Centerfield

I wish I'd kept the reference, as I saw a neat piece on "polarization" the other day. The part that stuck was that the bulk of the electorate isn't all that polarized at all, despite strong differences of opinion on specific issues. They share the same core values, get along pretty well, etc.

But when they walk into the voting booth, they face a slate of polarized partisan candidates, and must choose between the evils. The polarization is in the party elites, not the general electorate.

I don't think the polarization problem will ease until we find a way to end gerrymandering. (OK, nothing can really end gerrymandering, but find a way to make it a lot harder than it is now.) But you've heard that song before.

The uptick is probably temporary. Still don't see a turnover, though, in either house.

If I were a Dem candidate, though, I'd run pictures of then Senator Truman running his investigations of the war profiteers. "Do you think Halliburton deserves any more blank checks?" with a portrait of Dick Cheney. That alone would have Dem voters running for garlic and a crucifix. ;-)

I don't fear Nancy Pelosi, but I am not exactly going to be pumping my fists to see ole' stone face take the Speaker's gavel.

I'd like to know, am I the only who dreams of having Speaker Hoyer?

I don't think the polarization problem will ease until we find a way to end gerrymandering. (OK, nothing can really end gerrymandering, but find a way to make it a lot harder than it is now.)

Read the paper "Congress, Polarization and Fidelity to the Median Voter" by David King that Tully posted on this blog some time ago (I don't have the URL, apologies). Far more than gerrymandering, the problem is primaries, or at least the fact that primaries serve as a weeding out process for the general election.

and the reality is that if American voters have to choose between George W. Bush and Ned Lamont

Abolish the weeding out process and the American people won't be stuck with such a choice.

*But when they walk into the voting booth, they face a slate of polarized partisan candidates, and must choose between the evils. The polarization is in the party elites, not the general electorate. *

I think this concern and depression over Congress is a blog thing.
Seriously.
I live at home with my mom and she has more interest in her grandkids and old time movies. My boyfriend is more concerned about getting weird al yankovic's most recent cd, and getting a better job. the last time I talked about politics was with a fellow co worker and we were ribbing about how W was "sinking" in the polls and trying to get back up. And it was more humorous than angry. And that was in April or May.
In fact, the most political thing talked about here (VA) is immigration.

ps where's rick?

Ask and ye shall receive! PDF warning.

Congress, Polarization, and Fidelity to the Median Voter

Mathew,

I think that's a bit unfair toward Democrats in two ways. First, you assume that being in favor of a "timeline" or some kind of reduction in force in Iraq shows a lack of seriousness. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's not a legitimate strategy. That's what I see a lot of on this blog, the idea that anyone that opposes the war is an isolationist or defeatist who isn't serious about fighting terrorism. I find it hard to understand why no one can understand why people have turned against the war--and no, it's not because of the liberal media. I think this attitude shows a bit of contempt for voters. Second, when you talk about the "average" Democrat that wants just a timeline, I don't know what you mean. You seem to be basing that comment on the Connecticut primary results and liberal bloggers, neither of which, I think represents the majority of people that will vote Democratic. Most Democrats, especially those that vote in primaries, certainly oppose the war and oppose an open-ended committment, but that doesn't mean that they expect the Democratic nominee to pledge to withdraw on January 21, 2009.

Marc,

You are not getting my point. I am not making a statement whether or not a timeline is a legitimate policy... I have struggled with that myself and have said over, and over, and over again that the difference between Bush and his daddy, is that daddy was more open about his exit strategy, mostly because he actually had one. I do, however, agree with the ideological statement that an actual date is unrealistic during a time of war and that decisions should be made based on the analysis of the situation on the ground by our military leaders.

My point rather, is that the Democrats tend to eat their own when they don't march in line with the most radical elements of their party. The Republicans do this to, but they do it and continue to win.

Furthermore, I have also have said over, and over, and over again that had I known then what I know now I would have not supported the war, and now believe that we made a mistake. So, I am not sure what you are getting at.

You seem to be basing that comment on the Connecticut primary results and liberal bloggers, neither of which, I think represents the majority of people that will vote Democratic.

No, I am basing it on the fact that most people I know who are grassroot Democratic primary voters (and I know a lot of them at the local level) are against the war (which is fine either way), and believe either (1) the troops should come home immediately or (2) we should set a deadline - these are the same people, BTW, who are trashing anyone who is electable within their own party who prefers a less ideological more thoughtful approach to the issue (ie. Emanuel, Clinton, and Obama). Granted, my sample size is based on my own experience, but then again it is an opinion and not fact and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

IMO, most run of the mill Democrats are obsessed with opposing a President who for all intents and purposes is a lame duck. The last time they did this was with Ronald Reagan and we all know who won the national election in 1988.

There are good Democrats, as I said, who are talking about good ideas, but they aren't getting the appropriate attention because the leftist, anti-war crowd will not shut the hell up about opposing Bush. There is little message control in the Democratic Party and as long as the nut jobs talk, the media will continue to report on it because quite frankly it is more interesting than Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Reed, and Hillary Clinton's wonkish approach to public policy

Please, by all means, give me five bullet points from the Democratic party's message that is actually sticking that have nothing to do with the President and Iraq. If they win, it is because the American people has had enough of Bush, not because they prefer the alternative. That, IMO, is sad.