-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 10:19 am
Well, if we want to go to actual evidence as to the range of each party's political ideology as evidenced by their voting patterns of their members in the House, 90% percent of House Republicans are not moderate while 90 percent of Democrats are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d-species/http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htmThis analysis of Republican extremism is based on political science models created by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal. You can look at their methodology below.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rvalel ... te_000.pdfIf Republicans were as close to the center from the right as Democrats were on the left Congress on the left, Congress could get a lot of stuff done. The cause of the paralysis in Washington is almost entirely due to extremist House Republicans . Given that context it is inevitable that any president would look for sources of executive power to get around a obstructionist Republican Congress. It is almost impossible to reach compromise when one party has moved so far from the political center and it is really putting a strain on our political system.
Last edited by
freeman3 on 02 Nov 2015, 11:23 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 10:55 am
An interesting article as to why economic inequality has not been responded to (as one would expect in a democracy; the assumption is that voters would opt for policies reversing inequality but they haven't done so in the US).
http://www.voteview.com/pdf/jep_BMPR.pdf
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 10:57 am
freeman3 wrote:Well, if we want to go to actual evidence as to the range of each party's political ideology as evidenced by their voting patterns of their members in the House, 90% percent of House Republicans are not moderate while 90 percent of Democrats are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d-species/http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htmThis analysis of Republican extremism is based on political science models created by Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal. You can look at their methodology below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOMINAT ... ing_method)
If Republicans were as close to the center from the right as Democrats were on the left Congress on the left, Congress could get a lot of stuff done. The cause of the paralysis in Washington is almost entirely due to extremist House Republicans . Given that context it is inevitable that any president would look for sources of executive power to get around a obstructionist Republican Congress. It is almost impossible to reach compromise when one party has moved so far from the political center and it is really putting a strain on our political system.
Right. When I go to the "methodology," I see this:
NOMINATE (scaling method
Dialog-information on.svg Did you mean: NOMINATE (scaling method)?
Look for NOMINATE (scaling method on one of Wikipedia's sister projects:
Wiktionary-logo-en.png Wiktionary (free dictionary)
Wikibooks-logo.svg Wikibooks (free textbooks)
Wikiquote-logo.svg Wikiquote (quotations)
Wikisource-logo.svg Wikisource (free library)
Wikiversity-logo.svg Wikiversity (free learning resources)
Commons-logo.svg Commons (images and media)
Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg Wikivoyage (free travel guide)
Wikinews-logo.svg Wikinews (free news source)
Wikidata-logo.svg Wikidata (free linked database)
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for NOMINATE (scaling method in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
Log in or create an account to start the NOMINATE (scaling method article, alternatively use the Article Wizard, or add a request for it.
Search for "NOMINATE (scaling method" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.
Other reasons this message may be displayed:
If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?.
I think you're wrong in your thesis. If Nancy Pelosi is a moderate, so was Eugene Debs. She has been the undisputed leader of the House Democrats for many years and kept them "in line."
I believe what has happened is that our governance has lurched left--even under GWB. The Tea Party is a response to out of control spending and ever-growing government. The GOP base has not moved--it is the GOP machine that has moved. It has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 11:02 am
freeman3 wrote:An interesting article as to why economic inequality has not been responded to (as one would expect in a democracy; the assumption is that voters would opt for policies reversing inequality but they haven't done so in the US).
http://www.voteview.com/pdf/jep_BMPR.pdf
Oh, but they have responded. There is no other way to explain re-electing an unimpressive President and threatening to elect another unimpressive President (Hillary) than the sheer greed of the electorate. Romney got many things wrong, but he was right about a large number who pay no taxes and just want "stuff" from the government.
Under Obama, the electorate has turned JFK on his head: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you." There has never been a generation more self-indulgent and less self-aware. We have the "X-Box Generation" of 26 year-olds bitterly clinging to their parents' health insurance and refusing to leave the basement. Getting a job is beneath them. They would rather complain about the injustice of life than work to change their own situation.
Thanks Obama.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 11:29 am
Not sure why that link to Wikipedia does not work but I came up with an alternative link above. So your response to showing that House Republicans are 90% far-right and only 10% of Democrats are far- left is to merely assert that the country has moved to the left(even under Bush). Ok...hope it 's nice and confy inside that bubble. You don't have any counter-argument relying on any data or evidence?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 11:42 am
freeman3 wrote:Not sure why that link to Wikipedia does not work but I came up with an alternative link above. So your response to showing that House Republicans are 90% far-right and only 10% of Democrats are far- left is to merely assert that the country has moved to the left(even under Bush). Ok...hope it 's nice and confy inside that bubble. You don't have any counter-argument relying on any data or evidence?
Let's see: $20T in Debt by the time Obama leaves office. That's evidence. Why? Because only "the far right" cares about the Debt. In fact, Obama was praising adding to it today. He said adding to it "reflects our values." Sure.
Democrats were willing to shut down the government to fund Planned Parenthood. That's pretty extreme given that PP is dealing in baby parts like the Pep Boys do auto parts.
And, it's absolute bilge that "House Republicans are 90% far-right." If that were the case, Obama would be impeached--as he deserves. Did 10% vote for the budget? Was it 90% who wanted to get rid of Boehner? All the stories I read talked about 40--the so-called "Freedom Caucus."
I'd say those numbers are nigh-on useless. If Republicans weren't so moderate, the base wouldn't be so frustrated and Trump would be nowhere. Bush would be the nominee.
You know precious little about the Republicans and neither do the folks who did that study.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 12:20 pm
Right. And again you posted nothing regarding the ideology of members in the house--by actually looking at actual voting patterns--to support your position.
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
02 Nov 2015, 12:27 pm
freeman3 wrote:Right. And again you posted nothing regarding the ideology of members in the house--by actually looking at actual voting patterns--to support your position.
I think the voting pattern material that DF posted earlier was some pretty good evidence that Repubs are actually (slightly) less in lock-step at least at the extremes than the Dems.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 1:27 pm
freeman3 wrote:Right. And again you posted nothing regarding the ideology of members in the house--by actually looking at actual voting patterns--to support your position.
In addition to what Geojanes said, I would add this: genuine conservatives want less government, not just lower taxes. From my perspective, the problem is too few right-wingers and too many moderates.
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 1:40 pm
George, I'm not sure that would constitute evidence against my point that Republicans are overwhelmingly not close to the political center and the cause of political deadlock. Democrats are 90 percent moderates and thus party positions are pretty close to that. And the 10% of those that are liberal are still voting for the party because the alternative would be worse. So Democrats that are not voting with the Party will tend to be more centrist, but there is not that much of a difference ideologically here. If Democrats were a far left party with a few moderates you would likely see the few moderates voting a lot against the party. Republicans are the ones with the big gap between their few moderates and the rest of their party, so you expect those few to vote against the party more than Democrats.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
02 Nov 2015, 2:12 pm
fate
Under Obama, the electorate has turned JFK on his head: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you." There has never been a generation more self-indulgent and less self-aware. We have the "X-Box Generation" of 26 year-olds bitterly clinging to their parents' health insurance and refusing to leave the basement. Getting a job is beneath them. They would rather complain about the injustice of life than work to change their own situation
.
So you impugn the character of a generation...or at least half of the population? Its entirely their lack of character that has brought about the decline of the middle class and working class? Not the crash of 08? Not taxation and economic policies and market conditions largely beyond their control?
Moreover, you claim that, in only 7 years Obama has managed to manifest this change? That prior to his coming along, things were just peachy?
Wow.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 2:21 pm
rickyp wrote:fate
Under Obama, the electorate has turned JFK on his head: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you." There has never been a generation more self-indulgent and less self-aware. We have the "X-Box Generation" of 26 year-olds bitterly clinging to their parents' health insurance and refusing to leave the basement. Getting a job is beneath them. They would rather complain about the injustice of life than work to change their own situation
.
So you impugn the character of a generation...or at least half of the population? Its entirely their lack of character that has brought about the decline of the middle class and working class? Not the crash of 08? Not taxation and economic policies and market conditions largely beyond their control?
Moreover, you claim that, in only 7 years Obama has managed to manifest this change? That prior to his coming along, things were just peachy?
Wow.
Oh, it's not
really Obama's fault. He's more the face of the problem than the problem itself. And, it's been developing for more than 7 years. Obama has merely taken political advantage of the shift to shiftlessness.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 2:24 pm
freeman3 wrote:George, I'm not sure that would constitute evidence against my point that Republicans are overwhelmingly not close to the political center and the cause of political deadlock. Democrats are 90 percent moderates and thus party positions are pretty close to that. And the 10% of those that are liberal are still voting for the party because the alternative would be worse. So Democrats that are not voting with the Party will tend to be more centrist, but there is not that much of a difference ideologically here. If Democrats were a far left party with a few moderates you would likely see the few moderates voting a lot against the party. Republicans are the ones with the big gap between their few moderates and the rest of their party, so you expect those few to vote against the party more than Democrats.
Rubbish.
Look at the Senate: the gap from Lee, Cruz, Paul and Sessions to McCain, Ayotte, Graham et al could not be wider and still be a "party."
In the House, how do you explain the gap between the Freedom Caucus and the rest of the lot?
-
- freeman3
- Adjutant
-
- Posts: 3741
- Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm
02 Nov 2015, 2:53 pm
Seriously, what you are talking about? I just said there was a bigger gap in the Republican Party and you confirmed it. That is rubbish analysis-- akin to "waste material, refuse or litter." I am getting pretty tired of seeing that word thrown around here. You seem incapable of arguing without insulting people.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
02 Nov 2015, 3:11 pm
freeman3 wrote:Seriously, what you are talking about? I just said there was a bigger gap in the Republican Party and you confirmed it. That is rubbish analysis-- akin to "waste material, refuse or litter." I am getting pretty tired of seeing that word thrown around here. You seem incapable of arguing without insulting people.
I'm afraid I'm speaking Japanese and you are responding in French.
George, I'm not sure that would constitute evidence against my point that Republicans are overwhelmingly not close to the political center and the cause of political deadlock. Democrats are 90 percent moderates and thus party positions are pretty close to that.
There are 40 Republican Congressmen who are "not close to the center." There are a handful of Senators.
The Democrats? Pretty much socialists--the lot of them.
