Party moving too radical?

[poweRob]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

 

[Puigb]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

Most of the people spewing the "I was a Democrat until very recently" line are generally 1 of 2 things. First being a grifter type Ala Candace Owens/Hodgetwins/Tim Poole who realized they could make a lot more money pandering to the far right and white grievance crowd than they could on the other "side". It works even better if you're a minority who's willing to trash other minorities and "white liberals".

The other is Bush Republicans who all abandoned him after 2008, who pretended to be "independents" and "libertarians" in the Obama era, who then went on to pretend to be against "forever wars" during Trump's tenure, after they spent years calling anyone who opposed the war in Iraq "unpatriotic". Oh, and they of course ignored the record amount of drone strikes during Trump's 4 years, after pretending to care about it during Obama's 8 years. There's never any consistency with these people, because at the end of the day, it's all about "owning the libs".

 

[HIP56948]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.

 

[ataraxia]

These are all very interesting charts.

The Koch brothers love the poorly educated because they can ride all their ignorance and prejudice to go anywhere they want- free ride. Who can say no to that?

Look! Squirrel! They want to take your guns and Bibles and pickup trucks away! Quick! Vote to cut my taxes some more and I’ll protect you!

 

[Craig234]

Where is the FDR period, 1933 - 1969 or 1980, on that chart?

 

[gbg3]

I think the left should test this out.
I saw Elizabeth Warren in an interview today. She wants to take this current oil/energy situation as the perfect opportunity (in her opinion) to go full on green new deal and rid the nation of virtually any reliance on oil. She also wants Biden to sign an EO (today was her ask) to waive student loans to the tune of $50,000 per person/loan.
Since Pew is letting you know that it's the GOP moving too far right and not the Dems moving too far left - I fully support the Dems going full steam ahead with Warren's two topics (and more) from now until the midterms! Do it - the voters will simply love it and it will save the midterms for them. This poll is all the evidence you need. Encourage all your candidates to run on proposals just like these two.

 

[LostinThought]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

That's an interesting poll, though the problem would be that it's sole purpose is politically motivated.
This has been a topic for a few years now, how the democrats have shifted too far to the left for many people and that the republicans have stayed relatively the same. Even with Trump's term in office indicating a slight shift towards the center as opposed to being further on the right.

Then again, this is coming from the same kind of people who claim that anyone right of Bernie Sanders is a republican. So there's no real room to swing that particular club here.

 

[Grim17]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

I saw this and my jaw dropped... How could this possible be? Then I read the methodology and it made more sense.

This study isn't about ideological beliefs, or policies each party endorses. As far as I can tell, it's basically about cross over votes over the years in the congress and senate. It's looking at the number of republicans that voted with democrats on bills, and the number of democrats who voted with republicans on bills.

So by their standards, when those 2 democrats crossed the isle and voted with republicans against the "Build Back Better" bill, that would be an example of republicans moving further to the right... In my opinion, when a party can't even get all of their representatives to vote yes on a piece of legislation they crafted, such as Build back better, and the opposing party, the republicans, unanimously voted it down, that's an example of the democrats moving further to the left, not the other way around.

.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I saw this and my jaw dropped... How could this possible be? Then I read the methodology and it made more sense.

This study isn't about ideological beliefs, or policies each party endorses. As far as I can tell, it's basically about cross over votes over the years in the congress and senate. It's looking at the number of republicans that voted with democrats on bills, and the number of democrats who voted with republicans on bills.

So by their standards, when those 2 democrats crossed the isle and voted with republicans against the "Build Back Better" bill, that would be an example of republicans moving further to the right

You sure about that?

... In my opinion, when a party can't even get all of their representatives to vote yes on a piece of legislation they crafted, such as Build back better, and the opposing party, the republicans, unanimously voted it down, that's an example of the democrats moving further to the left, not the other way around.

.

Before reaching that conclusion, you should examine the methodology again. Manchin and Sinema were not counted as Republicans at any point, so their votes on BBB can only affect the Democratic caucus.

 

[joluoto]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.
View attachment 67379952

It really started with Barry Goldwater.

 

[tacomancer]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.
View attachment 67379952

People becoming more politically extreme in time of economic hardship is actually very well documented and consistent no matter the culture being studied. Also consider what's been happening to small towns since walmartization, farming consolidation, and the meth epidemic.

 

[poweRob]

That's an interesting poll, though the problem would be that it's sole purpose is politically motivated.
This has been a topic for a few years now, how the democrats have shifted too far to the left for many people and that the republicans have stayed relatively the same. Even with Trump's term in office indicating a slight shift towards the center as opposed to being further on the right.

