Dems warming to a blue/red state split

[gbg3]

Shoot the messenger fallacy used when you can't dispute the message.

From the citation:

In a survey of 2,008 voters conducted by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, 31% of “Biden supporters” want Democratic-controlled states to secede from the U.S. to form their own country.​

Democrats now want US split into ‘blue’ states and ‘red’ states

Liberals laughed when conservatives, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), called for dividing the United States into red and blue states because

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Shoot the messenger fallacy is a weak argument.

Now if you can demonstration that the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia is biased, or that their survey was biased, that'd be something different.

Some might benefit by rereading the OP. The topic of this thread was nothing more than presenting information that, according to a new survey, Dems are warming to the idea of a blue/red state split. It's fine that some want to discuss details of what complications a split would involve but the topic of this thread had nothing to do with that. This thread evolved into all sorts of tactics (including shoot the messenger and more) which had nothing at all to do with the premise of the OP.

 

[Candyman]

Ok. So there are stupid republicans and democrats. We knew this. That’s all the survey really shows.

 

[gbg3]

That's not my point. Abortion is only an example.

A good example IMO. And I think it was your point, wasn't it (see your quote below)? I think it's exactly the type of issue which makes sense being legislated at the state rather than federal level. And there would be no reason for all blue states to legislate on the issue in the same manner. Education is another such issue, IMO.

Here is how our part of the conversation about abortion went:

Don't you think a red state with legal abortion would need to divorce itself from a red state with a total ban? How do you reconcile that amicably? It seems to be one of, if not the main issue of disagreement between the ill-defined blue and red.

No absolutely not. I think it is fine for states to have different abortion policies defined at the state level. I also don't think that is causing angst between the red states and between the blue states. In other words, blue states with no restrictions don't seem to be arguing with blue states with restrictions on late term abortions.

 

[Ambig]

Some might benefit by rereading the OP. The topic of this thread was nothing more than presenting information that, according to a new survey, Dems are warming to the idea of a blue/red state split.

But we don't have any evidence of that yet. Just a claim by a rightwing source.

 

[BlueTex]

Some might benefit by rereading the OP. The topic of this thread was nothing more than presenting information that, according to a new survey, Dems are warming to the idea of a blue/red state split. It's fine that some want to discuss details of what complications a split would involve but the topic of this thread had nothing to do with that. This thread evolved into all sorts of tactics (including shoot the messenger and more) which had nothing at all to do with the premise of the OP.

Do you think even high level details of what a split would mean would change these results?

 

[gbg3]

Do you think even high level details of what a split would mean would change these results?

Quite possibly.

I think these results of people warming to the idea are a result of the extent of the division in this country. Historically, there has often been an acceptance of the other party enough that the parties were able to at least work together to some extent in terms of at least minimal and manageable compromise. Also, the desired policies weren't so far apart. And a similar recognition of problems existed among the two parties. I'll offer the border as a current example. Just look at the difference in how those in one party view the border situation compared to how those in the other party view it! Common ground on a situation we can clearly see and measure, where we have ample data, video coverage and more - is nowhere to be found.

So, I think people who don't like seeing the constant battle which only gets worse and never better, understand neither side will be convinced of or persuaded by the views of the other side (both sides thinking the ideas of the other are terrible, destructive, ludicrous, unbelievable), and love their country - are increasingly feeling like there is no solution to this division. Some even think differences and emotions are so high that chaos and harm to people are and will continue to be the result.

I'm one who feels it's gotten really bad, and I see no path to bring the two sides together. So, to me and surveys like the one discussed in the OP indicate many others, it seems like it has reached a point where trying to find a way for each side to live among those with whom there is at least some level of harmony and agreement and to give those we fiercely disagree with the same ability - would be a better solution than the increasingly dangerous and unproductive battle.

But no doubt an amicable divorce (formalized) would be complicated and require the same kind of intelligence and thought which went into our nation's founding. And certainly minds and opinions might change if it were pursued, maybe even in both directions. Some who now think it an interesting idea might decide it would be either impossible or just too difficult. Conversely, some who are dismissing it entirely might decide it could actually provide a better and more cooperative scenario.

 

[Ambig]

I think these results of people warming to the idea are a result of the extent of the division in this country. Historically, there has often been an acceptance of the other party enough that the parties were able to at least work together to some extent in terms of at least minimal and manageable compromise. Also, the desired policies weren't so far apart. And a similar recognition of problems existed among the two parties. I'll offer the border as a current example. Just look at the difference in how those in one party view the border situation compared to how those in the other party view it! Common ground on a situation we can clearly see and measure, where we have ample data, video coverage and more - is nowhere to be found.

Now do 'violent insurrection against the US government.'

Or 'stealing, showing and lying about classified documents.'

Or 'attempting to steal the US presidency.'

Let's see how far apart we are on those issues.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The split is not by state it is primarily urban vs rural.

The split is only going to get worse over time.

Splitting by state will not solve the issue

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Note this urban vs rural divide is not unique to the US but is effecting most developed or semi developed countries

Urban-rural splits have become the great global divider

A political phenomenon is pitting metropolitan elites against small-town populists

www.ft.com

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach ofFT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/e05cde76-93d6-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e

The split between a metropolitan elite and a populist hinterland is clear in western politics. Less often noticed is that the same divide increasingly defines politics outside the west — spanning places with very different cultures and levels of development, such as Turkey, Thailand, Brazil, Egypt and Israel.

 

[Michael Cole]

A good example IMO. And I think it was your point, wasn't it (see your quote below)? I think it's exactly the type of issue which makes sense being legislated at the state rather than federal level. And there would be no reason for all blue states to legislate on the issue in the same manner. Education is another such issue, IMO.

Here is how our part of the conversation about abortion went:

It was an example. An example of the difficulty in defining red and blue. You ignored the body of my post, which explained this. You have no answers, yet you foresee an amicable separation. I think you realize the folly of separating people in this way.

 

[Callen]

It was an example. An example of the difficulty in defining red and blue. You ignored the body of my post, which explained this. You have no answers, yet you foresee an amicable separation. I think you realize the folly of separating people in this way.

I think she is conflating state rights with some sort of "divorce" of red and blue states from each other. States already have control of abortion laws and to a large extent education. Red States can do as they wish as can blue states. I have no idea how some sort of "divorce" changes or strengthens that and neither does she.

 

[Michael Cole]

I think she is conflating state rights with some sort of "divorce" of red and blue states from each other. States already have control of abortion laws and to a large extent education. Red States can do as they wish as can blue states. I have no idea how some sort of "divorce" changes or strengthens that and neither does she.

I think she's just angry because Trump lost. But that's my gut. She hasn't hinted at what separates a red state from a blue state. I've described my state in detail, and she has yet to address it. I'm not interested in the stupid poll. Cher said she's gone if Trump wins reelection. Everybody's mad. Stupid.

I can't form an opinion if I don't know what color my state is, and the colors mean nothing when I see neighboring states, especially to the west and east, that are nothing like my state nor each other. I wouldn't hook up with either of them. They wouldn't hook up with each other.

We're gonna need a lot more than two countries. I have an idea.