Interesting on Fear/Polarization

[Serenity Now]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489065/politics-negative-partisanship-fear

I bet you could plot the rise of fox/msnbc on the graph and it would coincide with a data point or two.


as American politics becomes more partisan, and more based on fear of the opposing party, individual candidates matter less. So for all the talk of how much less enthusiastic Democrats are for Hillary Clinton than they were for Barack Obama, it's not likely to matter all that much because Democrats are going to be extremely enthusiastic about beating the Republicans, and vice versa.

That summarizes what I see playing out in this little piece of the Democratic pie.


Have both parties polarized equally?

No. Virtually every measure of political polarization shows that Republicans have moved much further right than Democrats have moved left. "Despite the widespread belief that both parties have moved to the extremes, the movement of the Republican Party to the right accounts for most of the divergence between the two parties," writes political scientist Nolan McCarty. "Since the 1970s, each new cohort of Republican legislators has taken conservative positions on legislation than the cohorts before them. That is not true of Democratic legislators."

Or, as congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein put it, "while the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."

Scholars call this "asymmetric polarization." Mann and Ornstein argue that it is the central cause of today's dysfunction. "When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges," they write. Political scientists. Insert insult here___________________.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yes, it's all Faux's fault. You're a ****ing moran. Your president along with the MSM, has polarized this country both racially and politically, more than any other president in history. Now, you wanna blame it on Faux. What a cum guzzl'n obamamite you are. Keep a hold of his nut sack...you might fall off and lose all your protein!!!!


What a ****stick...

[champions77]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489065/politics-negative-partisanship-fear

I bet you could plot the rise of fox/msnbc on the graph and it would coincide with a data point or two.



That summarizes what I see playing out in this little piece of the Democratic pie.

Political scientists. Insert insult here___________________.

Anyone want to bet that old Nolan is a lefty?

Does anyone really think that this country has not taken a gigantic leap to the left in the last 20-30 years? Whether it be gay marriage, laws regarding gun ownership, environmental considerations like green energy in response to "climate change", the Federal Government banning the incandescent light bulbs, the attacks on the US Coal Industry, failure to approve of an oil pipeline from Canada, the attacks on Religious freedom you see today that you would have never seen 20 years ago, the attacks on conservatism in the Universities, where guest speakers are shouted down or not allowed a forum, the advancement of political correctness to higher and higher degrees of influence, the food police with the banning of Big Gulp soft drinks in bastions of liberalism like New Your City, the expansion of the Welfare State, where a President was re-elected with 50 MILLION folks on food stamps. 20 years ago that type of result during a Presidency would have resulted in certain defeat, the adoption of more lenient marijuana laws across the country, abortion on demand.
I could go on and on. Make no mistake about it, this country has made a huge leap to the left during the last generation, further widening the gap between the two. Anything that says different is a silly attempt to paint the right as some kind of radicals. Most know better.

[Serenity Now]

Yes, it's all Faux's fault. You're a ****ing moran. Your president along with the MSM, has polarized this country both racially and politically, more than any other president in history. Now, you wanna blame it on Faux. What a cum guzzl'n obamamite you are. Keep a hold of his nut sack...you might fall off and lose all your protein!!!!


What a ****stick...
I. You put the insult in the wrong space.
2. I blame msnbc also. MSM = LoL
iii. F. O.

[SoonerorLater]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489065/politics-negative-partisanship-fear

I bet you could plot the rise of fox/msnbc on the graph and it would coincide with a data point or two.



That summarizes what I see playing out in this little piece of the Democratic pie.

Political scientists. Insert insult here___________________.


Coming from a site like Vox, it's little surprise they see this as a matter of Republican's moving far to the right.

[dwarthog]

Link not click worthy, try again.

[Serenity Now]

The first cut/past DIRECTLY discusses what you guys are all talking about in the various threads - why you can't vote for some person. "and vice versa." To not think that's interesting to some level is being ignant.