Then again, this is coming from the same kind of people who claim that anyone right of Bernie Sanders is a republican. So there's no real room to swing that particular club here.

Translation: I don't want to believe your data so I'll counter with a "some people have been saying for a few years" retort and pretend it's founded in around the same amount of facts.

 

[code1211]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can fo for your country.

That's where the Democrats used to be.

You were saying?

 

[noonereal]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

Its nonsense. Most are like me. They were life long Republicans and saw the party go bat shot crazy and stopped voting GOP .

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

People becoming more politically extreme in time of economic hardship is actually very well documented and consistent no matter the culture being studied. Also consider what's been happening to small towns since walmartization, farming consolidation, and the meth epidemic.

And those people vote republican that worship the billionaires that take away their jobs, and those people worship the greedy asshoels that take their jobs by paying slave wages in China or elsewhere, so spare me feeling sorry for those people who vote against their interests so they can blame their shitty plot on life on people of color, immigrant and liberals. Every policy liberals want would help the rural conservatives the most.

And they certainly didn't give a shit about the crack epidemic becuase it was targeting inner cities, but not they have meth and heroin runing rampant, oh, something must be done. They are selfish and unempathetic. ANd they are the blame for their own plight for being hateful idiots that vote republicans who continually F them in the A

 

[gino]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

So, you are willing to give up the center to the Republicans? If all Democrats agreed with you, the Democratic Party would be a smaller third party in a couple of years.

 

[poweRob]

So, you are willing to give up the center to the Republicans? If all Democrats agreed with you, the Democratic Party would be a smaller third party in a couple of years.

Nice strawman that makes no sense regarding my OP whatsoever.

 

[Perotista]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

Both Major Parties are shrinking, independents growing. Looking back to 2006, those who identified themselves as Democrats made up 35% of the electorate, Republicans 30%, independents 30%. Today those numbers are 29% Democrat, 26% Republican, 42% independent. I think the cause is the intransigents and litmus test both major parties throw at folks. One must be ideological pure to belong to either major party.

The problem is in our two-party electoral system, the two major parties have a monopoly on it. There’s nowhere to go if one doesn’t pass either major party’s litmus tests or behave like a mindless robot to the party’s leadership. What’s left is to vote one party in one election, then vote them out the next. We seen this happen in 2006, again in 2010, then in 2018 and if the numbers are a good indication for 2022, it will once again happen. This ideology intransigent is probably a reason we don’t even elect two presidents back to back from the same party. Only once since 1948 have we done that, in 1988 when G.H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan. Otherwise its been democrat, republican, democrat, republican etc.

Perhaps the problem is each major party only governs for their base and not for the whole of America. Perhaps each major party’s agenda is seen as extreme and radical to use your word by those caught in the middle between the two major parties? Neither party will ever come up with an American agenda, so this vote one party in one election and then out the next will continue. The problem is what is mainstream to you may be radical to me and vice versa. This migration of independents voting for one party and then voting for the other and back will continue. The two major parties will also continue to shrink until someday in the near future, independents will make up the majority of the electorate. But nothing will change, not until the two party monopoly of our electoral system is finally broken.

 

[Jay59]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

I'd like to see what the standard Pew was using to determine left and right. However, it's a red flag that they begin at the Democrat's highest ascendancy, the resignation of Richard Nixon. That would naturally be the furthest left point for the party.

This is not a good thing for Democrats. It shows that the Republicans were more responsive to the people than the Democrats have been.

It really started with Barry Goldwater.

It has always been there. Goldwater was one of the principal shapers of the thinking/verbiage, but he was dealing with something already there.

 

[Perotista]

I'd like to see what the standard Pew was using to determine left and right. However, it's a red flag that they begin at the Democrat's highest ascendancy, the resignation of Richard Nixon. That would naturally be the furthest left point for the party.

This is not a good thing for Democrats. It shows that the Republicans were more responsive to the people than the Democrats have been.


It has always been there. Goldwater was one of the principal shapers of the thinking/verbiage, but he was dealing with something already there.

