Pack Your Bags wrote:
elephino wrote:As much as we like to talk about the great divide between red and blue states, the most red states might be 70% red and most states are much closer than that. It's not nearly as divided as we pretend it is.
If you do the split by urban/rural or by county, it is more divided, but you can't split the country that way.
Resettlement?
Hey, why not--it worked great for Pakistan and India!
Someone once led me through an interesting thought experiment (or imagination exercise--whatever you want to call it).
He: Do you think the United States will exist a hundred years from now?
I: Sure.
He: Do you think the United States will exist a thousand years from now [~4 times as long as it has to date]?
I: Whoa. Umm, uhh, maybe...but probably not looking as it does now.
He: Do you think the United States will exist ten thousand years from now [longer than human civilization has lasted to date]?
I: No, I can't believe that it would. Too much will have changed.
The fact is that the U.S. will split up at some point. The only questions left are a) when, and b) the details.
When people talk about "the Internet--where religions [or whatever] come to die," I shake my head. What dies on the Internet (especially the anonymous Internet--which I suppose it *all* is, in some sense) is moderation and the willingness to say, sincerely, "But I could be wrong."
Calling it like it is wrote:
Not So Fast My Friend wrote:The O.P. seems to be of the opinion that it's gone far beyond just "agree to disagree" positions on issues.
People literally can't co-exist with each other nowadays if their politics differ to any large degree.
People seem to be coexisting fine. Writing angry op-eds is quite a bit different than, say, firing on Fort Sumter.
True. But firing on a Planned Parenthood clinic or bombing a Federal building is somewhere in between.
Extreme conservatives are a true minority in this country, but their constant screaming would make one think that they represent the views of many more people -- they don't.
What one needs to realize is that gerrymandering has given them a much larger voice than should be happening (many states have more overall votes for Democrats but still have a majority Republican representation due to gerrymandering). Another issue is with the Supreme Court, where conservative views are given more value due to the way justices are approved. When the two Senators from tiny, conservative Wyoming -- with 580,000 people -- have the same voice as the two Senators representing nearly 40 million people in California -- something is out of whack. If the justices were picked in another way, with more appropriate representation, the Court -- and our laws -- would be much more liberal. Citizen's United would never have happened, for example.
Extreme conservatives should be thanking their lucky stars that they have these advantages. Without them, they'd be an extinct species.
Split Decision wrote:
I really can't see the use in continuing on like this as a country much longer.
I'm in my mid-40s and consider myself a social and economic conservative. We've largely lost our ability to listen to each other and the art of compromise in today's world of 24/7 media and constant political sniping. I admittedly can't tolerate political opinions that differ too much from mine, particularly when they are delivered in a snarling, condescending fashion. It's apparent that I'm far from alone with those sentiments.
The bottom line is that each side thinks they are 100% right and the other side is just a bunch of morons. That rift just continues to grow and solidify with each passing year.
So, you'd have those two groups and at least one more large group of the true moderates that remain (maybe 30-40% of the population?).
I think it would be interesting to see the dynamics, if only in theory. You'd have white collar, trust fund, conservatives paired with Evangelicals as well as poor whites with little education from Appalachia. You'd have the progressive liberal intellectual elite paired with millions of illegals from Mexico as well as the black ghetto dwellers.
The biggest winner would probably be the true moderates.
Yeah, and who gave birth to this vitriolic divisiveness, your God Reagan.
So how about you hard righters, leave first. Putin would love to have you.
Bon Voyage, axxhole.
No Pension wrote:
Extreme conservatives are a true minority in this country, but their constant screaming would make one think that they represent the views of many more people -- they don't.
What one needs to realize is that gerrymandering has given them a much larger voice than should be happening (many states have more overall votes for Democrats but still have a majority Republican representation due to gerrymandering). Another issue is with the Supreme Court, where conservative views are given more value due to the way justices are approved. When the two Senators from tiny, conservative Wyoming -- with 580,000 people -- have the same voice as the two Senators representing nearly 40 million people in California -- something is out of whack. If the justices were picked in another way, with more appropriate representation, the Court -- and our laws -- would be much more liberal. Citizen's United would never have happened, for example.
Extreme conservatives should be thanking their lucky stars that they have these advantages. Without them, they'd be an extinct species.
Political blinders on very tightly with this one.
Libs would get the good parts of the country (east and west coast), Conservs would get flyover country.
truely millennial wrote:
AMDA wrote:I like Neopolitan ice cream.
Neopolitan ice cream is the worst ice cream there is. Hey everybody, lets combine the three blandest flavors and by doing so see if we can make them any blander!
My dad loved Neopolitan.
Can't we all just get along?
elephino wrote:
As much as we like to talk about the great divide between red and blue states, the most red states might be 70% red and most states are much closer than that. It's not nearly as divided as we pretend it is.
If you do the split by urban/rural or by county, it is more divided, but you can't split the country that way.
This.
Add in the fact that turnout at presidential elections is only about 60%, which suggests that a lot of people have almost no interest in politics; and even when people do have opinions, they often don't really fall into being something you could pigeonhole as left or right wing. For example, a lot of people want to reduce welfare payments, but also raise the minimum wage - making them left and right wing at the same time.
that specific example is a good one... people are VERY uneducated and significantly overestimate the costs and breadth of welfare but the minimum wage is something everyone (except for the silver spooners) has experience with.
le veritable wrote:
[quote]elephino wrote:
This.
Add in the fact that turnout at presidential elections is only about 60%, which suggests that a lot of people have almost no interest in politics; and even when people do have opinions, they often don't really fall into being something you could pigeonhole as left or right wing. For example, a lot of people want to reduce welfare payments, but also raise the minimum wage - making them left and right wing at the same time.
le veritable wrote:
elephino wrote:As much as we like to talk about the great divide between red and blue states, the most red states might be 70% red and most states are much closer than that. It's not nearly as divided as we pretend it is.
If you do the split by urban/rural or by county, it is more divided, but you can't split the country that way.
This.
Add in the fact that turnout at presidential elections is only about 60%, which suggests that a lot of people have almost no interest in politics; and even when people do have opinions, they often don't really fall into being something you could pigeonhole as left or right wing. For example, a lot of people want to reduce welfare payments, but also raise the minimum wage - making them left and right wing at the same time.
What confused person told you that he/she is in favor of reduced welfare AND a higher minimum wage? Most folks are in favor of one of these and the opposite of the other...
No Pension wrote:
Extreme conservatives are a true minority in this country,
No they are not. That is part of the problem - establishment politicos on all sides think this is some sort of fringe group. 1/3rd of the US believes the earth is 6k years old, evolution is a lie, global warming is a lie, abstinence is the only sex education required, guns make you safer, etc etc etc. +100mm people. Trump has them all to himself, and those who don't like Trump like Carson. Almost 50% of GOPers.
credible wrote:
... people are VERY uneducated and significantly overestimate the costs and breadth of welfare but the minimum wage is something everyone (except for the silver spooners) has experience with.
le veritable wrote:[quote]elephino wrote:
This.
Add in the fact that turnout at presidential elections is only about 60%, which suggests that a lot of people have almost no interest in politics; and even when people do have opinions, they often don't really fall into being something you could pigeonhole as left or right wing...
Both are right, especially as it applies to "millennials," as most people on this site call my generation. The vast majority of people I know, the people who will be voting in the 2020 elections and beyond, are extremely left-wing on social issues. Most teenagers get behind things like the gay rights movement and "black live matter" because they are fashionable. However, on other issues such as economics and foreign policy, most of my peers either have very vague stances ("hey bro, i think we should probably, like, help the Palestinians, but idk...") or simply distance themselves from them altogether.
Ultimately, I think this is a catastrophic failure of our school system. I am in high school right now, and I can say with certainty that 90% of my "education" has nothing to do with relevant issues in this country. I get more "educated" by talking politics with friends at lunch than taking classes like "world regional studies" and learning about "diverse ethnicities" and "cultural sensitivity." The schools are simply failing to develop people into informed, attentive citizens that take a genuine interest in their government, and they're doing this by not giving the background knowledge needed to have legitimate positions on anything. We are already seeing the effects of this as clueless and incompetent politicians like Clinton and Trump gain support.
As for the OP, it would be impossible to split the US along political lines because so many people are ambiguous as to where they stand. You will see that effect get gradually worse as my generation reaches voting age. Elections will be decided based on who likes gay people the most or who wears the cutest dress, not who has the best tax plan or the soundest foreign policy. And that's based on the 40% who actually vote.
slowrnspit wrote:
Libs would get the good parts of the country (east and west coast), Conservs would get flyover country.
Um, you've never been in the wilds of OR or WA, then? The breakdown someone else wrote of: blues in major cities and reds in rural areas is, with the exception of places like VT, truth.