So writingprof just said the two parties take turns failing, which makes perfect sense to me. NBC released a poll today with the following claimed breakdown of voters (which does seem a bit(?) tidy to me):
17% Trump R's
17% Party R's
17% Biden D's
17% Sanders/Warren D's
Assuming it's true, 32% are dispersed in some other way, and likely not really represented at all.
Maybe they are Will Rogers Democrats:
"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers
I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.
The 17% returns times four suggest a uniform distribution over issues, not polarization. One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.
A uniform distribution per se doesn't invite two disparate bodies of noise, rather many. My guess is that because the two disparate bodies live in different places, along the water or inland, where they form relatively more homogeneous groups, the noise is invited.
Two countries. Let's form a free trade area and a mutual defense pact between the two. And/or, the other lot can join Canada -- if they'll have them. :-)
Quote from: dismalist on January 24, 2021, 07:18:44 PM
I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.
Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences
within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the
opposing party!
The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2021, 06:47:20 AM
Quote from: dismalist on January 24, 2021, 07:18:44 PM
I think I found the source - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/what-if-america-s-four-political-parties-n1255450.
Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party!
The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.
Instead of the parties compromising, maybe it should be about what voters actually want?
The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 25, 2021, 09:15:55 AM
The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.
You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.
Right now, it is very en vogue to self label as an independent. I have many friends who do this and believe themselves to be above politics as a result. But then they get mad when they can't vote in a primary. And even more mad when I point out the obvious- that the point of the primary is to assess the will of the party, not the people as a whole.
I too wish that we had more than 2 truly viable national options. But no one seems to be willing to put in the long term work it would take to get there. I can only hope that the growing realization among Dems that local elections matter more than they ever thought leads to some change in this area.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 25, 2021, 06:47:20 AM
Interesting note:
55% of "Party Republicans" are in favour of compromising with Biden, whereas only 60% of "Sanders-Warren Democrats" are willing to do so. They're barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party!
The hardcore progressives are going to be a real challenge for Biden.
FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party. Remember, he's the man who has "no empathy" for struggling millennials and zoomers and our concerns. It remains to be seen exactly what the character of this administration will be. Some of the moves so far have been pretty good, but others haven't, and the constant talk of 'unity' sounds an awful lot like caving in to Republicans. If that's the case, then it's not surprising that his right is more pro-compromise than his left.
It's also not a surprising result because Republicans are straight out of power, and that's always been when they cry the loudest for "unity" and "compromise". It's the only way they have a shot at enacting their agenda. Notice, however, that when they have the power there's absolutely no compromise with the Democrats, let alone the left wing of the party.
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 09:45:53 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 25, 2021, 09:15:55 AM
The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.
You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.
That occurred to me as well. It's probably less important how the system is set up than how committed everybody is to making it work. No constitutional setup is so perfect that it can't be broken by a sufficiently dysfunctional culture.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 25, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party.
We get it, you really don't like Biden. But you are really out of touch with where the middle of each party currently is if you genuinely think this is at all true. We are not Canada my friend.
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 25, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party.
We get it, you really don't like Biden. But you are really out of touch with where the middle of each party currently is if you genuinely think this is at all true. We are not Canada my friend.
Could be. Shrug.
I guess I was thinking in terms of his role in designing the crime bill, in welfare reform, the bankruptcy bill, in cheerleading for war, in trying to cut social security and other benefit programs, in deficit hawking, in opposing M4A (in favour of tweaking the ACA and maybe adding a public option), in demonizing China, etc. It looks to me like that's a record which is closer to the moderate-leaning end of the Republican party than it is to the Warren/Sanders end of the Democratic party. And it's not like he was smack dab in the centre of the primary field, either.
That said, I'm happy to acknowledge that that was then and this is now, and so far it looks like he's allowed himself to be moved somewhere to his left. It remains to be seen how far and whether that will stick, of course, and whether it's enough to bring the left of the party onboard. My point was just that this could explain the "pro-compromise" figures marshwiggle cited without going full hog on the conclusion that "[Democrats] are barely more tolerant of differences
within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the
opposing party". A significant unwillingness to compromise with the centre doesn't seem as crazy to me, on the policy front, as it seems to seem to marshwiggle.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 25, 2021, 09:15:55 AM
The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.
