LOL!
I snorted. 
This part’s a joke, right?
Oh, one or two. Let me condense the things the left said in 2000-2008:
Seriously, you really have to ASK? You’ve discounted 8 years of the worst political vitriol I’ve seen in my 60 years, almost all of it AFTER over 2500 civilians were murdered in an unprecedented attack on US soil by foreigners. If you think hyperpartisanship started in 2008, you are sadly mistaken.
[QUOTE=olivesmarch4th]
Finally, Obama scares the pants off of conservatives. He’s all dark and scary looking
[/quote]
Kindly present your PROOF that Obama’s race is a significant factor in the opposition.
I disagree. Gerrymandering can be effective in limited circumstances, but only when underlying demographic and voting pattern changes allow for it. Political parties are not in the business of ensuring super-majorities for incumbents. They want to spread their support a thinly as possible to increase their representation. As a result, individual races become tighter, and political extremism becomes a hinderance due to the fact that you must appeal to a more diverse voting bloc. It also dilutes the fundraising base, and spread economic and human resources too thin. Thats why you typically see a regression to the mean (politically speaking) in such districts. Furthermore, studies done examining the net gains of redistricting don’t reveal any lasting gains made by the majority party. Even when you examine well-known, “successful” examples like Tom Delay’s redistricting done in Texas, people overlook the fact that the polling indicated his generosity (trimming some GOP votes from his district), would have likely led to him losing his own seat in a close race in subsequent elections. Though better data, and complex algorithms can help in a effort to increase representation via redistricting, the strategy is ultimately a loser for the above reasons, making it doubtful that it’s the reason for hyper-partisanship.
What people typically attribute to gerrymandering are the cumulative effects of the voluntary clustering of like-minded people, and broad demographic changes. We have a far more mobile and aware society today. As a result, people tend to make life choices that allow them to live with like minded people who share not only their habits, hobbies, backgrounds, and ambitions, but also their political affiliations. As such, there is far less interaction between people who are different. That has the effect of making the people we elect to represent us far more reflective of a very narrow slice of America.
One thing that does make politics more divisive than in years past is that the stakes are far higher. For example, Obama plans to raise a billion dollars for his re-election fight. The general trend is that government has become bigger and more powerful while injecting more and more money into the private sector. As a result, individual law makers are lobbied for money or influence resulting in a more agenda-driven congressmen as opposed to a solutions-oriented congress.
Ultimately though, I think that the issue is largely overblown. It just seems things are worse than they have been. The current political climate is largely a result of our political structure, and that has not changed. Our system of checks and balances is slow-moving, redundant, and deliberate system by design. Things are not supposed to move quickly or smoothly. That worked fine in the era when government was conducted behind closed doors, but we have an information society today that makes government seem slow and unresponsive. Today, the world rewards those that are flexible, and those that can move nimbly and take swift action. Yet, our chosen style of governance is not designed to take advantage of those things.
As a result, things seem more divisive (or intractable) because politics is viewed through a eyes of a populace more accustomed to swift action and transparency. Those expectations are part of what has turned politics into theater. Since we have a 24-hour news cycle that is reliant on advertising dollars, it means that the show never ends. That being said, I don’t see much evidence that things are actually more dysfunctional, its just that we know about it. The fact that we now have a front row seat to the madness makes people aware of the gridlock. Just compare how often the filibuster was actually used versus how often its used today. Can you imagine how insane the political system would seem if we had C-SPAN when Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours against the Civil Rights Act of 1957? Or when Robert Bryd led a group that staged a 75-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Or talking heads interviewing everyone under the sun during the Cuban missile crisis. It would probably seem that things were on the verge of collapse.
Seeing laws being made is often compared to making sausage. This idea that everything is worse now is just the general queasiness that comes with seeing more of the sausage making process.
In addition to some of the well-articulated points mentioned, Fox News has proved (from Murdoch’s tabloid background) that the stupid demographic is a very large and very profitable market. They have validated stupidity. You can’t put them worms back.
Gingrich, withthis 1996 memo, which showed his fellow Republicans that they might actually be able to win a majority by scorching the earth and rousing the rabble. Rupert Murdoch and Frank Luntz then took up the cause, after Gingrich’s goading the GOP into shutting down the government out of spite and then finding something to impeach Clinton for backfired.
Yes, you have to be pretty young not to be aware of how much worse the 1990’s were than today in this regard. Obama’s only been called a Kenyan Muslim Socialist by these types, not the Antichrist or a mass murderer.
Was there some other President who had to present his birth certificate?
This, this and this. Before 9/11 was the one-sided media scrutiny of Al Gore versus the blithe acceptance of George Bush, before that it was the ginning up of one “scandal” after another up to the impeachment of Clinton, before that it was Willie Horton, but even before that it was the dog whistle filled Reagan era - the Southern Strategy, the welfare queens and Cadillacs. Karl Rove cut his teeth in “ratfucking” in the era of Watergate, and it’s been a staple of the right since then.
It’s hard to suggest that it’s been a truly bipartisan effort, since there’s no left remaining.
