" electorate was reaching unprecedented heights in 2004, political scientist Morris Fiorinia's Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America uses public opinion research data to coolly demolish the myths surrounding changes in Americans' attitudes over time.

Using data from the most methodlogically credible and longest-running political survey source in political behavior, the University of Michigan's National Election Studies survey, Fiorina demonstrates that the public's positions on various economic and social issues are no more separated today than they were 30 years ago. This works regardless of one's level of aggregation: "red states" are not more polarized compared to "blue states" and those on the right are not more polarized compared to those on the left. It works even for the most "hot-button" issues: 80% of us believe that abortion should be legal under some conditions even if wrong, while 80% equally feel that there should be some restrictions on abortion. Rather, the electorate's left-right preferences on virtually all issues are single peaked: they tend to cluster towards the middle in a bell-shaped curve, with the majority of people lying in between the perceived positions of the two major political parties.

What, then, explains the new theories of political polarization? Fiorina shows that while the electorate has not become more polarized over the past 30 years, elites have become more polarized. That is, party activists, leaders, spokespersons and officials, as well as interest group leaders, have become increasingly divided on sharp "wedge issues". Parties and members of congress have become more ideologically homogenized. Political reforms designed at opening up the system and encouraging the grassroots has tended to push out the old "men in smoke-filled rooms", dispassionate players of the game of politics. Now, political activism is increasingly dominated by those highly motivated on special interests. This tends to polarize the political elites and officeholders, who must then respond to these interests. The polarization of the elites has given an appearance of mass polarization, but this appearance is only an illusion.

So argues Fiorina. It has been a year since I've read this book so I don't remember all the details. Still, if you believed in the idea of a polarized America, this book presents a formidable challenge.
Logged

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2005, 10:28:36 pm »
Ignore

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.
Logged
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15993


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2005, 11:01:20 pm »

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?
Logged

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2005, 11:05:07 pm »
Ignore

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?

I guess I'm suggesting that it could be.  Often, larger trends can affect politics as well as commercial segments of society.  Often, the two go hand in hand, though political junkees don't always see the connection.  People change their thought process, and that change applies across the board.  This is a byproduct of the change in overall market targeting capabilities brought about in part by technological advances.

It was just one of those thoughts I threw out there, and I'd be interested to hear what others whose opinions I respect think of it.
Logged
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15993


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2005, 11:31:52 pm »

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization. 

Certainly there are subtle differences in the way different people see issues, but I don't see the level of polarization that political commentators talk about.  I don't see that the typical family in "blue" America lives that much different from the typical family in "red" America.

I think our differences appear more pronounced than in the past because of a general splintering of the population into specialized groups as the age of mass media and mass marketing dies out in favor of niches.  Rather than watching the same news shows, conservatives can now watch different news channels than liberals.  Products are specifically targeted to small segments of the population rather than mass marketed, with autos being a good example of that.  Rather than only a few brands to choose from as in the past, there is a proliferation, and they target different segments of the market.  Politics has evolved in this direction also.

I hear some arrogant liberals speak condescendingly of "red" states, convinced of their own absolute superiority.  But that is really regional prejudice, which has always existed.

That's an interesting generalization of the fragmentation of politics into interest groups and the fragmentation of the commercial market. For the latter, I would consider it to be an issue of efficiency. A firm that does a better job at targeting, given today's advanced manufacturing technology which can apparently churn out stylized products with little loss of efficiency, can tremendously increase its sales. Then, is the special interests' capture of political parties a manifestation of an increased efficiency in fishing for votes?

I guess I'm suggesting that it could be.  Often, larger trends can affect politics as well as commercial segments of society.  Often, the two go hand in hand, though political junkees don't always see the connection.  People change their thought process, and that change applies across the board.  This is a byproduct of the change in overall market targeting capabilities brought about in part by technological advances.

It was just one of those thoughts I threw out there, and I'd be interested to hear what others whose opinions I respect think of it.

I'm guessing this makes little sense, because I don't see the same economic processes that underlie the change. It seems that parties in the 19th century, for example, would have no problem appealing to specialized groups, and often did, in the form of winning over ethnic blocs, or maintaining a "southern" branch plus an "urban" branch, or a "midwestern" branch plus a "new york" branch. The New Deal coalition is quite an amalgamation. Yet Fiorina seems to argue in favor of the rise of special interests as a result of reforms in the opening up of political parties and the political system in general to greater public participation, and as a more recent phenomenon dating from the 70s, which explains the rise in elite polarization.
Logged

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2005, 11:37:57 pm »
Ignore


I'm guessing this makes little sense, because I don't see the same economic processes that underlie the change. It seems that parties in the 19th century, for example, would have no problem appealing to specialized groups, and often did, in the form of winning over ethnic blocs, or maintaining a "southern" branch plus an "urban" branch, or a "midwestern" branch plus a "new york" branch. The New Deal coalition is quite an amalgamation. Yet Fiorina seems to argue in favor of the rise of special interests as a result of reforms in the opening up of political parties and the political system in general to greater public participation, and as a more recent phenomenon dating from the 70s, which explains the rise in elite polarization.

