• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Polarization Of America With No End In Sight

SouthernDemocrat said:
I stated that it was a generalization by predicating it with "largely" and "is more". Sure there are urban Republicans and rural Democrats, but in general what I said was true. As to independents, there are some moderates out there but few true independents. Polling generally shows that self proclaimed independents are more partisan than those that take a party label.
Click to expand...

You're right about the true independents, usually around 8% of the electorate. Gallup broke down party affiliation this way 29% Democrat, 24% Republican and 47% Independent. Now you can break down the Independent into Independent lean democrat 16% and Independent lean Republican 16% and true Independent 15%. The 15% is about twice as high as normal in a historical sense. But which ever kind of independent you are, you are not as partisan of those who identify with the two major parties. 90% of those who identify as Democrats historically end up voting Democraticly, 93% of self identified republicans vote republican. Now for the lean category, 70% of those independent who say they lean republican usually vote that way vs. 67% of independents who lean democrat voting democratic. But taking independents as a whole, lean Republican, lean democrat and true independents since exit polls do not break independents down, only gallup and pew research do that.

You would find 55% of all independents voted for Obama in 2008, 56% of independent voted for Republican candidates in 2010 and in 2012 the independent broke roughly even 50-50 between Obama and Romney. So independents can be all over the place and rarely reach the 60% level voting for one candidate or party over the over.
 
Perotista said:
You're right about the true independents, usually around 8% of the electorate. Gallup broke down party affiliation this way 29% Democrat, 24% Republican and 47% Independent. Now you can break down the Independent into Independent lean democrat 16% and Independent lean Republican 16% and true Independent 15%. The 15% is about twice as high as normal in a historical sense. But which ever kind of independent you are, you are not as partisan of those who identify with the two major parties. 90% of those who identify as Democrats historically end up voting Democraticly, 93% of self identified republicans vote republican. Now for the lean category, 70% of those independent who say they lean republican usually vote that way vs. 67% of independents who lean democrat voting democratic. But taking independents as a whole, lean Republican, lean democrat and true independents since exit polls do not break independents down, only gallup and pew research do that.

You would find 55% of all independents voted for Obama in 2008, 56% of independent voted for Republican candidates in 2010 and in 2012 the independent broke roughly even 50-50 between Obama and Romney. So independents can be all over the place and rarely reach the 60% level voting for one candidate or party over the over.
Click to expand...

A 50% +- votes between the two would indicate a true non-partisan group. Not too mention being all over the place/unpredictable.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I stated that it was a generalization by predicating it with "largely" and "is more". Sure there are urban Republicans and rural Democrats, but in general what I said was true. As to independents, there are some moderates out there but few true independents. Polling generally shows that self proclaimed independents are more partisan than those that take a party label.
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that both parties try to claim independents in some sort of way. And yes I was aware that you were generalizing, but that doesnt make a stereotype relevant.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A 50% +- votes between the two would indicate a true non-partisan group. Not too mention being all over the place/unpredictable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one really does not know how independents will go or split. Independents also seem to be the ticket splitters a whole lot more than either those who identify with the two major parties. They tend to be straight party line voters. Whereas the independents are more candidate orientated than party orientated. You will find for an example an average independent voting for the Republican for president, a democrat for senate, another republican for congress and a democratic governor candidate.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As the right sees itself culturally slowly sliding into a minority, it has moved further to the right. As America has become more diverse and more tolerant, that cultural divide has grown larger and larger.
Click to expand...

I see movement on both sides. As the frustrated right moves further right, the jubliant left becomes "Dizzy with Success" and moves futher to the left.

Take for example Obama's position in Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC, a 9-0 loss against Obama: "The Ministerial exception does not exist". Needless to say, voiding this exception would lead to the appointment of religous minsiters by government bodies. Even Soto Mayor was taken aback by Obama's suggestion.

Also, Obama's contraception campaign. The leftist social policy of "free" birth control and "free" access to sterilization is defined as an intrinsic right. The fact that both of these things are alreaddy legal is not enough. Now, churches then must fullfill this "right". The facts that the number of women employed in "refusinik" church affiliated orgainizations is very small, and there are probably other ways to provide the BC do not matter. Obama insists on bringing conservative religous orgainizations to heel.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I see movement on both sides. As the frustrated right moves further right, the jubliant left becomes "Dizzy with Success" and moves futher to the left.

Take for example Obama's position in Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC, a 9-0 loss against Obama: "The Ministerial exception does not exist". Needless to say, voiding this exception would lead to the appointment of religous minsiters by government bodies. Even Soto Mayor was taken aback by Obama's suggestion.