The second cut/paste was just for fun as it references my supposition that the right has moved further away from the center. I know that it's like you guys putting up a WND link to validate something.

[FaninAma]

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/24/8489065/politics-negative-partisanship-fear

I bet you could plot the rise of fox/msnbc on the graph and it would coincide with a data point or two.



That summarizes what I see playing out in this little piece of the Democratic pie.

Political scientists. Insert insult here___________________.

Vox. LOL. why am I not surprised that the 2 "political scientists" misrepresented the Pew study on this issue?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/


In absolute terms, the ideological shift among Republicans has been more modest. In 1994, 45% of Republicans were right-of-center, with 13% consistently conservative. Those figures are up to 53% and 20% today

[Eielson]

Maybe tomorrow we can post a link about how the younger generation doesn't trust either political party anymore, and how pretty soon political parties will vanish.

[Serenity Now]

Vox. LOL. why am I not surprised that the 2 "political scientists" misrepresented the Pew study on this issue?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/

I would fully expect Vox to have something biased like that. I'm glad you wasted 2 minutes of your day to point that out. It still doesn't change what it says that we see play out here DAILY - people vote against people/ideas more than they vote for someone/something.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Vox is a bit of a joke. No...it's a huge joke.

Founders:
Jerome Armstrong - former Greenpeace and EarthFirst activist; former consultant to Democrats Howard Dean, Sherrod Brown, and Mark Warner.
Tyler Bleszinski - sports blogger/founder of SB Nation
Markos Moulatsis - founder of the liberal "news" website Daily Kos.

Vox is nothing more than those guys trying to shoehorn their Daily Kos/liberal babble into something centrist. Only idiots are fooled by it. It's just DailyKos in disguise.

[Soonerjeepman]

I would fully expect Vox to have something biased like that. I'm glad you wasted 2 minutes of your day to point that out. It still doesn't change what it says that we see play out here DAILY - people vote against people/ideas more than they vote for someone/something.

I do both....sometimes that's all ya got.
It's like you guys think the libs DON'T do that (using a lib news source to point out pub's are the "bad guys" in doing this)...lol. It's the same for both sides. Not sure why you're pointing that out.

I would surmise that 95% of the black vote obama got was base SOLELY on his skin..but that's okay because he is a dem. Gotcha~

[Serenity Now]

I do both....sometimes that's all ya got.
It's like you guys think the libs DON'T do that (using a lib news source to point out pub's are the "bad guys" in doing this)...lol. It's the same for both sides. Not sure why you're pointing that out.

I would surmise that 95% of the black vote obama got was base SOLELY on his skin..but that's okay because he is a dem. Gotcha~

That's what makes it actually make sense and "interesting". BOTH sides do it. I agree with you. Said polarization is a problem in our country. You can go throughout the day reading news and watching news that validates how you feel and never makes you stretch your mind a bit. It weakens our brain to not have to justify our positions on how/why we feel the way we do. You guys all get on here and all agree that I'm stupid and 8th's a dick and anyone that disagrees with you is just blinded. The circle jerk validates your positions and it solidifies them at the same time. It happens on BOTH sides. I muddied the water with the second cut/paste. Shouldn't have done that.

[REDREX]

Vox is a bit of a joke. No...it's a huge joke.

Founders:
Jerome Armstrong - former Greenpeace and EarthFirst activist; former consultant to Democrats Howard Dean, Sherrod Brown, and Mark Warner.
Tyler Bleszinski - sports blogger/founder of SB Nation
Markos Moulatsis - founder of the liberal "news" website Daily Kos

Vox is nothing more than those guys trying to shoehorn their Daily Kos/liberal babble into something centrist. Only idiots are fooled by it. It's just DailyKos in disguise.---Well Put

[Serenity Now]

---Well Put

---Polarization validated! Nice!

[SoonerorLater]

---Polarization validated! Nice!

