• Primaries in a Polarised Age: 'Like asking vegans to order for the steak-lovers at the next table'
    32 replies, posted
[url]http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21696572-todays-partisan-activists-are-hopelessly-ill-equipped-pick-presidential-winners[/url] [QUOTE]THE constitutional powers of a defeated presidential candidate are, to use a technical term, zilch. That being so, it is striking that many partisans sound complacent when asked to explain how their favourite politician might win the general election this November. George Stone, a retired snuff salesman from Colfax, Wisconsin, spoke for many Republicans when he told Lexington recently why the conservative whom he favours, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, has no need to tack to the political centre. Look at Ronald Reagan, he was unabashedly of the right and he won, Mr Stone averred: “If you explain conservatism to most people, they understand that they are a conservative.” Fans of Donald Trump have spent months echoing the businessman’s claim to enjoy an unrivalled following among fed-up conservatives, independents and Democrats, so that if nominated he would—in his self-assessment—have “more crossover votes than anybody that’s ever run for office”. Ardent admirers of Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and populist who has forced Hillary Clinton to fight hard for the Democratic presidential nomination, strike a slightly more defensive note. Asked whether the country is ready for a president who wants to make America more like leftish bits of Europe, Sanders-backers say things like: “We are expanding the zone of what is considered possible” (to quote a Sanders precinct captain in Grinnell, Iowa). If they sense that blithe confidence is not doing the trick, Sanders-supporters often cite opinion polls that find most Americans favouring policies advocated by their hero, such as a higher minimum wage. In part, the complacency of many partisans is a by-product of ideological zeal. [B]A 2014 survey by the Pew Research Centre found that the share of Americans who are consistently conservative or consistently liberal has doubled over the past two decades. Levels of ideological purity are highest among the politically active, such as the 30m or so Americans who voted in presidential primary contests in 2012 (out of an eligible electorate of some 200m).[/B] [B]In part, though, partisans sound confused because the business of picking a presidential candidate is so unlike any other task they face. In modern general elections, more than nine out of ten incumbent members of Congress are re-elected, most of them easily. In dozens of states, one or other party has a near-lock on many elected offices, from governor to county clerk.[/B] When primary contests are held to pick candidates for such safe billets, activists need not worry about broad appeal—their rational instinct is to please themselves and folk like themselves. Presidential contests are different. In recent elections neither diehard Republican nor Democratic partisans have had the numbers to carry a president to victory on their own. That confronts partisans picking a candidate in a presidential primary with a rare challenge. If they care about electability (and not all do), they must try to guess who may appeal to folk unlike themselves, including some who—gasp—routinely vote for the other side. [B]If cross-party mind-reading was a chore in the past, it confronts many partisans in 2016 with a nearly impossible conundrum: like asking vegans to order for the steak-lovers at the next table.[/B] For partisans are not just more disciplined today. Levels of antipathy between the parties have grown still more dramatically. Pew polling finds that roughly two-fifths of Democrats and Republicans now have a “very unfavourable” view of the other party, with many calling it a threat to the nation’s well-being.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The zero-sum atmosphere affects views of government itself. [B]The American Values Survey, taken by the Public Religion Research Institute last year, found roughly three-quarters of Republicans believing that the federal government looks out for the interests of blacks, Hispanics, gays and women. But only half of Republicans or fewer think that the government looks out for Christians or middle-class people. Democrats, meanwhile, overwhelmingly think that the federal government looks out for the rich and big business. There are warnings here for both parties. [/B] Democrats, and especially Sanders-backers, should beware citing polls that back this or that government intervention. Distrust between groups means that it is not that useful to say that most Americans support policy X or Y. [B]The real question to ask voters is: Do you think this policy helps or hurts “people like you”? The query reliably exposes deep gulfs between different races, generations and parties.[/B][/QUOTE] Perhaps too much of an opinion piece for SH, but it is a well-written article from a good source.
[QUOTE] Mrs Clinton, for her part, has called for more empathy across party lines. In March she urged Democrats not to dismiss Mr Trump’s followers as mere bigots, but to imagine themselves, “just for a minute”, in the minds of Americans who feel their best days, and the country’s, are behind them. Expect no cheers from Republicans, who are united only in their certainty that Mrs Clinton is a phoney and a crook. Whatever her motives for feeling the pain of Trump voters, Mrs Clinton’s instincts are correct. [U]The presidency is an office that must be won with a broad coalition. Narrow tribalism will not do it.[/U][/QUOTE] Give credit where credit is due. If Hillary really did say that, I will say I agree with her. Th real reason people support Trump are the same reason they support Sanders. It is not because they "agree with your politics". It is because the talk of both saying the average person is getting a raw deal, and many find that appealing. [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/02/08/465974199/what-do-sanders-and-trump-have-in-common-more-than-you-think[/url] This however fails to register with the partisans.
I wouldn't be surprised that today's liberals/conservatives will be considered moderates in 10 years.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102535]I wouldn't be surprised that today's liberals/conservatives will be considered moderates in 10 years.[/QUOTE] Dont make me depressed. If it gets any worse, that will be the end of democracy in America, the start of a totalitarian state and the losing side will be a victim of genocide.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102535]I wouldn't be surprised that today's liberals/conservatives will be considered moderates in 10 years.[/QUOTE] So the Democrats will become neo-communists and the Republicans neo-fascists? Neato.
The problem of polarization is not only American: the democratization of media drives people further right or left, however, the American political system is uniquely fucked by polarization.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102535]I wouldn't be surprised that today's liberals/conservatives will be considered moderates in 10 years.[/QUOTE] This poses a serious problem for America. The American political system is designed in a way that without bipartisanship, nothing gets done. This is in contrast to the UK, where the winning party can do whatever they want (within reason). This wasn't much of a problem for most of the last century where there was considerable ideological overlap through liberal northern Republicans and conservative Dixiecrats. Both of those groups have more or less died and now there is zero ideological overlap in the Senate and almost none in the House (ie. the most liberal Republican is more right-wing than the most conservative Democrat). [IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-10-at-10.32.57-AM.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50102547]Dont make me depressed. If it gets any worse, that will be the end of democracy in America, the start of a totalitarian state and the losing side will be a victim of genocide.[/QUOTE] A Totalitarian United States will never happen in our lifetime. At worst you're going to get a far right president like trump, or a far left president like maybe a more extreme and angry bernie sanders, bernie sanders jr.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102631]A Totalitarian United States will never happen in our lifetime. At worst you're going to get a far right president like trump, or a far left president like maybe a more extreme and angry bernie sanders, bernie sanders jr.[/QUOTE] Gamergate. How were those who did not follow the will of the tribe treated? When people are not able to force themselves on others, to ensure everyone is just like them, through the legitimate political process, people take matters into their own hands.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50102654]Gamergate. How were those who did not follow the will of the tribe treated? When people are not able to force themselves on others, to ensure everyone is just like them, through the legitimate political process, people take matters into their own hands.[/QUOTE] gamergate was about children with nothing better to do than get mad at videogames. anyone who held an extreme opinion about gamergate and is planning to go into politics will be unelectable unless they can pull a rand paul times a million
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102714]gamergate was about children with nothing better to do than get mad at videogames. anyone who held an extreme opinion about gamergate and is planning to go into politics will be unelectable unless they can pull a rand paul times a million[/QUOTE] The stage is set any ways. Right now there is no due process. There are assassination lists. A surveillance state. All it will take is one zealot to get into office and abuse that power. A zealot who is liberal will deem secretly all conservatives as enemy of the same will use use that power to oppress the, When they get out of office, a zealot conservative gets into power, will abuse that power to oppress liberals as enemy of the state. This will only make things worse.
gamergate's anger transformed into a seed that went back in time and gestated in the wife of a german american billionaire... and became donald trump
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50102654]Gamergate. How were those who did not follow the will of the tribe treated? When people are not able to force themselves on others, to ensure everyone is just like them, through the legitimate political process, people take matters into their own hands.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102714]gamergate was about children with nothing better to do than get mad at videogames. anyone who held an extreme opinion about gamergate and is planning to go into politics will be unelectable unless they can pull a rand paul times a million[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=person11;50102765][b]gamergate's anger transformed into a seed that went back in time and gestated in the wife of a german american billionaire... and became donald trump[/b][/QUOTE] what the fuck are you people even on about this devolved quickly
I thought of something and then posted it, freeform stream of consciousness ANYWAY solving gerrymandering would help reduce polarization quite a bit
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50102827]what the fuck are you people even on about this devolved quickly[/QUOTE] Yeah, what the hell people? Are you just intentionally spouting non-factual unrelated garbage or something?
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50102755]The stage is set any ways. Right now there is no due process. There are assassination lists. A surveillance state. All it will take is one zealot to get into office and abuse that power. A zealot who is liberal will deem secretly all conservatives as enemy of the same will use use that power to oppress the, When they get out of office, a zealot conservative gets into power, will abuse that power to oppress liberals as enemy of the state. This will only make things worse.[/QUOTE] There is due process, I really, really doubt there are any assassination lists, and we're nowhere nearing what a surveillance state is. Just because the police can look at your r/politics posts doesn't mean we're living in some dystopian society. jeez. Calm down, no one is going to kick your door in at night.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50102827]what the fuck are you people even on about this devolved quickly[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mikaru-Yanagida;50102865]Yeah, what the hell people? Are you just intentionally spouting non-factual unrelated garbage or something?[/QUOTE] I was trying to say that gamergate is completely irrelevant to the future of politics, I don't even know why it was brought up
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50102520]Give credit where credit is due. If Hillary really did say that, I will say I agree with her. Th real reason people support Trump are the same reason they support Sanders. It is not because they "agree with your politics". It is because the talk of both saying the average person is getting a raw deal, and many find that appealing. [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/02/08/465974199/what-do-sanders-and-trump-have-in-common-more-than-you-think[/url] This however fails to register with the partisans.[/QUOTE] yet she consistently mocks sanders supporters for being exactly the same kind of fervent far left nutjobs because she knows she doesn't need to court their vote, they won't vote trump (mostly)
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102920]I was trying to say that gamergate is completely irrelevant to the future of politics, I don't even know why it was brought up[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say it's entirely irrelevant considering it kind of laid bare some of the folks who would be much more interested in a more authoritarian left position politically, but that's not entirely the topic at hand either :v: That said, there's a lot of nonsensical factors our government is using to practically force such hard polarizations such as gerrymandering and such, yes. It's honestly really disappointing because there's a lot to gain in our government if they stopped pushing their party lines all the time and actually spread out their ideas and what specific people support a little, instead of always sticking to the same sets of issues their party does.
These Presidential Elections in a nutshell: "Why can't Obama do a 3rd term?"
[QUOTE=Source;50102998]These Presidential Elections in a nutshell: "Why can't Obama do a 3rd term?"[/QUOTE] If you want his policies being pushed by someone who is about 500 times less likeable, there is Clinton :v:
[QUOTE=Source;50102998]These Presidential Elections in a nutshell: "Why can't Obama do a 3rd term?"[/QUOTE] this election season:"why does house of cards seem more believable then this?"
[QUOTE=person11;50102854]ANYWAY solving gerrymandering would help reduce polarization quite a bit[/QUOTE] Get rid of gerrymandering? HahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA The people who benefit from it are the people who have the power to get rid of it. Good luck. It's a feedback loop that will never end without a serious outcry from the public. [QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102920]I was trying to say that gamergate is completely irrelevant to the future of politics, I don't even know why it was brought up[/QUOTE] It didn't seem like that considering the snippet at the front, but I won't disagree with this point. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Source;50102998]These Presidential Elections in a nutshell: "Why can't Obama do a 3rd term?"[/QUOTE] pls no fdr v2
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50103274]I don't recall Obama putting certain people in internment camps.[/QUOTE] Really don't think that's what he meant. At all.
I honestly don't know what to say Matthew, that was quite the jump :v: [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] fuck, you made my night
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50102920]I was trying to say that gamergate is completely irrelevant to the future of politics, I don't even know why it was brought up[/QUOTE] Gamergate is an example where people turned to bomb threats and ruining others lives for being "of the wrong view". It just part of the polarization process in my mind at least. [QUOTE]I don't recall Obama putting certain people in internment camps[/QUOTE] Black sites during GW years. In my view, Obama continued many civil rights abuses that GW was accused of. [QUOTE]That said, there's a lot of nonsensical factors our government is using to practically force such hard polarizations such as gerrymandering and such[/QUOTE] I do not disagree. As some one pointed out, the people who have the power to be rid of this will not due to benefiting. The solution then is to create an alternative narrative that counter both conservatives and liberals.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50103305]The things that would've made a FDR third term terrible don't apply to Obama.[/QUOTE] "Would've made a FDR third term terrible" You talk as if he didn't have a third term, let alone one the four he actually had.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50103358]Gamergate is an example where people turned to bomb threats and ruining others lives for being "of the wrong view".[/QUOTE] No, GamerGate was about gamers fed up with shady people and games journalists colaborating to push a narrative, and then said shady people and games journalists proceeded to burn gamers at the stake because they were in the way of said narrative. It is irrelevant to this thread's subject.
I don't see how GG is at all related.
Political times such as these are neither entertaining nor even interesting, despite there being a candidate (Sanders) who shares my views almost exactly. It would be nice, in its own way, to be part of the extreme pro-Trump or extreme pro-Sanders camps just to have a strong belief that a particular candidate can really bring the change so many feel they want. However, I feel like the system being as polarized and stagnant as it is makes the whole effort of political participation seem pointless to the layperson like myself. It makes sense that our popular media of the moment has a "Fuck it, forget everything and stop caring" mentality. (South Park, A$AP Rocky, me_irl, etc.) It's a pleasant escape.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.