Also, Obama's contraception campaign. The democratic social policy of "free" birth control and "free" access to sterilization is defined as an intrinsic right. Churches then must fullfill this "right". The fact that the number of women in refusinik church affiliated orgainization is very small, and there are probably other ways to provide the BC does not matter. Obama insists on attempting the bring conservative religous orgainizations to heel.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the birth control coverage at religious hospitals or religious institutions offering their employees insurance. It is a stupid battle. If the local Catholic hospital doesn't cover the pill who cares. Any woman working there can just get it generic for less than what her copay probably would have been anyway.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree with you on the birth control coverage at religious hospitals or religious institutions offering their employees insurance. It is a stupid battle.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your acknowledgement that this battle is purely avoidable. As a side note, I think Mayor De Blasio of New York is initiating another battle that does not need to be fought:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...cs-Wipe-Out-Pro-Life-Crisis-Pregnancy-Centers

Despite that fact that abortion is not only legal in New York City, but very widely available, that the left has already lost a court battle with pro life clinics (probably hard to do in the liberal New York judiciary), that there are no objective complaints against the pro life clinics, De Blasio declares it a priority to close them all down. Of course, the fact that this may be impossible to do because of constitutional issues does not matter. Rather, conservative religious groups must be brought to heel.
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
Come on, you're not blaming the Dems for the division are you? You are cherry picking a little? You don't think there was alot of division before Cindy S and Katrina already? You don't think that our President deserved some criticism for the way he reacted to and handled Katrina?

Historically, political divisions like this have always existed and they always will. They come and go.
Click to expand...

I think that it is different now. The way Bush reacted to and handled Katrina is irrelevant at this point. It was never very relevant as it happened after his last election and anything he did or didn't do only concerns him. All Republicans are not the same, and neither are Democrats, and it would be a logical fallacy think otherwise.
I think that we learned something from Clinton's elections. He won both elections with less than 25% of eligible voters. When you only need 25% you can go after special interest groups, offering them something important to them. Forget about serving for the general welfare. Serve the special interest groups that you need to win an election. Politicians gear their campaigns to groups. Religious Right, single women, elderly, young. etc.
 
Lutherf said:
America was pretty well united immediately after 9/11 and stayed pretty united until around 2005 when the media latched on to Cindy Sheehan and then Katrina. The sensationalism surrounding these two issues lead to a huge Democrat win in 2006 and the first thing Pelosi did was push through the Fair Minimum Wage Act which further divided everyone. From there the Democrats packed every defense authorization bill with tons of pet project pork. The "my way or the highway" attitude of Democrats continued through the 2008 election and right up until today.
Click to expand...

And, typical of the right, "it's all Democrats' fault."
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ultimately the division in America is cultural, it merely manifests itself as political because that is how people can express themselves. On the right you have a group that is largely white, in many cases older and Evangelical or Conservative Catholic and more outer burbs and rural. On the left you have a racially and ethnically diverse group that is usually only nominally religious, younger and more inner suburbs and urban.

As the right sees itself culturally slowly sliding into a minority, it has moved further to the right. As America has become more diverse and more tolerant, that cultural divide has grown larger and larger. The political divide is merely a symptom of that. Most people don't pay much attention to things like tax policy, its all culture issues with them.

If you look at the political rhetoric from even the 1940s there has always been this notion that our side tells the truth and the other side does nothing but lie. Moreover, there have always been fringe groups. The difference today is the width of the cultural divide.
Click to expand...

It is unfortunate that you don't see the irony in your comments.
 
Eric7216 said:
It is unfortunate that you don't see the irony in your comments.
Click to expand...

Its unfortunate that you were so obtuse in this comment that its impossible to see what you are getting at. Do you disagree that at the heart of the polarization in America is a cultural divide?
 
Cryptic said:
Thanks for your acknowledgement that this battle is purely avoidable. As a side note, I think Mayor De Blasio of New York is initiating another battle that does not need to be fought:NYC Mayor-Elect De Blasio Promises to Wipe Out Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Despite that fact that abortion is not only legal in New York City, but very widely available, that the left has already lost a court battle with pro life clinics (probably hard to do in the liberal New York judiciary), that there are no objective complaints against the pro life clinics, De Blasio declares it a priority to close them all down. Of course, the fact that this may be impossible to do because of constitutional issues does not matter. Rather, conservative religious groups must be brought to heel.
Click to expand...

That seems like a ridiculous fight as well. I was talking to a friend of mine who is very liberal just a couple of days ago about how anymore it seems like both sides pick stupid battles like this just to placate a minority of the base that doesn't want to give an inch on anything. As a side note, most liberal judiciaries are civil libertarians and generally won't tolerate blatant intrusions on the separation of church and state by either the church or the state.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its unfortunate that you were so obtuse in this comment that its impossible to see what you are getting at. Do you disagree that at the heart of the polarization in America is a cultural divide?
Click to expand...