A little lesson from Canada: We have 3 major federal parties, and have had a few more within the pasr couple of decades. While,
in principle, multiple parties could lead to more collaboration, in practice it doesn't that much.
- In principle, you could have parties split along 2 (or more) axes, so for instance fiscal conservatives and liberals, as well as social conservatives and liberals. In practice, the two biggest groups are fiscal conservatives and social liberals, so everything gets skewed along that line.
- In principle, parties could stay in their ideological lanes. In practice, since more votes means more power, parties will become more amorphous to try and get more clout.
The result of these is that the major parties tend to align along a more-or-less continuous axis, and the party most in the centre has the advantage. (Although it's possible for parties closer on the axis to fight with each other for voters, splitting the vote from that end of the axis allowing the party at the other end to clean up.)
The only time the collaboration tends to happen is in a minority government situation, which if I recall correctly has historically happened about 1/3 of the time.
(Having said all that, the one toxic thing about the 2 party system is that everything is,
by definition, an "US" and "THEM" battle between "GOOD" and "EVIL". In a system with more parties, even if some will never form the government, they may have policy ideas that are not the same as either of the major parties, so it recognizes that there are more than just 2 possibilities.)
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 09:45:53 AM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 25, 2021, 09:15:55 AM
The reason I think it does imply gridlock is that we shoehorn what looks to me like several parties into two, when we might be better served with something more like the European and Israeli systems. I've found that two parties (not in the political sense necessarily; think couples) are more likely to dig in against each other based on long term animosity, and when there are three or more it forces some cooperation on issues.
You sure about that? Israel is on what, its third or forth election in the last year or so? And Belgium at one point went a year and a half without being able to form a government. As flawed as the US system is, I don't think those are models we want to emulate.
I had to retype this, as power went out just as I was finishing. Aside: damn I'm COLD!
I''m never sure about much of anything. I have to think Israel of the last few years is an anomaly. I think that our primary system, coupled with us vs them has led us to a really bad place in terms of compromise. If we had 4-5 parties I think the conditions for coalition building might be better. As it is the most strident views of each party (sorry, particularly the R's) take over.
Quote from: dismalist on January 24, 2021, 07:18:44 PM
One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.
They believe that voting is a nuisance, to be undertaken only when things are going seriously wrong.
Quote from: writingprof on January 25, 2021, 03:03:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 24, 2021, 07:18:44 PM
One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.
They believe that voting is a nuisance, to be undertaken only when things are going seriously wrong.
I sincerely doubt that. This was a poll of registered voters, and so unlikely that tons of them are only voting when things are seriously wrong.
From my easiest source (don't make me say what it is):
In the United States[edit]
Using the self-identification method of measuring political independence, surveys found an increasing number of independent voters beginning in 1966.[37][41] In 1952, when modern polling on the issue began, the number of independent voters nationwide was 22 percent. By 1976, the number had risen more than half, to 36 percent of the electorate. Regionally, the rise of the independent voter was even more apparent. In the non-Deep South, the number of independent voters had risen from 22 percent to 37 percent. But in the Deep South, the number of independents rose steeply from 14 percent in 1952 to 32 percent in 1976 (and would rise even further, to 35 percent, by 1984).[2][49][50]
Although the number of self-identified independents has fallen slightly in the 1990s and 2000s, about 30 percent of American voters still say they are independents (as measured by self-identification).[51]
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 25, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 25, 2021, 10:14:51 AM
FWIW, that's not necessarily surprising given Biden's record, which is much closer to "moderate" Republicans than to the left wing of the Democratic party.
We get it, you really don't like Biden. But you are really out of touch with where the middle of each party currently is if you genuinely think this is at all true. We are not Canada my friend.
Could be. Shrug.
I guess I was thinking in terms of his role in designing the crime bill, in welfare reform, the bankruptcy bill, in cheerleading for war, in trying to cut social security and other benefit programs, in deficit hawking, in opposing M4A (in favour of tweaking the ACA and maybe adding a public option), in demonizing China, etc. It looks to me like that's a record which is closer to the moderate-leaning end of the Republican party than it is to the Warren/Sanders end of the Democratic party. And it's not like he was smack dab in the centre of the primary field, either.