There's also the issue of being able to effectively connect with your individual supporters, something that is made a lot easier with things like e-mail.  It's also a lot easier, with computerized mailing lists that can be demographically analyzed, to identify potential supporters and reach out to them.  For example, certain magazines are popular with certain demographic groups, and if that demographic group supports your party, you could purchase that magazine's subscriber list and reach out to those people, rather than simply doing a mass mailing or relying on television advertising.  There are many implications to this type of targeting, and this is a spillover from changed marketing tactics in the commercial spectrum.

I'm not sure I see greater public participation in the political process.  Reforms in the 1970s certainly opened it up more to special interests, as you said, particularly liberal special interests in the Democratic party, but I don't see any higher public participation in general.  In fact, part of the problem is that it seems that everybody is represented except the normal, taxpaying, law-abiding members of the general public.
Logged
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15993


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2005, 11:52:35 pm »

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.
Logged

TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2005, 11:55:40 pm »
Ignore

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization.

Try tuning into Fox News any night of the week and tell me it's the "left" that are pushing the "culture war" meme. 

Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2005, 11:57:14 pm »
Ignore

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.

I think you're reading a little more into this than what I said, though I have never denied letting my partisan views color how I see issues.

What I say applies to both parties, though I of course am more hostile to the special interests that have come to dominate the Democratic party than I am toward some of the special interests that have come to at least heavily influence the Republican party.

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base, even though it could probably be argued that I am not, in many ways, really part of the Republican base, being a northerner who is not part of the religious right.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2005, 11:58:45 pm »
Ignore

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization.

Try tuning into Fox News any night of the week and tell me it's the "left" that are pushing the "culture war" meme. 



The left has waged a surreptitious culture war for decades without saying so.  One thing the right has to learn is to get their opinions across in a subliminal way as effectively as the left does.  The right has never really learned how to hide behind a false facade of impartiality the way the main media organs of the left have been doing for decades.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2005, 11:59:42 pm »
Ignore

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
○∙◄☻„tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31676


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2005, 12:01:07 am »
Ignore

I have never really believed in the idea of a polarized America.  I think people on the far ends of the spectrum, mostly left, are trying to create polarization.

Try tuning into Fox News any night of the week and tell me it's the "left" that are pushing the "culture war" meme. 



The left has waged a surreptitious culture war for decades without saying so.  One thing the right has to learn is to get their opinions across in a subliminal way as effectively as the left does.  The right has never really learned how to hide behind a false facade of impartiality the way the main media organs of the left have been doing for decades.

What media organs of the left? The same media that failed to report on the Florida scrub list, or criticize Bush once for a year after 9/11? Quit pushing this "liberal media" BS, and come up with real arguments.
Logged
○∙◄☻„tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31676


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2005, 12:03:04 am »
Ignore

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.

Yes, people like Dazzleman's views are what keeps blacks so Democratic.

If the Democratic party was as biased against straight white males as Dazzleman claims, I wouldn't be in it. What a fool.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2005, 12:05:50 am »
Ignore

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.

Blacks view themselves as being on the fringes of society.  That is not something I celebrate, but it is a reality, at least to some extent.  Blacks live in largely separate neighborhoods, go to separate churches and schools, etc. for the most part.  By any objective definition, they are on the fringes of society.  Again, I am simply acknowledging that reality, not supporting or celebrating it.  I love how liberals like to read racism into a simple statment of fact.

I think you've fallen victim to your own propaganda.  Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.  And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2005, 12:08:33 am by dazzleman »Logged
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15993


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2005, 12:05:58 am »

Right, but you are defining normal as anyone who does not organize around a particular issue. When you look at groups like the Club for Growth, NTU, NRA, AMA, the religious right, large corporations, etc etc and the like it's clear the GOP is equally captured by special interests. I don't think Fiorina makes a party-based distinction, rather you're letting your own partisan views color how you see the issue.

I think you're reading a little more into this than what I said, though I have never denied letting my partisan views color how I see issues.

What I say applies to both parties, though I of course am more hostile to the special interests that have come to dominate the Democratic party than I am toward some of the special interests that have come to at least heavily influence the Republican party.

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base, even though it could probably be argued that I am not, in many ways, really part of the Republican base, being a northerner who is not part of the religious right.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say the special interests were only influencing the Democrats.
Logged

TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2005, 12:09:27 am »
Ignore

Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.

Exactly, that's why it's called a "base".

And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2005, 12:10:25 am »
Ignore

I think the average "mainstream" person is, in general, more comfortable in the Republican party.  The Democratic party has for some time been a refuge for those on the fringes of society in one way or another (minorities, gays, etc).  I don't say that's necessarily a bad thing, just a reality, and I find it much harder to relate to the Democratic base than I do to the Republican base

The Democratic base is the average working American and those who belive in civil rights and equality for all. The Repulican base is the rich, white American and those who seek to push their warped view of religion on the rest of the country.

And I like your  assertion that minorites (such as blacks) are on the "fringes" of society.

Yes, people like Dazzleman's views are what keeps blacks so Democratic.

If the Democratic party was as biased against straight white males as Dazzleman claims, I wouldn't be in it. What a fool.

Straight white males lean overwhelming Republican in places other than Berzekely.  Maybe that makes you the fool.  It seems you can't make a point without personal insults.  Well, I guess all those other white males are just stupider than you.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2005, 12:13:14 am »
Ignore

The left has waged a surreptitious culture war for decades without saying so.  One thing the right has to learn is to get their opinions across in a subliminal way as effectively as the left does.  The right has never really learned how to hide behind a false facade of impartiality the way the main media organs of the left have been doing for decades.

You've got to be kidding me. The Republican party has been much more effective in manipulating the media over the past 6 or 8 years than the Democrats have. Hell, after 9/11, Bush and every other Republican got a completely free pass for the next 3 or so years from the media.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2005, 12:17:15 am »
Ignore

Rich white America as you call it couldn't get enough votes to win enough elections to control the White House and both houses of congress.

Exactly, that's why it's called a "base".

And polls indicate that people who are married and raising families lean strongly toward the Republican party.  The Democratic party lost its strong hold on the average working American quite some time ago, though of course many average working Americans, though not a majority, remain Democrats.

Goes to show the effective propaganda of the Republican party where it can get millions of average, middle-class Americans to vote against their own economic interests based on God, guns, gays, and fear of minorities.

Oh, where have I heard that line before?   It's actually a biased, arrogant and ignorant way of thinking, but why should I be surprised?

Maybe they just don't want to pay ever higher taxes for out of control spending on ineffective and substandard government services from which they don't benefit, and maybe they don't like Democratic sympathies on issues like crime, etc.

I'm sure that living in New Hampshire, you develop an in-depth understanding on the fear of minorities.  Why don't you wait until you've lived in a racially mixed urban area before passing judgment.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2005, 12:23:39 am »
Ignore

What a stupid conversation.
Logged
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2005, 12:24:42 am »
Ignore

Maybe they just don't want to pay ever higher taxes for out of control spending on ineffective and substandard government services from which they don't benefit, and maybe they don't like Democratic sympathies on issues like crime, etc.

The current Republican administration/congress is the most out of control spending in the last 40 years, so your accusation holds no water (but I'm sure you'll still try to get people to fall for it).

And maybe they don't understand that Democratic economic policies help everybody and only hear the tired, worn-out lines about evil "government programs" and "higher taxes". And the meme about Democratics being sympathetic to criminals is another largely false one that Republicans love to spew.

I'm sure that living in New Hampshire, you develop an in-depth understanding on the fear of minorities.  Why don't you wait until you've lived in a racially mixed urban area before passing judgment.

I lived in Denver for a year (three blocks from E. Colfax, possibly the worst neighborhood in the city) and also lived just outside Boston for over a year.  So I have lived in racially mixed areas before.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7938


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2005, 12:25:39 am »
Ignore

What a stupid conversation.

Agreed, but dazzleman seems obsessed with his Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly routine lately and has been particularly annoying.
Logged

E: -3.25
S: -2.72

On the GOP side, for 2016, look out for Gov. Phill Kline (KS), Gov. Ralph Reed (GA), Gov. JD Hayworth (AZ), Sen. David Vitter (LA), among others.
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2005, 01:23:15 am »
Ignore


I lived in Denver for a year (three blocks from E. Colfax, possibly the worst neighborhood in the city) and also lived just outside Boston for over a year.  So I have lived in racially mixed areas before.

Denver and "just outside of Boston" are not exactly the inner city.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2005, 07:55:24 pm »
Ignore

What a stupid conversation.

Agreed, but dazzleman seems obsessed with his Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly routine lately and has been particularly annoying.

Lately?  I've always been particularly annoying to people who hold the opinions that you do.  Don't sell me short, man. Tongue

Logged
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14787


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2005, 04:51:42 pm »
Ignore

America is polarized by geography but its not red states vs. blue state. It's urban vs. rural, with suburbanites stuck in the middle. Granted, cities in the NE are more Dem than cities in the Sunbelt, but the strongest correlation to voting behavior is whether you live in an urban or suburban or rural area.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I will get up and move around every now and then so I reduce the chances to get hit with another Grade 8 headache in the morning.
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines