Bush supporters' aftermath thread

You don't? Really Timber this is a pretty dishonest way to make the case for a lack of polarization. It's not a 75/25 split unless you practice the fuzzy math you posted.

You move the goalposts (whether a huge number didn't vote out Bush is relevant to you while the same huge number not voting for Bush is conveniently irrelevant) and ignore the most simple metric of the lk you are trying to use: voter turnout.

It was higher this election than last election, so if you are trying to use the will to vote as the measure of polarization this administration is capable of you should note that by this measure the administration has further polarized the country since the last elections.

But Craven, by what criteria do you assume that those who did not vote are split along the same lines as those who did?

I didn't assume anything of the sort Foxfyre.

CDG wrote:


You must have had some basis to declare Timber to be using dishonest means to demonstrate a belief that the nation is not as divided as the Left wishes for it to appear.

I think CdK takes exception to my having applied one set of standards to The Incumbent and another to The Challenger. So be it, and perhaps fairly so. However, my point precisely was that no matter how many folks voted for whomever, an insufficient number of folks voted for an alternative to Bush The Greater than was nescessary to accomplish that goal. The onus of performance rests with the challenger, not the defender. If the challenger fails to perform adequately, the challenger fails to prevail. In this case, The Challenger failed to prevail.

Perhaps the Politically Active of America are deeply divided ... perhaps, hell; considering the somewhat more than half of the eligible population that actually voted, they certainly are. But in the larger context of the entire vote-eligible population, there was insufficient motivation provided to permit the success of a challenge to The Incumbency. I submit The Nation is nowhere nearly so divided as some would have The Nation believe it is.

Craven would be right if you were trying to boast of Bush's popularity... but you weren't. Your numbers are pretty close to spot on when pointing out the vast majority are NOT ABB... which I believe was your point. (I made the same one with the same numbers a couple days ago :wink:)

That's the thing. A lot of of us voted for Bush who would have preferred another candidate. But Bush was the candidate judged to have the most favorable attributes to a majority of the electorate. The approximately 50% of the adult population who did not vote can be presumed to have had insufficient interest in who was president and therefore cannot be judged to be pro or anti Kerry or pro or anti Bush. And logically, it would be reasonably safe to assume that 50% will be happy with whomever is in the White House so long as their own lives aren't too screwed up. Add the 50+ million who did vote for Bush and it is logical that the nation is not nearly so polarized as the Left declares it to be.

assumptions are always interesting and on occassion accurate.

Yes, I do.

I will walk through it more slowly.

As a metric of how divided the country is, Timber used the number of people who didn't vote against Bush. He claimed that they were not motivated enough to vote against Bush.

Thing is, when you take a statistic and project your opinion on it you would do well to use a control group. Low voter turnout is a long-standing historical trend, and there are a lot of reasons for it beyond political harmony.

See, how polarized a country is, is not the only factor in whether people will vote or not. Voting turnout has been abysmal in the US for decades, and he can't suddenly invoke this general statistical trend for his opinion.

If Timber wishes to make the case for the nation not being polarized merely on the basis of the fact that most people didn't vote against the incumbent he would do well to note that that has probably been the case for every election in his lifetime.

So what he's doing is setting up a statistical implausibility and using its nonexistence to delcare that the nation is not polarized.

It's an intellectually unsound way to do so.

Try the same metric with a control group. Use as the control group the average turnout over the last elections.

If you want to make the case for voter turnout being the measure of how polarized the nation is use the difference in turnout between this election and the previous ones. Failure to do so just means you project your reasons onto the numbers you find and fail to consider that the measure by which the current election changes from the control group is more relevant than the meaning you project onto numbers that have pretty much always held the characteristics you use.

So when measuring this election's turnout against prior ones you will note that this election had a significantly higher turnout than recent trends indicated.

It was the highest turnout since 1968. Voter registrations were very high as well.

So if voter turnout is the metric Timber wishes to use, then the increased voter turnout from prevous elections speaks more about the polarization of the nation than does his creative interpretation of why America generally does not vote at a high rate.

I can agree that the increased voter turnout would reflect increased polarization. I cannot agree that it can be extrapolated into the nation itself being as polarized as the the Left declares it to be.

Only to a small degree. In the series of logical errors you made it was not a real significant one.



Earlier your point was "The Nation is not nearly so divided as some would believe".

Now you are touting a wholly different point, which is also more defensible since it's tantamount to saying that "Bush won the election".



I was right, your "point" changed from a convoluted twisting of statistics claiming the nation is not divided to a more pedestrian point of "Bush won the election".

I happen to agree with your revised point.



"In the larger context of the enture vote-eligible population" and its historical voting trends this is the highest turnout in decades.

In your initial logically-flawed thesis you decided not to count votes for Bush. Polarization, as you probably know if you think about it, is not one-sided.

The votes for Bush are a measure of polarization (if you want to use voter turnout) just as much as the votes against him.

No, Timber's initial "point" was in relation to how divided a country is ("The Nation is not nearly so divided as some would believe").

His current point seems to simply be that Bush won the election which is in line with what you seem to agree with.

I, too, agree with the new point.

1n 1785-86 the American Revolution appeared to be a failure. The individual States retained virtual, if not complete sovereignty over the central government. The debts incurred for fighting the War of Independence were astronomically high. A few large populous States tended to dominate their smaller neighbors, and interstate commerce was as difficult as trading across the Atlantic. There was no central Foreign Policy, and the States entered into their own treaties with little regard for the whole. The Army ceased to exist, and the warships of the Revolution went back to carrying cargo. In some States, mobs demanded redistribution of property. Many Tories whose successful businesses employed thousands fled to Candida. The economy was falling apart. Almost at the last minute, the Constitutional Convention saved the Democratic Experiment.

Those who designed and persuaded the People to adopt the Constitution came to be called Federalists. Typically, they were the brightest most dynamic leaders of the Revolution. They strongly believed that the nation required a strong central government that could effectively act for the entire nation. They recognized the importance of maintaining a strong national Army and Navy. The economy had to be rescued, and that demanded a common and credible currency. Those goals were undisputed, but the Founders had then find a way to actually accomplish them. The small States feared loss of their sovereignty to the larger, richer States. Those with property and wealth wanted to protect them from those without property who demanded that wealth be redistributed. No one wanted to pay taxes, and everyone was afraid that a strong central government would quickly evolve back into a despotic monarchy. The result was a series of negotiations and compromises that became the Constitution.

Not everyone agreed that Constitution was a good idea. Jefferson was in Frances admiring the French Revolution, and such luminaries as George Mason were unconvinced that a strong central government could be kept from infringing upon the citizen's rights. Those who insisted that the goal of the Revolution should be equality were loath to surrender power to a National government that might use military force to protect property. The Anti-Federalists wanted a decentralized government based locally, and wanted no laws beyond those enacted directly by the voters. Thankfully, the Federalists won and the Constitution came into being.

Almost at once, the nation began to heal itself. The Federal government assumed the entire Revolutionary War debt, established a National Bank and encouraged industrial development. Public works were begun to build the infrastructure needed to knit the nation together. The Army and Navy were established as permanent entities. Coherent foreign polices replaced the shotgun approach followed by the States.

The great Federalists, like George Washington, hated the idea of partisan politics. They wanted government by the very best, most talented and skillful men regardless of their political philosophy. Federalists' made the mistake of distaining electioneering and canvassing for votes. They thought that policies should be formed solely on the basis of what was best for the nation. To that end every viewpoint should be examined and discussed until a consensus was formed. Washington and Adams both filled their cabinets with people who held very different opinions about what course should be followed. They hated the idea of political parties and thought them divisive and that they placed their own partisan ends above what would be best for the country. The Federalists wanted to govern by the most public-minded, selfless, experienced and wise. They tended to discount the sentiments of the poorly educated, emotionally driven, and those who saw government service as a means of personal profit and aggrandizement. The Federalists were very successful in binding up the country, and making it secure. They also alienated a good portion of the electorate who resented the patronizing confidence of the Federalists in government. The poor, the uneducated, the small farmers and mechanics felt like "their" Revolution had been subverted and that the wealthy property classes had merely substituted an American aristocracy for the old King.

Jefferson was not a Federalist, but was dedicated to the ideas that animated the French Revolution. He, a slave-holding aristocrat, argued for the supremacy of the yeoman farmer and against strong central government. Jefferson appealed to those with little by promising them happiness and a nation where equality was universal. Though Jefferson was a member of Washington's cabinet, and VP under John Adams, he spent most of his time and effort obstructing their efforts, and in building his own partisan political base. Jeffersonian Democrats exhibited the same willingness to make the most outlandish assertions about Federalists. They distorted policies and predicted the eminent demise of democracy by the Federalist conspirators. They founded newspapers whose only purpose was to inflame the People against the Federalists. By the election of 1800, Jefferson was ready to make his move.

Federalists had tried to suppress the calumnies of the Democratic-Republicans with the Sedition Act, but that backfired. The Federalist Party wasn't really geared toward appealing to the mass voters, and believed that a grateful electorate would reward their efforts, and good intentions. Wrong. Hamilton undermined the Federalist by openly attacking President Adams in the middle of the campaign, and Aaron Burr captured the entire electoral vote of New York from the unsuspecting Federalists. The Jeffersonians won by a terrific margin, and the Federalists never really recovered, though they were around for another twenty years.

Jefferson had demonstrated the power of partisan politics. Personally, Jefferson was no more tolerant of having an opposition party than the Federalists who had passed the Sedition Act. He shed no tears for the demise of the Federalist Party, and fully expected that his Democrats would continually build on their majority until it was completely unchallenged. He wasn't entirely wrong, but the Democratic-Republicans split into two parties by 1824. The Democratic Party of Jackson and Van Buren continued to appeal to the poor by attacking anyone who had bettered themselves. The Jackson Democrats hated banks, manufacturers, and strong central government. The Whigs, who favored the development of industry and an integrated economy led by an effective Federal government appealed to the remainders of the Federalists, and those who saw the country's future as being best served by capitalism. Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican.

Now what does this all have to do with the current political climate? What lessons can we learn from history?

1. Divisive partisan politics are not new, nor are they necessarily "bad" for the country. Federalists believed that the election of Jefferson would be end of the Constitution and the onset of a something akin to The Terror in France. That not only didn't happen, but the errors and mistakes in the Federalist's view on how best to govern were revealed and corrected. What is destructive is when partisans become so passionate in their political beliefs that they trivialize, generalize and demonize the opposition.

2. The nation requires two strong political parties based on different democratic theories that alternately govern. No single political theory is so perfect that it should go periodically unchallenged. Effective challenge can only come when there is an effective opposition. When either political theory is supreme for a long period of time the political machinery of the nation goes out of whack. Federalism needed to be reminded that it wasn't enough to provided a sound economy, a coherent foreign policy, and security from military threat. The feelings and participation of all citizens is necessary to build a majority consensus. The liberal trends that began with FDR were a corrective to a philosophy that placed dry Constitutional theory above the immediate suffering of a majority of our citizens. Much good came from that awakening. Has the tide truly turned? Has the electorate finally become weary of the Democratic dedication to using government as the source of endless social-engineering programs concocted by wealthy cosmopolitans? The answer is we can't know for sure, but we should not throw away the opportunity of the moment.

3. The nation will survive, and may even prosper, in spite of which political theories may be in ascendance. This should make life much easier around the Thanksgiving table when our dearest friends and family take political positions radically different from our own. We Americans are typically tolerant and willing to hear the opposition. We should build on that, and not let our passions and emotions overrule our better judgment. That doesn't mean that we should abandon our principles, but we do need to recognize the sincerity of the non-fanatical opposition. Dedication to the Constitution, and love of our country is not the exclusive property of either party. Those who hate the United States, or who would exchange our system of government for anything else, are few in number in either party.

4. The Republican Party can only extend its principles and governmental theories by building a strong popular base. The People, I think, are hungry for leaders of integrity and courage. I don't believe that most Americans expect perfection, or that any government will suddenly and universally solve all problems. Traditional values are important to Americans. Honor, duty, country. American's generally accept our blemished history, but are more interested in the future than the past. Few would wish to give up the advances made in civil rights, or in opening the doors of opportunity to those excluded in the past. Homosexuality isn't a threat to most, but a great many Americans are concerned that traditional families no longer seem to be respected. I think that Americans in the "heartland" and rural parts of the land resent being made the butte of New York and L.A. jokes. Many of those Americans feel betrayed after sacrificing their blood to rid the world of despots. The Republican Party has to remember those Americans, and broaden our appeal so that in 2008 support for our slate of candidates will be stronger among the politically moderate center.

This, is a safe assumption. Assuming, of course, that "sufficient" is measured by the realization of a vote. I think this is a fair assumption for the subjective meaning of "sufficient" in this context.



This is a falsehood. They can be judged to be "pro or anti Kerry or pro or anti Bush". Just ask them. Some people do that for a living.

In my opinion they will break down favorably for Bush fans.



By all means explain the logic of this assumption then. I think it's more of a "50 is a round number" assumption than a "logical and reasonable" one.



And here, is the leap of faith, leaping from a platform of whimsical creation. I will make one too for satirical purposes.

Bush won the election.

I think it's reasonable to assume that, say, 50% of the people like icecream.

Therefore the nation is more divided than Foxfyre thinks it is.

I suppose that is all contingient on what "as the Left declares it to be" is as a standard.

I don't know of a way to quantify this standard, hell I don't know how to establish what "left" spokespersons to try to take a sampling from either.

I suspect that you don't know this either, and that you might simply have some of the more extreme statements from the left in mind.

Should this suspicion be true I am inclined to agree, as reality is rarely an accurate mirror of what any extremist claims it to be.

Amen!

If I were in Bush's shoes and had the mandate he now has I'd use every last drop of my political capital to forward the goals I think merit forwarding.

Of course, I could be more popular on a bi-partisan level by laying more lowly but in this choice I'd not value the popularity too much.



At least two strong parties.



I suspect that a large number has. I suspect that another large number is tired of the Democrat's shift toward fiscal conservatism, ultimately leaving them with very similar parties insofar as the whole political spectrum is concerned.



It better, it's a pretty strong country.



The Republican party already has the base, and has the power and has the mandate.

What is left is only for the Republicans to use it.

This administration manages political capital nearly flawlessly so IMO it will just be a measure how how much they are willing.

The Republicans should be able to have their way for a while (my current prediction is a bit beyond this administration's term) and as long as the things beyond their control go well they should be poised to be on top for a nice ride.

My current prediction is that the turning of the tables is a while away, but that it might be more acute.

Asherman, great take on it per usual. I agree whole heartedly except I'm not so sure 'moderate' will be accurately defined by either side.

When I posted:


Craven responded:


"that 50%" was awkward syntax. I mean it to be 'that 50% who did not vote' will (largely) be happy with whomever is in the White House so long as their own lives aren't too screwed up.

It was on the basis of the large turn out for Bush plus the 50% who really don't care all that much that I can logically extrapolate into the reality that the nation is no more or little more polarized than it has ever been.

I will agree that the current generation may have more vocal anti-patriots and counter-culture anti-establishment advocates than previous generations of this century, but I think it can be reasonably concluded that there are about the same amount of those who support the current President plus those who are willing to wait and see as there has always been.

Makes more sense this way.

I think it may be a bit more nuanced, and they may purport to care a great deal but ultimately they didn't vote so they at least didn't care that much.

But this is only one measure of caring.

Example: I didn't vote because my Californian vote would be statistically irrelevant due to the electoral vote breakdown, but I do care a great deal.



But you are doing the same thing that Timber did. There's no basis for not counting Bush's votes in the turnout metric for polarization.

You guys keep conflating "opposition to Bush" with polarization.

Again, polarization is not one-sided.

Bush's popularity (no-one should deny that he really moves and motivates what has become his base) is also a measure of polarization.

So again, polarization != anti-Bush.



Again, polarization is not one-sided.



I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion and am interested in the statistics behind it.

Okay 48% of the people who voted, voted for Kerry. 51% of the people who voted, voted for Bush. Kerry's 48% plus Bush's 51% equal approximately 50% of the people who vote.

That would leave approximately 50% of the people who did not vote.

If I am correct that most of those who did not vote didn't feel strongly about who was elected president, that means 50% + roughly 25% (Bush voters) = 75% of the adult population who are willing to give Bush a chance or who at least won't be actively opposing him.

That leave 25% of the adult population (Kerry voters) who are the ones most likely to declare that the nation is "more polarized than it has ever been."

I have nothing other than logic and long experience to back it up, but I venture to say the 25% to 75% ratio is about the same as it has been at least since FDR. You can say it is not logical (and I'm sure most Kerry supporters will say it is not logical), but with no data to dispute it, I feel I'm on pretty solid ground.

On what basis do you just assume it though?



Again, polarization is not one-sided.

The strong support for Bush is one side of the polarization.

Again you conflate the issues of opposition to Bush and political polarization. They are not the same things Foxfyre.



Again, Foxfyre, (and one day this may sink in) polarization is not one-sided, and does not constitute Kerry supporters exclusively.



Hold on Fox, you aren't presenting any data to support it. I'm not sure where you found leave from burden of proof for your claim but it is a nifty trick.

Incidentally, I do have data to refute this emphatically. And as soon as you fulfill burden of proof for your claim I will be willing to refute it (can't let my interlocuters be too lazy or I end up with all the research work ;-) ).