That said, I'm happy to acknowledge that that was then and this is now, and so far it looks like he's allowed himself to be moved somewhere to his left. It remains to be seen how far and whether that will stick, of course, and whether it's enough to bring the left of the party onboard. My point was just that this could explain the "pro-compromise" figures marshwiggle cited without going full hog on the conclusion that "[Democrats] are barely more tolerant of differences within their own party than moderate Rebublicans are with the opposing party". A significant unwillingness to compromise with the centre doesn't seem as crazy to me, on the policy front, as it seems to seem to marshwiggle.
The bolded part is simply untrue-- I wonder what you think "moderate republicans" believe and want? Whatever that is, I'm quite sure their are no such people in the Republican party, though there was a time when the parties were less ideologically distinct when that may have been the case. For example, find me one R in congress who would sign on to a public option.
In contrast, so far, in addition to a bunch of COVID response executive orders, and sending a major relief bill and a major immigration reform bill to Congress, Biden has taken executive actions to:
Ban new oil and gas drilling on federal land
Rejoin the Paris climate accord
Allocate $10 billion in disaster relief funds for preventing climate disasters
Cancel the XL pipeline
Overturn the ban on transgender people serving in the military
Prevent workplace discrimination on basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
Restore collective bargaining rights to federal employees
Require non-citizens to be included in the Census
Restore and fortify DACA
Reverse the "Muslim ban"
Halt construction of the border wall
Expand a pause on student loan repayments
Expand a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures
etc. (some 30 and counting)
And it hasn't even been a week yet. No more than a small handful of Rs in Congress would have voted in support of any one of those things.
Biden has pretty much always been right in the middle of the Democratic party. You can read that as politic or you can read it as him changing his mind on many issues over time along with the rest of the party, but he has never been a "centrist" except relative to the party, not the nation as a whole.
It's a pretty useful myth though (made more believable by the protestations of folks on the left like you, so thanks for that) if it lets him actually get a few things done in a closely divided Congress.
QuoteBiden has pretty much always been right in the middle of the Democratic party. ... he has never been a "centrist" except relative to the party, not the nation as a whole.
That is correct, I think.
And it is consistent with there being two countries, so to speak. There are so few voters in the middle of issue spectra, that it hardly pays presidential candidates to go after them. Better to get the non-voting friends to vote.
As always, the source of the problem is us -- we don't agree. But then again, why should we?
Quote from: Puget on January 25, 2021, 03:30:18 PM
The bolded part is simply untrue-- I wonder what you think "moderate republicans" believe and want? Whatever that is, I'm quite sure their are no such people in the Republican party, though there was a time when the parties were less ideologically distinct when that may have been the case. For example, find me one R in congress who would sign on to a public option.
Yes, well, I agree: the "moderate" Republican may well be a myth at this point. And I certainly don't have a good fix on what the Republican party's segments look like, policy-wise, because they've moved so far into utter nutter territory over the last twenty years.
But I wonder what you think the upshot of this disagreement is. I'm saying that Biden's
record, evaluated today, is a pretty conservative one. And yes, he has a chance now to tack in a different direction, and in fact he seems to be doing so. I'm happy to acknowledge that, although I hope you'll forgive me for being cautious in my optimism, given (1) how early it is, (2) what his appointments so far look like, and (3) what his rhetoric on the campaign trail and since winning has been like. It seems like he is being at least somewhat responsive to the left's concerns, and that's good! I'll even take some sour policy lemons in exchange for real progress on important files.
Remember, I was offering an explanation for the numbers marshwiggle ovbserved. Marshwiggle said he thought they indicate that the Democratic party is barely more tolerant of internal policy differences than "moderate" Republicans are of the Democratic party as a whole. If the left-Democratic consensus is far removed from Biden's
record, then it makes sense that they might not be very keen to compromise with him
at this point. Likewise, if Biden's
record is pretty conservative, then it makes sense that the non-Q Republicans might be relatively willing to compromise with him, since it gives them the means to push their policy goals despite being out of power. Is that wrong?
It certainly doesn't seem like an implausible interpretation to me. And it's perfectly consistent with Biden having pushed (or been pushed) left in the last six months, and with a Biden presidency in 2020 being appreciably left of what a Biden presidency in 1999 or 2009 would have been, and even to the left of where Obama was and where Clinton found herself in 2016.
