More evidence of asymmetric polarization

[TreVader]

I think the results are interesting but it doesn't address the issue that the republican party has become a bastion of misanthropism and xenophobia.


There is a lot more to do with race and class in this than any kind of inherent perceptions of government among conservatives. I think if obama had been named bill jimbob and was white from indiana we wouldn't be having these issues.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

More evidence of GOP racism?

That poll shows that 23% of consistent conservatives would object to a family member marrying someone of a different race, compared to 1% of consistent liberals.

So once again, conservatives are shown to be more racist then everyone else.

 

[TerryMathews]

More evidence of GOP racism?

That poll shows that 23% of consistent conservatives would object to a family member marrying someone of a different race, compared to 1% of consistent liberals.

So once again, conservatives are shown to be more racist then everyone else.

poll doesnt say what you say it does. the responses also allow for the sentiment "I wouldn't be happy because of the harassment a mixed couple face still today."

for the result you claim, they should have used "object", not "not happy".

also I find it amusing that more liberals are not happy about gun owners that conservatives are about people of different races. talk about irrational fears.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

poll doesnt say what you say it does. the responses also allow for the sentiment "I wouldn't be happy because of the harassment a mixed couple face still today."

for the result you claim, they should have used "object", not "not happy".

also I find it amusing that more liberals are not happy about gun owners that conservatives are about people of different races. talk about irrational fears.

OK, so "not happy"...still racism. Last time I checked, gun ownership was a choice, race is not.

So thanks for proving my point. Conservatives once again are shown to be racist.

 

[Paul98]

That data was clear on one point, more engaged = more partisan.

Those who are more engaged are more likely to be partisan, and those who are partisan are more likely to be more engaged.

Now consider well established demographic differences between the parties. Democrats are younger, more college age. I submit the obvious conclusion: that young people are, on average, less engaged. Democrat = younger = less engaged = less partisan.

Anyone wish to contest that?

While that may be true( I didn't look at how the total number was gathered.) that the more less engaged democrats give them lower over all number. That is a comparison as it ignores what the rest of the numbers say. Which is at high mid and low engagement republicans are more likely to be partisan, and similar going other way.

 

[Moonbeam]

OK, so "not happy"...still racism. Last time I checked, gun ownership was a choice, race is not.

So thanks for proving my point. Conservatives once again are shown to be racist.

Careful with that word 'shown'. As this thread adequately points out you can't show a conservative science he doesn't want to see. Everybody else already knows how they are. It's not that they are completely delusional that is the problem, but that some of their delusions are dangerous. They wii destroy any party of their own nation if their fear isn't monopolized by some outside threat.

 

[brandonb]

I believe the second amendment confers an individual right to own a gun. I believe rent control is a bad idea. I believe what Obama is doing with the NSA violates the 4th amendment. I believe drone strikes against US citizens to be illegal. I think teacher tenure is a bad idea, etc, etc.

Thank you for the honest reply. Thumbs up!

 

[TerryMathews]

OK, so "not happy"...still racism. Last time I checked, gun ownership was a choice, race is not.

So thanks for proving my point. Conservatives once again are shown to be racist.

no, its not for the reason I stated in my post and anyone with common sense can realize.

does that statistic capture racist feelings? absolutely. however, due to the wording of the poll it captures non-racist feelings as well which ruins its usefulness for your stated purpose.

 

[TerryMathews]

Careful with that word 'shown'. As this thread adequately points out you can't show a conservative science he doesn't want to see. Everybody else already knows how they are. It's not that they are completely delusional that is the problem, but that some of their delusions are dangerous. They wii destroy any party of their own nation if their fear isn't monopolized by some outside threat.

I love how accurately pointing out a flaw in GTC's analysis equates to this point for you.

in reality, GTC is guilty of what you're accusing Conservatives of. he's the one who is blind to the actual implications of his survey.

 

[justoh]

I love how accurately pointing out a flaw in GTC's analysis equates to this point for you.

in reality, GTC is guilty of what you're accusing Conservatives of. he's the one who is blind to the actual implications of his survey.

conservatives would be unhappy about a family member marrying a person of another race because they anticipate bigotry from conservatives?

 

[TerryMathews]

conservatives would be unhappy about a family member marrying a person of another race because they anticipate bigotry from conservatives?

Some, yes. Probably about the same % of respondents who answered the same from the middle of the road and liberal side.

This is statistics 101. The questions are not correct to substantiate GTC's conclusion.

That or 1% of respondents identifying as consistently liberal are closet racists?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Tell that to the Senate and Harry Reid, something tells me they didn't get the memo. Of course you want to paint yourselves as the party of center and compromise. That's an old song and dance, you've been doing it for a decade.

Conservatives nominate people like Bush, self described "compassionate" who expand government and provide massive entitlements such as Medicare Part D. You rail against them as normal foes, instead of the moderates they are. That way when you look at a real opponent you can call them extremist. Such nominations also work for your moderate shtick, when you paint men like McCain or Romney as normal. They are much more agreeable to you than a Tea Partier, or a Libertarian. You know those men like big government, have proven track records of compromising and working with you. So when we throw them up as nominees, not all Democrats are hardened against them.

In the Republican bid to win votes through moderate candidates, you'll point out that Democrat voters are more open minded, by not being so opposed to those candidates. It'd be hilarious, if it wasn't all so transparent.

Fact of the matter is the Senate requires a super majority to get things done now, and the media allows your Senate Majority Leader to ignore House bills without a vote. Polarization is hyper charged thanks to modern communication. Local intricacies and varied interests give way to the Party Line. Because the Party can better coordinate and communicate to all members nation wide. We are all bathed in their propaganda, and we all march stronger to their beat.

What you're really witnessing now is the infantile development of a connected human civilization. It's going to take time to evolve and move past Republican and Democrat.

+1 In what is now a circle-jerk thread.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Some, yes. Probably about the same % of respondents who answered the same from the middle of the road and liberal side.

This is statistics 101. The questions are not correct to substantiate GTC's conclusion.

That or 1% of respondents identifying as consistently liberal are closet racists?

Sure is a lot of hand-waving to defend your team. Guess it's hard to admit your "team" is way more racist then the US as a whole.

I guess we will soon get the official "both sides do it" post so you or someone else can try for the whole false equivalence angle.

Remind me again, which party consistently argues for legitimate rape? Or hates homosexuals?

 

[nehalem256]

There's also a problem with pointing to a lack of compromise on issues such as denying certain groups of people rights, especially relating to who they are, fundamentally

Sounds to me like liberals like to make excuses for not compromising on issues they find important.

I wonder how that would reflect in a poll of self-reported views on political compromise?:hmm:

 

[justoh]

Sounds to me like liberals like to make excuses for not compromising on issues they find important.

I wonder how that would reflect in a poll of self-reported views on political compromise?:hmm:

I don't believe even you think that's what it sounds like.

Also, the graph on compromise involved people approving or disapproving of elected officials who make compromises?

 

[TerryMathews]

Sure is a lot of hand-waving to defend your team. Guess it's hard to admit your "team" is way more racist then the US as a whole.

I guess we will soon get the official "both sides do it" post so you or someone else can try for the whole false equivalence angle.

Remind me again, which party consistently argues for legitimate rape? Or hates homosexuals?

Only a partisan hack would take critisizing your analysis of a poll as "defending my team".

Without a doubt there are more conservative racists than there are liberal and without a doubt the poll captured that sentiment.

The way your poll was worded, it also captured non-racist sentiment.

Have one of your liberal friends with a college degree explain it to you, so that it won't offend your liberal sensibilities, being schooled by someone with a "conservative brain defect".

To your last point regarding "legitimate rape", both unless Whoopi Goldberd is a bastion of conservatism: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

 

[Moonbeam]

Only a partisan hack would take critisizing your analysis of a poll as "defending my team".

Without a doubt there are more conservative racists than there are liberal and without a doubt the poll captured that sentiment.

The way your poll was worded, it also captured non-racist sentiment.

Have one of your liberal friends with a college degree explain it to you, so that it won't offend your liberal sensibilities, being schooled by someone with a "conservative brain defect".

To your last point regarding "legitimate rape", both unless Whoopi Goldberd is a bastion of conservatism: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

Wonderfully done. You're so opaque you win the cake. Simply brilliant. Textbook. Hehehehehehehe

 

[trenchfoot]

What I sense from talking with conservative leaning friends and acquaintances is a general sense of impending doom; that what we are headed for (in their world) are changes that will destroy the very essence of what our nation was originally founded on and what values those "origins" represent.

IMO, change is what is being contested at the visceral level of things that we hold dear. Our nation is in a state of cultural flux, of evolving, simply for the fact that by comparison, we are the youngsters on the block of world cultures. As such, what was, and is, cannot help but be replaced with what will be.

For reasons of which is a wholly different topic and diverts from the point I'm attempting to put forward, the liberal state of mind is better able cope with change than the conservative one.

We can argue that conservatism represents "traditional values". We can argue that conservatism represents those core beliefs that should never ever change. We could even go so far as to say that change is unpatriotic and subversive and egads! a liberal conspiracy (from the conservative perspective) to destroy what should survive the second coming.

But by these very ideas, conservatism represents the antithesis of change.

Change is fluid, it is in some sense unpredictable. But more than that, it is inevitable. The moment the conservative mindset accepts this fact of life, we can all move on and make the changes that we all can live with.

As an aside, there's this argument about assimilation; that anyone who accepts citizenship should also accept the....how shall I delicately put this....."Judeo Christian western cultural values" (and, here we go again) not change the identity of what we are now, out fear that what will be is not in the best interests of "the native culture".

Well, there is that side of me that agrees with that premise to a certain degree. However, it's not from the standpoint that it somehow gives me a sense of superiority, of seniority, of moral and cultural advantage.

Rather, my agreement with that premise is one of practicality and one of national identity. Sure, we can argue what it is to be "an American" all day long, but that too is a different topic.

We are a nation of immigrants. We have changed in so many ways and we will continually evolve. This tug of war between what we mustn't change and what we cannot help but change to survive as a nation is where, IMO, the conflict of interests occur at the most emotional and heartfelt levels.

No doubt we will survive as a nation, and interestingly, for the very same reason we have internal conflicts with deciding what our national identity is....at the moment. We need the conservative mindset to anchor our identity to our national origins, but we also need the liberal mindset to help us evolve and keep up with the changes that are occurring inside and outside our borders, of which the conservative mindset, (you know... the mindset that dictates that "we all can get along so long as you think like me") has difficulty dealing with.

 

[TerryMathews]

Wonderfully done. You're so opaque you win the cake. Simply brilliant. Textbook. Hehehehehehehe

Textbook: you can't argue with the logic, so you hurl insults instead.

 

[MongGrel]

Careful with that word 'shown'. As this thread adequately points out you can't show a conservative science he doesn't want to see. Everybody else already knows how they are. It's not that they are completely delusional that is the problem, but that some of their delusions are dangerous. They wii destroy any party of their own nation if their fear isn't monopolized by some outside threat.

I hate when the Wii's will control the world, we'll be in fear of skynet.

J/K a bit.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't believe even you think that's what it sounds like.

Its exactly what it sounds like. I point on something it is pretty clear liberals are totally unwilling to compromise on.

Your response is "well that doesn't count because <insert reason here"

Also, the graph on compromise involved people approving or disapproving of elected officials who make compromises?

"% who say they like elected officials who compromise"

So in other words its self reported.

Its also easy to support compromise when you are the one gaining things. I imagine most people would be more willing to support compromise in exactly how much of a raise they get verse how much of a salary reduction they receive.

And more often than not conservatives are the ones of the "salary reduction" side of things.

 

[Darwin333]

Modern political polarization is derived from the collectiveness of the internet which is trumping independent thinking. Without that connection people tended to grow up their own way, chart their own path. We've traded in free thinking for towing the party line. It's not healthy.

P&N is a perfect ground zero demonstration.

Naw, this IS the goal of both parties. They are purposely polarizing their constituents and it has been more successful than they could have ever dreamed. It's nothing but a ploy to keep the sheeple distracted from the important shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

no, its not for the reason I stated in my post and anyone with common sense can realize.

does that statistic capture racist feelings? absolutely. however, due to the wording of the poll it captures non-racist feelings as well which ruins its usefulness for your stated purpose.

It just captures racist excuses.

 

[Matt1970]

You're saying that Pew is now a partisan organization?

No, what he is saying is this: You found something on the web that allows you to cheerlead for your team, and you are posting it all over the net in support for your side.

That pretty much sums it up. The people that write these articles only make themselves look like fools because the vast majority of people realize right and left, liberal and conservative are just different sides of the same coin. The ones that don't get it are the ones constantly claiming the other side is out to destroy the nation or they are just using bullshit like this to fuel their political firefight while turning a blind eye to what happens on their side.

 

[Jhhnn]

Naw, this IS the goal of both parties. They are purposely polarizing their constituents and it has been more successful than they could have ever dreamed. It's nothing but a ploy to keep the sheeple distracted from the important shit.

So, uhh, more of the same "They're just as Bad!" rationalization, right?