Political parties

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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]

[Puget]

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.

[dismalist]

Biden 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?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

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.

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.

[writingprof]

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.

[permanent imposter]

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.

[dismalist]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.