Here’s some interesting party affiliation stats from Pew. The Democrats high point at 51% of the electorate occurred in 1961 and 1964. The Republican Party has been as low as 21% in 1975 and 1979. Interestingly the Democrats maintained an average of a 20 point plus average over the Republicans in party affiliation from FDR until Reagan. That narrowed to a 5-point advantage during Ronnie and has been between 5-10 points since until 2014 when this graph ends.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/party-id-trend/

You can take party affiliation further with Gallup to Feb of this year.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

I think Gallup’s 29% for the Democrats and 26% for the GOP shows neither party is a party for most Americans. Just their base. I also think both will continue to shrink. I do think the Republicans at 26% is close to their average party affiliation from FDR to today. While the Democratic average of 45% from FDR until Reagan has shrunk to 29% today. It’s the Democrats who have lost the most folks while the GOP just chugs along in the middle 20’s for what seems as forever with a few exceptions.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[Jay59]

Here’s some interesting party affiliation stats from Pew. The Democrats high point at 51% of the electorate occurred in 1961 and 1964. The Republican Party has been as low as 21% in 1975 and 1979. Interestingly the Democrats maintained an average of a 20 point plus average over the Republicans in party affiliation from FDR until Reagan. That narrowed to a 5-point advantage during Ronnie and has been between 5-10 points since until 2014 when this graph ends.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/party-id-trend/

You can take party affiliation further with Gallup to Feb of this year.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

I think Gallup’s 29% for the Democrats and 26% for the GOP shows neither party is a party for most Americans. Just their base. I also think both will continue to shrink. I do think the Republicans at 26% is close to their average party affiliation from FDR to today. While the Democratic average of 45% from FDR until Reagan has shrunk to 29% today. It’s the Democrats who have lost the most folks while the GOP just chugs along in the middle 20’s for what seems as forever with a few exceptions.

There are reasons why Pew is considered second rate. Silver gives them a B/C ranking with a left bias. Rasmussen and Zogby do better.

 

[LostinThought]

Translation: I don't want to believe your data so I'll counter with a "some people have been saying for a few years" retort and pretend it's founded in around the same amount of facts.

Translation: I don't actually pay attention to the fact that polls have become increasing politicized over the last decade. So I'm just going to do like I'm told and think the thoughts that I'm only allowed to have.

Listen, if all you have is one poll built up from a single demographic, then you really don't have much.
As for what's actually happening in the world, where can you actually find evidence that the political Right has actually become as radical as the poll is attempting to claim?

 

[Ug make hammer]

So, you are willing to give up the center to the Republicans? If all Democrats agreed with you, the Democratic Party would be a smaller third party in a couple of years.

The fight for the center and getting out the vote, are the two definining features of US Two-Party politics.

Canada and the UK are the two most culturally aligned nations to the US, and both are having enormous trouble giving up the First Past The Post system (aka Single Member Constituencies) which in the US manifests as Two-Party. Not to spread doom and gloom, but the US has a less flexible constitution (indeed, the UK has none at all, and only needs to pass a bill to change their electoral system; yet they have failed.) The Liberal Democrats in the UK had as their primary demand to form government with the Conservatives, that a plebiscite be held on proportional representation. The plebiscite was held and it failed. Even if it has succeeded, there is no assurance the Conservatives would have supported a bill overturning Two Party. Having won majority rule without the Lib Dems, in retrospect we can see their partisan interest was advanced by the plebiscite. The situation of Canada I am less familiar with, however I know that their last election result is all kinds of ****ed-up:

​	​	Vote​	Seats​	S/V​
Liberal​	​	32.62%​	47.34%​	1.45​
Conservative​	​	33.74%​	35.21%​	1.04​
Block Q​	​	7.64%​	9.47%​	1.24​
New Dem​	​	17.82%​	7.40%​	0.42​
Green​	​	2.33%​	0.89%​	0.38​
People’s​	​	4.94%​	0.00%​	0​

This is not sustainable. Other than Bloc Quebecois who have geographical territory, minorities on the left/right spectrum only gain a share of power by taking it from their natural allies. With FPTP, that means vote splitting and their natural opponents occasionally winning seats which (under a prop rep system) they would not.

What can any of the three nations do about electoral systems that funnel towards Two Party? I honestly don't know. Voter's Unions perhaps, or a general dissolution of parties maybe shaking down to Four Party. The only permanent solution is a revolution. Our European friends payed a huge price to reform their systems to the Nordic model: they hosted the Nazis or they reformed after being invaded by Nazis. The Anglophone nations do not have that "luxury". We must find an "end run" around tradition, be it Constitutionally-mandated or not.

 

[code1211]

Its nonsense. Most are like me. They were life long Republicans and saw the party go bat shot crazy and stopped voting GOP .

It's sad when the weak minded are fooled by the devious and manipulative.