No, it is a divide based on racial and ethnic hostilities that you promoted quite well with your post about different racial and ethnic groups in different political camps. And I loved the idea that one side is tolerant while bashing the other side. Do you want me to define tolerance for you?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That seems like a ridiculous fight as well. I was talking to a friend of mine who is very liberal just a couple of days ago about how anymore it seems like both sides pick stupid battles like this just to placate a minority of the base that doesn't want to give an inch on anything.
Click to expand...

Ideaology blinds reason on the left and the right. Sadly, both parties now think their minority fringes represent the majority. Heck, I bet even hard core NRA attitudes are a minority of the Republican party - though you would never guess it.
SouthernDemocrat said:
As a side note, most liberal judiciaries are civil libertarians and generally won't tolerate blatant intrusions on the separation of church and state by either the church or the state.
Click to expand...

Also, the old school liberal judiciary tends to favor the "little guy / girl", especially when they are confronted by aggressive authorities. My guess is that the "refusenik" nuns may find alot of sympathy among the liberal justices. After all, it was Soto Mayor who issued the stay.

I think that Obama will lose both the nuns (9-0 type loss) and also for profit Hobby Lobby (smaller loss margin). Many of the justices, even liberal ones, have seen that Obama has an authoratarian streak. To paraphrase a guy from another forum: "fear granting sweeping powers to the government that can later be used against groups and causes that you hold near and dear".
 
Last edited:
Eric7216 said:
No, it is a divide based on racial and ethnic hostilities that you promoted quite well with your post about different racial and ethnic groups in different political camps. And I loved the idea that one side is tolerant while bashing the other side. Do you want me to define tolerance for you?
Click to expand...

I merely described the general demographics of the party and the fact is there is more tolerance for diversity on the left than there is on the right. That is not to say there are not some P.C. Nazis on the left, but in general when you are talking about the side that is more tolerant of different ethnicity, nationalities, sexual orientation and so on, just about anyone would argue that the left tends to be more tolerant.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I merely described the general demographics of the party and the fact is there is more tolerance for diversity on the left than there is on the right. That is not to say there are not some P.C. Nazis on the left, but in general when you are talking about the side that is more tolerant of different ethnicity, nationalities, sexual orientation and so on, just about anyone would argue that the left tends to be more tolerant.
Click to expand...

I understand completely. It is important to make it clear that Republicans are the party of old racist white men and evangelical Christian and any people in other ethnic groups should stick with Democrats because they are the tolerant party. Of course, it would be illegal and unconstitutional to pass laws that actually favor one ethnic or gender group over another we can also deny that is what we are doing. Be sure to ostracize and shame any person in one of those Democrat groups that dares to step out of line.
 
Eric7216 said:
I understand completely. It is important to make it clear that Republicans are the party of old racist white men and evangelical Christian and any people in other ethnic groups should stick with Democrats because they are the tolerant party. Of course, it would be illegal and unconstitutional to pass laws that actually favor one ethnic or gender group over another we can also deny that is what we are doing. Be sure to ostracize and shame any person in one of those Democrat groups that dares to step out of line.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should tone down the histrionics. Nowhere did I ever claim that Republicans are a bunch of old racists. I merely stated, as any demographer would attest to, that the polarization in this country is largely due to a cultural divide. That cultural divide is largely between ("largely" being a term used to signify a general statement) those in rural areas and outer burbs who are more white (more is another term used to signify a general statement) and more religious, and those in urban and inner burbs that are more diverse and less religious. Everything else political is just an expression of that cultural divide.
 
I accept neither the premises nor the hysteria in the OP. Is America really so divided? Proceeding along a timeline that begins with actual civil war and ends with dialogue relating to gay rights and minor debates about seat belts, the reverse would seem to hold true. I think people tend to miss the fact that ideological conflict, while being divisive, is also a form of cohesion. Points of contention that might remain unaddressed are highlighted and resolved, however uncomfortably. About the only spanner in the works I could foresee breaking America is another depression. It serves no purpose to speak of social conflict, divorced from a significant economic catalyst.

Looking further afield to the unfolding crises of various foreign nations, are we seriously entertaining the notion that America stands on the brink of some social catastrophe? That a well-seasoned democracy is so fragile as to collapse in the face of what amounts to no more than a Blue-Red schoolyard brawl? These idiots never truly represent the will of the people, being wholly unconcerned with them. In fact, so stable are US affairs, that exterior threats must be invented to provoke a sense of unease. If not Russia, then China and terrorism.

I wouldn't go building those bunkers just yet, my American cousins. Be of good cheer.
 
rhinefire said:
With America diving more and more in so many ways we are slowly but surely slipping in to two Americas. Despite political campaigns to work together now parties say outright the other side is to blame. I don't believe any rational thinker sees any way to reunite this country since 911 could not. So I pose this one question; where will this ever increasing divisiveness lead us to in the next 20 years?
Click to expand...

Into stupidity and single party rule. The Republocrats already know that all they have to do is play off the other side and they'll remain in power forever. It doesn't matter what one side does when the other side does pretty much the same thing. But they use this divisive and partisan politics to trick us into thinking the status quo could possibly fix the status quo.

In the end, we will be left in a fascist government without freedom or liberty. The Republic will die and we will become slaves on the land our forefathers conquered.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Perhaps you should tone down the histrionics. Nowhere did I ever claim that Republicans are a bunch of old racists. I merely stated, as any demographer would attest to, that the polarization in this country is largely due to a cultural divide. That cultural divide is largely between ("largely" being a term used to signify a general statement) those in rural areas and outer burbs who are more white (more is another term used to signify a general statement) and more religious, and those in urban and inner burbs that are more diverse and less religious. Everything else political is just an expression of that cultural divide.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what "cultural divide" means in your context. I agree with cognitive dissonance theory and understand that people have trouble holding views that conflict. So, if you are racist in the sense that race is very important to you then you will have trouble holding a view point that is contrary to the vast majority of your racial group. That would seem to me to be the opposite of tolerance.

As people become integrated and get to know people of opposing views, this dissonance fades and you can keep a more open, tolerant mind on things. But special interests regarding race and ethnicity has pretty much taken over things at the moment.
 
Obama Turnout Machine Crashes in San Diego

Yesterday, a Republican was elected mayor in the 8th largest city in the US, despite millions spent by special interests in a city that voted overwhelmingly for Obama. It was supposed to be a close election but turned into a 9% margin.
 
Ikari said:
Into stupidity and single party rule. The Republocrats already know that all they have to do is play off the other side and they'll remain in power forever. It doesn't matter what one side does when the other side does pretty much the same thing. But they use this divisive and partisan politics to trick us into thinking the status quo could possibly fix the status quo.

In the end, we will be left in a fascist government without freedom or liberty. The Republic will die and we will become slaves on the land our forefathers conquered.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Actually though your argument isnt really any different than the arguments between hyper-partisan talking heads. Its all about painting a bad picture of those that you oppose. A dead giveaway is when you used words like "fascist" and "status quo". They fit nicely into a old and overused narrative. Certainly that narrative isnt any better than what you call the status quo.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Actually though your argument isnt really any different than the arguments between hyper-partisan talking heads. Its all about painting a bad picture of those that you oppose. A dead giveaway is when you used words like "fascist" and "status quo". They fit nicely into a old and overused narrative. Certainly that narrative isnt any better than what you call the status quo.
Click to expand...

Mine is just an assessment of reality, so of course it's going to be no better than the reality itself. Single party rule never really works out to well for the People.
 
Ikari said:
Mine is just an assessment of reality, so of course it's going to be no better than the reality itself. Single party rule never really works out to well for the People.
Click to expand...
We really don't have one party rule. What we have is two very similar parties engaged in a power struggle that requires them to sway as many people over to their side as possible. That there is little difference in their two "sides" doesn't matter to the power struggle.

Unfortunately for us, the goal of the parties is not to do the best thing for the country, but to do the best thing for the party.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We really don't have one party rule. What we have is two very similar parties engaged in a power struggle that requires them to sway as many people over to their side as possible. That there is little difference in their two "sides" doesn't matter to the power struggle.

Unfortunately for us, the goal of the parties is not to do the best thing for the country, but to do the best thing for the party.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. The sides of the Republocrats are so similar that I see no real need to distinguish. All they have to do is play partisan politics while closing of political competition, making us think there could only ever be a D or an R, and the people will just end up teeter-tottering between the two. They'll never actually lose power, and once that occurs the parties are free from the control of the People and to do as they like. Which is the situation we are in currently. There are some differences, but even those are used more and more only as talking points to try to convince us that there are differences. Functionally, both sides do pretty much the same thing. And it's not in the interest of the People or the Republic, as you say. Their power, their control, their influence. Which will, if left long enough, bring us into fascist regime.

The only way to break the cycle is to destroy the stranglehold on American politics the Republocrats currently have. The status quo will not fix the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom