Do Republicans have the advantage in a polarized society?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Based off of this topic:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=82787.0

I think so, just look at the elections of 1968, 2004, and 2016.

[Vittorio]

Conservatism (whether ideological or institutional-conservatism, as is American liberalism) will always have an advantage where ideology prevails over material interest.

[lfromnj]

Yes, a perfectly polarized society with fair maps would give about a tossup house, a Tilt advantage to the Democrats in the presidency and a massive Republican Senate advantage.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Conservatism (whether ideological or institutional-conservatism, as is American liberalism) will always have an advantage where ideology prevails over material interest.

Yeah, this is the thing. Liberalism generally views its ideology as a means to an end, so the connection to that ideology is fundamentally more tenuous. If better means come about to achieve the same end, they'll go to those.

Conservatives see the imposition of their ideology as a good in itself, regardless of the good it does to people's lives. If we're living in a society that's demonstrably worse on metrics about human well-being, but it's more "free" by the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation's definitions, then to them, that's a desirable outcome.

[Bojack Horseman]

Conservatism (whether ideological or institutional-conservatism, as is American liberalism) will always have an advantage where ideology prevails over material interest.

As Phil Ochs put it, "Liberals are 10 degrees left of center during good times and 10 degrees right of center when an issue personally affects them."

[Mr. Smith]

2012 was polarized, 1948 was polarized, 1916 was polarized...these were not Republican victories.

[Person Man]

Conservatism (whether ideological or institutional-conservatism, as is American liberalism) will always have an advantage where ideology prevails over material interest.

Yeah, this is the thing. Liberalism generally views its ideology as a means to an end, so the connection to that ideology is fundamentally more tenuous. If better means come about to achieve the same end, they'll go to those.

Conservatives see the imposition of their ideology as a good in itself, regardless of the good it does to people's lives. If we're living in a society that's demonstrably worse on metrics about human well-being, but it's more "free" by the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation's definitions, then to them, that's a desirable outcome.

This is why you cannot debate with some conservative ideologues, especially with many socons. That misunderstanding caused the first attempt at health care reform to be tabled and the second to only half pass. They don’t care whether what they are doing is in the public good. They only care about fulfilling the moral requirements of their identity.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

The right is so weirdly good at winning the discourse. They've figured out how to speak layman better than the Democrats have. That's why there's such an anti-PC, anti-socialism, anti-"others" sentiment prevailing in society right now. It's why they get away with kids in cages, because they reinforce that once you break the law, you're no longer entitled to any legal protections...because you're a criminal. And while not all crimes are the same, all people who break the law are the same. It's why they win issues like "right to work" and "Patriot Act" and "climate change". Because those terms are focus-grouped to sound as favorable to them as possible.

Democrats, often times, are too focused on the minutiae that they lose rural voters and moderates. Republicans swoop in and convince those voters that it's okay to not understand the minutiae because the Democrats are cloaking all their evil plans in big words.

That being said, I think a lot of American voters are either too dumb, too apathetic, too overworked or all of the above. Political efficacy is dying in this country.

[Badger]

2012 was polarized, 1948 was polarized, 1916 was polarized...these were not Republican victories.

1968, 1980, 2016

[darklordoftech]

The right is so weirdly good at winning the discourse. They've figured out how to speak layman better than the Democrats have. That's why there's such an anti-PC, anti-socialism, anti-"others" sentiment prevailing in society right now. It's why they get away with kids in cages, because they reinforce that once you break the law, you're no longer entitled to any legal protections...because you're a criminal. And while not all crimes are the same, all people who break the law are the same. It's why they win issues like "right to work" and "Patriot Act" and "climate change". Because those terms are focus-grouped to sound as favorable to them as possible.

Democrats, often times, are too focused on the minutiae that they lose rural voters and moderates. Republicans swoop in and convince those voters that it's okay to not understand the minutiae because the Democrats are cloaking all their evil plans in big words.

That being said, I think a lot of American voters are either too dumb, too apathetic, too overworked or all of the above. Political efficacy is dying in this country.

[HisGrace]

2012 was polarized, 1948 was polarized, 1916 was polarized...these were not Republican victories.

Early 2010's was a comparably stable time, nothing like 1968 or today. All the racial controversies and the really aggressive PC didn't really get going until Obama's second term.

[TML]

Here are some words of wisdom from a historical Democratic president:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. […] But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

Today's mainstream Democrats seem to have forgotten this advice and have a tendency to cower and shrivel in the face of Republican attacks against their policy positions, which is why Republicans seemingly have an advantage.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Of course they do, and they know it. That's how Trump got elected, intends to get re-elected, and gave the Republicans the President of their wettest of dreams.

The right is so weirdly good at winning the discourse. They've figured out how to speak layman better than the Democrats have. That's why there's such an anti-PC, anti-socialism, anti-"others" sentiment prevailing in society right now. It's why they get away with kids in cages, because they reinforce that once you break the law, you're no longer entitled to any legal protections...because you're a criminal. And while not all crimes are the same, all people who break the law are the same. It's why they win issues like "right to work" and "Patriot Act" and "climate change". Because those terms are focus-grouped to sound as favorable to them as possible.

Democrats, often times, are too focused on the minutiae that they lose rural voters and moderates. Republicans swoop in and convince those voters that it's okay to not understand the minutiae because the Democrats are cloaking all their evil plans in big words.

That being said, I think a lot of American voters are either too dumb, too apathetic, too overworked or all of the above. Political efficacy is dying in this country.

The last sentence just about says it all. We're our own worst enemies.

[Saint Milei]

depends on the reason for us being polarized.

[Grassroots]

Depends. Democrats have a popular advantage right now regardless.

[Sir Mohamed]

It all depends on voter turnout if we're talking about elections. If we're talking about implementing policies, yes, because the GOP wants to change few things on the status quo. Dems want to enact broad reforms, which in our political system, you hardly can accomplish without large majorities.

[Slander and/or Libel]

It’s way easier to tear stuff down than it is to build stuff up, which gives republicans a huge comparative advantage.

[pbrower2a]

The right is so weirdly good at winning the discourse. They've figured out how to speak layman better than the Democrats have. That's why there's such an anti-PC, anti-socialism, anti-"others" sentiment prevailing in society right now. It's why they get away with kids in cages, because they reinforce that once you break the law, you're no longer entitled to any legal protections...because you're a criminal. And while not all crimes are the same, all people who break the law are the same. It's why they win issues like "right to work" and "Patriot Act" and "climate change". Because those terms are focus-grouped to sound as favorable to them as possible.

The Right has learned how to talk like a trucker. It used to try largely to sound like the late William
F. Buckley, an erudite and cultured fellow. The Right has abandoned Mozart for twangy country music, and it has given up on live theater for professional wrestling.
Democrats, often times, are too focused on the minutiae that they lose rural voters and moderates. Republicans swoop in and convince those voters that it's okay to not understand the minutiae because the Democrats are cloaking all their evil plans in big words.

That being said, I think a lot of American voters are either too dumb, too apathetic, too overworked or all of the above. Political efficacy is dying in this country.

The Right has done everything possible to make things go that way.

[CookieDamage]

2012 was polarized, 1948 was polarized, 1916 was polarized...these were not Republican victories.

These were also re-elections for incumbents. Maybe Republicans do better in open elections during polarized times?