My point is that gerrymandering districts -- which is undoubtedly a bad thing -- is not what is increasing the polarization. Districts have been gerrymandered for decades. There has always been a fair amount of partisanship. The difference now is that the Republicans have decided to undermine government, instead of participate.
As such, it is highly unlikely that any Democratic President could have successfully bridged the divide.
I seriously doubt that Boehner and McConnell would even remotely consider doing that. Nor do I think it was Obama's fault that McConnell vowed to make Obama a one-term President in late 2010, or that conservative commentators were making similar statements before Obama took office.
You should. Again, two highly respected non-partisan analysts have put together a very compelling case in this regard.
Around 86% of Bush 43's nominees were approved. It is rare for any nominees to be voted down, even with the filibuster in place.
Incorrect. Democratic Senators are not in thrall to the President; if someone bad is nominated, they can still be voted down.
Okay, here's how I will play it: Ike didn't have to get a supermajority on every piece of legislature or nominee.
Nope. How many of those were to repeal Obamacare again?
First, I have already noted how the Democrats did block some nominees in the Bush 43 years -- but nowhere near the level we see with Obama:
Second, the obstructionism in question is how Republicans have tried to shoot down almost everything for the past 5 years. They've held the entire government hostage, over and over again, every time a Democrat holds the Presidency. Their mission is to shrink -- aka destroy -- most functions of the government.
In comparison, many of Bush's signature efforts were done with Democratic support -- e.g. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq; the Bush Tax Cuts; Medicare Part D; TARP. There was some opposition (e.g. to privatizing Social Security) but nowhere near what we see with Obama.