I’d suggest that the issue is what is perpetuating the hyperpartisanship (it succeeds), and that the follow up question is “What’s the matter with Kansas?”
What are you referring to about being a mass murderer? Clinton had the Vince Foster thing, otherwise I’m not sure what you mean.
This poll says 24% of Republicans think Obama may be the antichrist. So this isn’t just some random Anne Coulter type rabble rouser - it’s a quarter of the members of the party. 38% thinks he’s taking after Hitler, 22% says he wants the terrorists to win (I wonder what that even means), 41% say he’s anti-American and wants to be a dictator. 45%, 45%! think that he’s the “domestic enemy” that the people who have sworn to uphold the constistution have to defend against. Does that mean they think every soldier has a duty to try to kill him, or what?
Clinton had some people screaming about a blowjob. Obama has people thinking he is the fucking prophesized ultimate evil that destroys the world, who deliberately wants to destroy America.
The sad thing about is that Obama had all this stuff going for him on day one when he became a figure on the national stage. All of this shit was already being blasted at full volume when he started running in the primaries, before anyone knew anything about his policies, before he’d actually done anything.
I don’t disagree that the election of a black man took the hinges off a lot of people - in fact it appears to have spawned a whole political movement (at least as the veneer over a likely race-based hate machine).
However, let’s not whitewash over the hard work that the right put in during the 1990’s. I mean, they worked their tails off. There was, of course, Whitewater, which to this day nobody can really explain what was supposed to have been the problem there, there was the suggestion that they had Vince Foster killed, there was Travelgate, and ad naseum in terms of efforts by the right to try to create scandals. They spent millions, and happened to get lucky when they tripped over a blowjob.
I don’t disagree that the rage at Clinton was over the top, but it wasn’t so… instantly fierce. The thing that strikes me most is that as Obama became someone that people were aware of, it was like a huge wave of hatred took all of 2 seconds to form. It was instant, bam. No one ever heard a policy position out of him and they were already screaming socialist anti-American who wants to ruin everything. I remember in 2007 people feeling confident enough in public places like bars to yell “KILL HIM!” when his image popped up on TV. It was just, boom - instant. Someone becomes vaguely aware of Obama, and instantly they turn the hatred dial up to foaming.
Excellent example!!! Please provide more… I’m always interested in learning how racist I am.
The other guy originally implied that racism wasn’t a significant factor in the hatred/opposition for Obama. You jump to the immediate and expected straw man as if someone said “all hatred and opposition stems from racism”
Only you can say what is truly in your heart. Everyone else can only make inferences based on your words and deeds.
I do feel bad that your feelings were hurt by the nonspecific implications of someone else.
I wasn’t aware that you were specifically called out as being racist. I was responding to the question posed by rowrrbazzle: “Kindly present your PROOF that Obama’s race is a significant factor in the opposition.”
I honestly can’t say whether you’re racist or not. I’d assume not… but hey, you should be who you need to be.
On internet forums like this one people encounter those with different opinions. Nevertheless, the exchange of ideas is usually less of a dialogue than a blood sport when those on either side of a dispute try to destroy the arguments of those on the other side. Those who cannot argue rationally depend on insults to try to humiliate the opposition.
Flaming is usually controlled on Straight Dope, but it can get nasty on other internet forums.
Aint that the truth! The gloves come off quick here and the attacks fly when something gets posted that the masses don’t like.
I think this is the best explanation. From roughly 1965 to 1975 the United States became so polarized over the War in Vietnam and related issues that one could often tell the political opinions of a stranger by clothing and hair style. That does not exist now. Nevertheless, the per capita gross domestic product had been growing fairly substantially since at least the end of the Second World War, and to a lesser extent since the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt. That took some of the bite out of the bitterness.
The standard of living of most Americans has declined since the inauguration of George W. Bush. To an extent, this has happened since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698
At the same time, real after tax income for the richest 20 percent of the country has risen. For the richest one percent it has risen dramatically. That could be a Democratic issue. Nevertheless, lower income whites feel threatened by blacks and Hispanics. Therefore most of them vote Republican. This was not an issue during the New Deal, when the vast majority of lower income whites voted Democrat. This was because the vast majority of blacks were denied equal rights, and immigration was strictly curtailed.
Most Americans sense that economic growth has come to an end, and that economic disputes have become a zero sum game where the gains of those they do not like, or at least do not care about, will be made at their expense.
The great majority of Tea Party supporters have reasonably secure jobs or retirements. They realize that millions of Americans face long term unemployment. They do not want their taxes raised to help them.
I lay it squarely on the public union sector. They are willing to do anything to continue bleeding the country dry including massive voter fraud. Why do the Republicans lose so many elections the polls show close? Easy, the polls only give people one vote. It is unbelievable the Democrats oppose requiring voters to prove their identity.
After the Democrats failed to steal enough votes in Florida to defeat Bush, they came to Washington determined not to let the leaders the people chose to govern.
As for blaming Fox News, what a joke. How about the 3 old networks and CNN? Blame the Tea Party? How about Acorn’s massive fraud?
Heh. That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are!