Share of house members who are not ideologically moderate, by party

[Axulus]

See here for much more data on the trends towards greater political polarization, particularly among the Republician/conservative wing in the US:

http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

 

[untermensche]

Yes, we all know that Reagan marked the death of sanity in the Republican party.

And the more his policies have been proven to fail, the more the faithful cling to them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The real story is how the US population has responded to it all, not offering much resistance at all to the polarization or the policies put out by the polarized far right. Warren is a breath of fresh air, but it is too little too late. We are in for a crash before people truly wake up and look towards a "newer deal".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

See here for much more data on the trends towards greater political polarization, particularly among the Republician/conservative wing in the US:

http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

When you say "particularly" you meant to say "exclusively", right?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Were it not for gerrymandering, the Republicans would be in seriously deep shit. But unfortunately, the Supreme Court is loathe to even hear a case on gerrymandering because it's what's known as a "political question." IOW, the setting of such boundaries are a power reserved to Congress and so the Court has no authority to rule on it (for the most part).

You can also see the attempts over the last decade or so to seriously limit the ability to vote by people who would not vote for them (the idiotic voter fraud non-existenct issue).

But from what I've read, and that doesn't mean much, it seems that younger people who consider themselves Republican are fed up with the fundamentalist religious bullshit and all the other ancient social baggage the party is currently carrying with it. So it'll take some time, but hopefully it means that conservatism in the U.S. will come back to a sane and necessary form.

 

[Axulus]

See here for much more data on the trends towards greater political polarization, particularly among the Republician/conservative wing in the US:

http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

When you say "particularly" you meant to say "exclusively", right?

You didn't bother clicking on that link did you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you say "particularly" you meant to say "exclusively", right?

You didn't bother clicking on that link did you?

I did. The graph you showed is titled as "Percent of Democrat and Republican House Members who are not ideaologically moderate, 1879 - 2014."

This graph is the most alarming from the link.

 

[Horatio Parker]

My understanding is that individual members have less autonomy. The party leadership calls the shots.

 

[Axulus]

You didn't bother clicking on that link did you?

I did. The graph you showed is titled as "Percent of Democrat and Republican House Members who are not ideaologically moderate, 1879 - 2014."

This graph is the most alarming from the link.

Then why would you claim I should've used the word "exclusively" when this graph was one of the ones in that link, clearly showing the percent of non-censtrists in the Democrat party in the Senate has increased above 15%, levels not seen since the late 60's?

 

[SimpleDon]

As I have said many times conservatives by their nature have the advantages in politics.

1. They can achieve their goals by obstruction.
2. They can produce more conservatives from moderates by using fear.
3. They have to lie to themselves, lying to everyone else is easy for them, natural and required.
4. As long as conservatives are willing to believe the lie that income inequality is in the best interests of the economy and the nation, conservatives will have the considerable financial support of the wealthy.
5. Along with the financial support comes the access to the media owned by the wealthy, so important for the development and the dissemination of the lies and the fear that conservatives depend on.

We must return to the state where we once again ignore conservatives and where they have no natural political home as is now the case with the Republican party. If we are going to continue with a two party system they must be two moderate parties, one leaning slightly left, the other leaning slightly right.

Governing is too important to leave to the extremes, to the conservatives or to the liberals, if you could even find enough of the latter to do it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did. The graph you showed is titled as "Percent of Democrat and Republican House Members who are not ideaologically moderate, 1879 - 2014."

This graph is the most alarming from the link.

Then why would you claim I should've used the word "exclusively" when this graph was one of the ones in that link, clearly showing the percent of non-censtrists in the Democrat party in the Senate has increased above 15%, levels not seen since the late 60's?

Because the graph in the OP indicates nearly the entire House Republican caucass isn't moderate. Pointing out that there are some non-centrists in the Democrat party would seem to be a non-issue at that point.

 

[Axulus]

Then why would you claim I should've used the word "exclusively" when this graph was one of the ones in that link, clearly showing the percent of non-censtrists in the Democrat party in the Senate has increased above 15%, levels not seen since the late 60's?

Because the graph in the OP indicates nearly the entire House Republican caucass isn't moderate. Pointing out that there are some non-centrists in the Democrat party would seem to be a non-issue at that point.

My quote:

See here for much more data on the trends towards greater political polarization, particularly among the Republician/conservative wing in the US:

How would changing the word "particularly" to "exclusively" NOT be wrong in light of that second graph from that link I just posted, as just one example? I was clearly referring to all the information in the link, NOT just the graph in the OP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because the graph in the OP indicates nearly the entire House Republican caucass isn't moderate. Pointing out that there are some non-centrists in the Democrat party would seem to be a non-issue at that point.

My quote:

See here for much more data on the trends towards greater political polarization, particularly among the Republician/conservative wing in the US:

How would changing the word "particularly" to "exclusively" NOT be wrong in light of that second graph from that link I just posted, as just one example? I was clearly referring to all the information in the link, NOT just the graph in the OP.

You should have cited another graph or a different site. Because that 80+% non-moderate Republican graph sticks out the most out of all of them.