Quote
In contrast, so far, in addition to a bunch of COVID response executive orders, and sending a major relief bill and a major immigration reform bill to Congress, Biden has taken executive actions to:
Ban new oil and gas drilling on federal land
Rejoin the Paris climate accord
Allocate $10 billion in disaster relief funds for preventing climate disasters
Cancel the XL pipeline
Overturn the ban on transgender people serving in the military
Prevent workplace discrimination on basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
Restore collective bargaining rights to federal employees
Require non-citizens to be included in the Census
Restore and fortify DACA
Reverse the "Muslim ban"
Halt construction of the border wall
Expand a pause on student loan repayments
Expand a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures
etc. (some 30 and counting)
And it hasn't even been a week yet. No more than a small handful of Rs in Congress would have voted in support of any one of those things.
Again, as I said, I agree that these are good things. In fact, they're unambiguously good things. Some (primarily KXL) are even things that are clearly gifts to the left of the party, and which signal that he might actually have been moved somewhere to his left. It's early days, and we'll see how far he's moved, and how much it will stick. But those are reasons for cautious optimism.
Quote
Biden has pretty much always been right in the middle of the Democratic party. You can read that as politic or you can read it as him changing his mind on many issues over time along with the rest of the party, but he has never been a "centrist" except relative to the party, not the nation as a whole.
I can accept I may be wrong on this front. I wasn't paying attention to politics--let alone American politics--in the '90s, and wasn't paying enough attention in the early aughts to have a sense of where he was relative to the Republican party at the time. What I
am sure about, however, is that he
wasn't smack dab in the middle of the primary candidates in 2020.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 25, 2021, 03:22:44 PM
Quote from: writingprof on January 25, 2021, 03:03:35 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 24, 2021, 07:18:44 PM
One has to wonder what the remaining 32% believe, though.
They believe that voting is a nuisance, to be undertaken only when things are going seriously wrong.
I sincerely doubt that. This was a poll of registered voters, and so unlikely that tons of them are only voting when things are seriously wrong.
Oh.
Fantasy time: Why do we need political parties? (Obviously for fundraising, but....) Why can't voters just vote on issues and have them be implemented with politicians serving as negotiators for the two (or multiple) sides? I suppose I'm just completely sick of party politics, so someone explain to me why this would be a bad idea.
Quote from: permanent imposter on January 30, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
Fantasy time: Why do we need political parties? (Obviously for fundraising, but....) Why can't voters just vote on issues and have them be implemented with politicians serving as negotiators for the two (or multiple) sides? I suppose I'm just completely sick of party politics, so someone explain to me why this would be a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea at all. Parties are pre-formed coalitions. They make the haggling necessary to achieve minimal consensus cheaper than we as individuals could ever achieve, even with contemporary technology.
The founders hated parties. Part of the reason for an Electoral College was to keep parties distant and have the people vote on individual electors. The parties took that back! George Washington himself restricted himself to two periods inn office because he was high minded -- and because he hated the parties that were forming.
Quote from: dismalist on January 30, 2021, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: permanent imposter on January 30, 2021, 02:50:10 PM
Fantasy time: Why do we need political parties? (Obviously for fundraising, but....) Why can't voters just vote on issues and have them be implemented with politicians serving as negotiators for the two (or multiple) sides? I suppose I'm just completely sick of party politics, so someone explain to me why this would be a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea at all. Parties are pre-formed coalitions. They make the haggling necessary to achieve minimal consensus cheaper than we as individuals could ever achieve, even with contemporary technology.
The founders hated parties. Part of the reason for an Electoral College was to keep parties distant and have the people vote on individual electors. The parties took that back! George Washington himself restricted himself to two periods inn office because he was high minded -- and because he hated the parties that were forming.
In most places, municipal politics doesn't have parties. I think the perceived problem is that the bigger the geographical area being governed, the more diverse the interests of different constituencies, so parties force some sort of "big picture" thinking. If you want some legistlator from the Midwest to care about fisheries, and you want someone from the coast to worry about the effect of drought on agriculture, you need them all to have some perspective beyond their own constituents.