Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Nobody here has suggested polarization is one sided except you Craven. However, it is the LEFT....repeat the LEFT.....who are declaring that the nation is more polarized than it has ever been. I don't see it that way. That is my prerogative. I don't have to prove it to have an opinion about it. So there.

This is a bold falsehood. I have not done so once yet you do it repeatedly by only counting votes that were not against Bush as a measure of polarization.

Said votes may be a measure of opposition to Bush, but by the same measure any votes for him are a measure of opposition to the other side.



I agree and strive only to make the caliber of your claims clear.

Okay let me rephrase. Nobody has said that anybody is SAYING that polarization is one sided except you. Okay?

Doesn't help much, as I am not criticizing any arguments for saying "that anybody is SAYING that polarization is one sided" but rather for treating polarization as one-sided themselves.

Perhaps the third time will be the charm. ;-)

Third (and LAST) time:
I say the nation is not as polarized as most on the Left state that it is, nor is it significantly more polarized, if any, than it has ever been. The Left states that the nation is more polarized than it has ever been even to the point of being 'split right down the middle'. I don't believe that and have said so and stated my reasons.

I don't recall either side saying that you could have polarization without there being two or more poles.

Fox,

You already said you have no intention to substantiate what you say, so feel free to use repetition instead. The caliber of the claim should now be clear to all and I don't intend to dispute it.

It's about as clear as all the logic and data you had to dispute it in the first place Crave.

CdK, I think I begin to see where you're comin' from ... but I don't think I can agree with you. To my mind, the simple fact an overwhelming majority of the vote-eligible populace did not, for whatever reason, see fit to vote in such manner as to effect a change indicates those truly seeking change are a decided minority. I believe were this not so, were those advocating change not by large margin a clear minority, a larger potion of the vote-eligible populace would have participated in the effort to effect a change. I believe this indeed indicates The Nation is not so deeply divided as some contend.

Again, Timber.

Polarization is not one-sided.

Those wanting no change are part and parcel of any polarization that there may be. Furthermore, polarization need not be symmetric.

In any case, I'm not sure this is going to be understood anytime soon and I can live with failing to have helped you understand this.

Timber - allow me to explain: "Polarization" is here defined as ANY election result with less that 100% (one hundred percent) going to a single candidate.

At this point the only country NOT meeting the above definition of "polarization" is North Korea.

There, hope you finally got it <G>

Ahhhh .... thanks, Helen ... that makes perfect sense now

It appears the "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" thread is now open for everyone.

That being the case, I'd like to do the same with this thread at this time.

We shall be exclusionary no more!

Damn Tico - they're the true biblethumpers, as in "light above and darkness below and the gnashing of teeth".

I'm not sure I want to visit their thread - Apocalypse! - just yet, but let a single one come here and call us "Christian fanatics" when all our title says is a modest "...aftermath..." <G>

LOL upon reflection the Apocalypse quote they used might also apply to a dinner party with bad overhead lighting - I DEFINITELY don't want to visit there <G>

I've been reading along only recently, didn't WANT to beforehand.

I think Craven's points are good.

Put it this way:

There is no place for Craven himself in the only 25% are polarized-against-Bush model. He falls in the other 75% -- but he's no Bush fan.

The point is that the 50% who didn't vote didn't do so for any number of reasons, and their lack of polarization is not necessarily one of them. Reasons can be:

- Hate Kerry but in a strong Kerry state (CA, NY)
- Love Kerry but in a strong Kerry state (CA, NY)
- Hate Bush but in a strong Kerry state (CA, NY)
- Love Bush but in a strong Kerry state (CA, NY)
- Hate Kerry but in a strong Bush state (TX, AK)
- Love Kerry but in a strong Bush state (TX, AK)
- Hate Bush but in a strong Bush state (TX, AK)
- Love Bush but in a strong Bush state (TX, AK)

Those are all polarized -- their love or hate is strong -- but they felt their vote didn't matter to the outcome, so didn't bother.

If you ascribe one of the above reasons to 10% each of the non-voting group, that gives you 80% who are plenty polarized. (That's an out-of-thin-air Foxfyre-style speculation, though, no particular basis, just as an example.)

Potential voters who passionately hated both candidates make up another group, but it's harder to call them "polarized" as that terminology assumes Bush and Kerry are the poles -- someone in the middle (equally repulsed) probably can't be called polarized. Certainly not apathetic, though.

Good points all Soz and just as much conjecture and, so far as I know, as unprovable as anything Timber, Craven, or I came up with. I just know that I live in a world that actually isn't 100% polarized and obsessed with who won the Presidential election and most people I know will go right on with their lives grateful when things go well and disgruntled when they don't.

That's one way to define it.

But if there are to be degrees of polarization the metric by qhich they are quantified would have to be another.

The exchanges here not once discussed polarization versus the total lack of polarization and with that in mind the absolutism in your joking definition renders it useless.

People here attempted to use turnout as a metric but only selectively. What they were really doing is arguing that there isn't a relative groundswell of opposition to Bush but they conflated this with the issue of polarization and subsequently made flawed arguments.

Allright, CdK ... I'll buy that.

On a slightly different note ... to those of more Republican than Democratic bent, a downside to recent developments is that Nancy Pelosi is gonna be gettin' lots more airtime.

It's refutation Foxfyre. The burden of proof is on the claimant and demonstrating said flaws illustrates holes in their arguments that they did not address.

But the point isn't whether the stats can be substantiated. The metric being used and the manner it is being used is flawed.

To wit:

What is the basis for degrees of polarization you use?

Here are two simple possibilities:

1) The degree to which each side opposes the other.

2) The percentage of the population that is politically motivated as it relates to typical motivation.

Re 1, this can exist without broad political motivation. To measure it I would look for data trends on how diamertrically opposed to the otehr side each side is.

Re 2, this can exist without symmetry.

Under this scenario if 25% opposed Bush and 75% supported Bush there would be a case to be made for polarization simply on the basis of such a high turnout.

The metrics and criteria you use are flawed, beyond quibbling about their statistical accuracy the logic used by both yourself and Timber is simply flawed.

I have not been arguing that the country is polarized, if you read through our exchanges on this thread you will not find me state this.

What I have been illustrating are flaws in the logic that you and Timber keep forwarding.

Right now you are stuck on trying to go for a "we both can't prove" draw in regard to statistical accuracy, and unfortunately won't revisit your very metrics and criteria.