You link an article by '2 political scientists' from a liberal website describing polarization as being a result of Conservatives moving to the right. You post it on the board for the explicit purpose of trying to stir up the pot. When it does cause a disagreement you purport that to validate the article. I think this would be described as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[REDREX]

You link an article by '2 political scientists' from a liberal website describing polarization as being a result of Conservatives moving to the right. You post it on the board for the explicit purpose of trying to stir up the pot. When it does cause a disagreement you purport that to validate the article. I think this would be described as a self-fulfilling prophecy.---Well Put

[BoulderSooner79]

We pick and choose our news sources to our liking these days and that seems intuitively obvious to me that would naturally result in polarization. There were results to that effect gleaned from Facebook data published earlier this week. We the choir, choose who will preach to us and even what they will say. It's similar to how a kid will just eat pizza and ice cream if there is no one there to impose some broccoli every once in a while.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

to compare food to horseshi* is just wrong.

[olevetonahill]

to compare food to horseshi* is just wrong.

No, whats HorseShat is these dumb mother****in LIBs screaming about "Faux" news then turning around and trying to tell us this BS is REAL
**** em in the ***

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, whats HorseShat is these dumb mother****in LIBs screaming about "Faux" news then turning around and trying to tell us this BS is REAL
**** em in the ***FoxNews endeavors to be as accurate and thorough as possible, as does Limbaugh. Much of the stuff the MSM puts out is intentionally wrong, and/or misleading.

[BoulderSooner79]

FoxNews endeavors to be as accurate and thorough as possible, as does Limbaugh. Much of the stuff the MSM puts out is intentionally wrong, and/or misleading.

Funny, you were the first person that came to mind when I read the article about people filtering their news sources to hear what they like to hear. Going by your posts, you are the most conditioned person to post here and you have fallen for that "us vs. them" game hook, line and sinker.

[Serenity Now]

Funny, there are no foxnews articles discussing polarization in politics. Don't know why?

[Serenity Now]

FoxNews endeavors to be as accurate and thorough as possible, as does Limbaugh. Much of the stuff the MSM puts out is intentionally wrong, and/or misleading.
I don't watch msnbc and don't purport them to be anything. What you state of fox and Limbaugh isn't even laughable, it's absurd. Fox has started up a cottage industry in the fact checking business.

Their lies have made john Stuart a millionaire.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I don't watch msnbc and don't purport them to be anything. What you state of fox and Limbaugh isn't even laughable, it's absurd. Fox has started up a cottage industry in the fact checking business.

Their lies have made john Stuart a millionaire.

No, pu$$y *** libs like yourself have made him a millionaire.

[REDREX]

Funny, there are no foxnews articles discussing polarization in politics. Don't know why?---Whats your point?---- Its obvious to everyone that polarization exists----No one has done more to push the two side apart than Barack and idiots like Ed Schultz

[BoulderSooner79]

---Whats your point?---- Its obvious to everyone that polarization exists----No one has done more to push the two side apart than Barack and idiots like Ed Schultz

Easy to point fingers at specific people, but there is a huge change in information access that has happened over the past couple of decades. People used to have the choice of a few news sources like the 3 major networks and the morning paper. The networks were pretty similar and you just listened to the one that had to most pleasing voice. Editorial content was usually marked as such. Now there are a bunch of cable channels that present "infotainment" and zillions of such internet sources. It's easy to build a capsule around oneself and it's human nature to do just that. Progress isn't always for the best and I see no way this is going to change unless there is some sort of mass age of cultural enlightenment.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Easy to point fingers at specific people, but there is a huge change in information access that has happened over the past couple of decades. People used to have the choice of a few news sources like the 3 major networks and the morning paper. The networks were pretty similar and you just listened to the one that had to most pleasing voice. Editorial content was usually marked as such. Now there are a bunch of cable channels that present "infotainment" and zillions of such internet sources. It's easy to build a capsule around oneself and it's human nature to do just that. Progress isn't always for the best and I see no way this is going to change unless there is some sort of mass age of cultural enlightenment.

So during the time of nothing but leftist loving news channels and newspapers, that was okay, but once cable channels came along that call out the lefts bull****, then that's bad...go tit.

[BoulderSooner79]

So during the time of nothing but leftist loving news channels and newspapers, that was okay, but once cable channels came along that call out the lefts bull****, then that's bad...go tit.

Anything you don't agree with is leftest I've gathered from your posts - your cocoon is fully formed. I can't tell if your quite as conditioned as RLIMC as your sport seems more about name calling than anything else.

[olevetonahill]

Yup!

[Soonerjeepman]

That's what makes it actually make sense and "interesting". BOTH sides do it. I agree with you. Said polarization is a problem in our country. You can go throughout the day reading news and watching news that validates how you feel and never makes you stretch your mind a bit. It weakens our brain to not have to justify our positions on how/why we feel the way we do. You guys all get on here and all agree that I'm stupid and 8th's a dick and anyone that disagrees with you is just blinded. The circle jerk validates your positions and it solidifies them at the same time. It happens on BOTH sides. I muddied the water with the second cut/paste. Shouldn't have done that.

he was a dick because he was. He threatened me personally, thought his "job" was more productive than anyone else's, you think Vet, Turd and Rush are bad about name calling...I don't think 8th could make a single post without the word lemming, torches or pitchforks. The dude was completely off his rocker.

I don't think I've seen one poster (conservative/pub/anti obama) sing the praises of Bush...but I also don't see many libs on here saying anything bad about obama. Damn, the numbers speak for themselves...and honestly it's been 6 frickin years...when is anything bad going to be HIS responsibility....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Funny, you were the first person that came to mind when I read the article about people filtering their news sources to hear what they like to hear. Going by your posts, you are the most conditioned person to post here and you have fallen for that "us vs. them" game hook, line and sinker.You are a fool for believing the Libs and their horsesh*t.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Quote Originally Posted by Serenity Now
I don't watch msnbc and don't purport them to be anything. What you state of fox and Limbaugh isn't even laughable, it's absurd. Fox has started up a cottage industry in the fact checking business.

Their lies have made john Stuart a millionaire.

No, pu$$y *** libs like yourself have made him a millionaire.Dude is down with Karl and Saul. Too bad some people get that way.

[yermom]

Anything you don't agree with is leftest I've gathered from your posts - your cocoon is fully formed. I can't tell if your quite as conditioned as RLIMC as your sport seems more about name calling than anything else.

i think you forgot the obsession with homosex

[Turd_Ferguson]

i think you forgot the obsession with homosex

He didn't forget...he's gay blind.

[BoulderSooner79]

Funny, you were the first person that came to mind when I read the article about people filtering their news sources to hear what they like to hear. Going by your posts, you are the most conditioned person to post here and you have fallen for that "us vs. them" game hook, line and sinker.


You are a fool for believing the Libs and their horsesh*t.

You mean "them".

[Tear Down This Wall]

I think, at the end of another pointless political thread, we can draw a conclusion we've already long known:

-If a liberal threadmaker's source is blown, default into, "Well, yeah, but, FOXNews...."

Boring. Predictable to the nth degree.

[Serenity Now]

I never implied that Vox was some venerated journalistic endeavor. The article spoke of people FROM BOTH SIDES tending to vote against the other side than voting for their side. An actual line of reasoning that we have seen play out here as you people hammer sic'em and others about voting against the Dem even if they disagree with the GOP nominee. How is that lost here? The migration of this thread is sad. RLIMC killed it with this line: "FoxNews endeavors to be as accurate and thorough as possible, as does Limbaugh."

[REDREX]

I think, at the end of another pointless political thread, we can draw a conclusion we've already long known:

-If a liberal threadmaker's source is blown, default into, "Well, yeah, but, FOXNews...."

Boring. Predictable to the nth degree.---Correct

[FaninAma]

I would fully expect Vox to have something biased like that. I'm glad you wasted 2 minutes of your day to point that out. It still doesn't change what it says that we see play out here DAILY - people vote against people/ideas more than they vote for someone/something.
I don't disagree but I think it is exceptionally silly to claim one side is worse about it than the other especially when the assertion is that the side that DOESN"T worship at the altar of political correctness is somehow worse about disliking those they disagee with than those who do bow down to the PC gods.

[Serenity Now]

I don't disagree but I think it is exceptionally silly to claim one side is worse about it than the other especially when the assertion is that the side that DOESN"T worship at the altar of political correctness is somehow worse about disliking those they disagee with than those who do bow down to the PC gods.

I don't know where I claimed that one side voted against the other more rabidly. I could certainly agree that the left votes against those that have been demonized in their circles.

[SoonerProphet]

FoxNews endeavors to be as accurate and thorough as possible, as does Limbaugh. Much of the stuff the MSM puts out is intentionally wrong, and/or misleading.


Interesting, if not biased, response. Bruce Bartlett has done a study on corporate media and the role Fox is playing on politics.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstract_id=2604679 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679)

Some interesting thoughts for the study.

- People who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all

- “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”

- Another problem is that Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base.

[dwarthog]

Interesting, if not biased, response. Bruce Bartlett has done a study on corporate media and the role Fox is playing on politics.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfmabstract_id=2604679 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604679)

Some interesting thoughts for the study.

- People who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all

- “Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all.”

- Another problem is that Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting outside the narrow party base.

Couple of things. That study was limited to people from New Jersey. How representative this is of the Fox News demographic would interesting to know.

This part of the study was quite interesting as well.




A followup poll in 2012 asked New Jersey residents 4 questions about domestic and foreign
policy issues in the news. Again, Fox viewers were more likely to answer incorrectly. Said the
report:

The study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number
of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all. On the other hand, if they listened only to NPR, they would be expected to answer 1.51
questions correctly; viewers of Sunday morning talk shows fare similarly well. And people watching only “The Daily Show with Jon
Stewart” could answer about 1.42 questions correctly.

Even the "smart people" watching/listening to NPR weren't getting on average 2 out of the 4 questions correct.

[Serenity Now]

Couple of things. That study was limited to people from New Jersey. How representative this is of the Fox News demographic would interesting to know.

This part of the study was quite interesting as well.



Even the "smart people" watching/listening to NPR weren't getting on average 2 out of the 4 questions correct.

I'd infer the "smart people" to be the ones watching Comedy Central for their news.....JOKE.

Actually, I think the most informed watch the Sunday morning shows and 60 minutes. That may not be where they gather their information but I think that's an indicator of "interest" or "intellectual curiosity".

Interesting story. New Jersey is probably a decent population mix - urban and suburban.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Interesting story. New Jersey is probably a decent population mix - urban and suburban.

LMAO..."is probably"...

[SoonerProphet]

Couple of things. That study was limited to people from New Jersey. How representative this is of the Fox News demographic would interesting to know.[\QUOTE]

I usually think the same about a lot of studies, left, right, or otherwise. Twain's quote on lies, damnable lies, and statistics is often sound words.

[QUOTE]This part of the study was quite interesting as well.



Even the "smart people" watching/listening to NPR weren't getting on average 2 out of the 4 questions correct.

If you limit yourself to only one set of opinions and live in an echo chamber I'd possibly call into question the idea that they are "smart people". That cuts both ways btw.

[BoulderSooner79]

If you limit yourself to only one set of opinions and live in an echo chamber I'd possibly call into question the idea that they are "smart people". That cuts both ways btw.

My best friend in Colorado holds very conservative views. He told me that he agrees with many of the opinions espoused by Fox News, but he can no longer stand watching it. He said he found the constant pandering to be intellectually insulting.