MUscoop Is A Microcosm Of The Country

[Tugg Speedman]

The typical superbar thread descends into a political argument with both sides yelling and belittling the other side.  Yes, I'm as guilty as the rest.  Because modern political arguments are no longer about finding common ground.  They are about who screams the loudest to bludgeon their opponent into submission.  It's all about winning, not about common ground.

The superbar is a microcosm of the country

This charts below come from a study of every vote back to 1879

https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm

Below are graphs of the difference between the Republican and Democratic Party.  It averages the voting record of each party.  More positive numbers mean more conservative.  More negative numbers mean more liberal.

The chart shows that since 1879 the Republicans are more conservative than ever.  The Democrats are the most liberal in 100 years.




The next chart shows the distance between the Republican and Democrat voting record.  The record peaks mean the Republicans and Democrats are further apart than any-time in history.



The percentage of "non-centrists" in the Senate is the highest in history.  This is driven largely by Republicans (red line, 61% are non-centrists, the highest ever).  Democrats are in blue (highest in 40 years) and the overall chamber in black is the highest ever



Same chart for the House, same conclusion.



-------------------------

The charts above do not include the current Congress, which could be the most polarized ever.

538 tracks the voting of the current Congression session (which started in January 2017).

Here is the Senate record.  Sort by "Trump Score"

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

You will notice zero overlap.  All the Democrats are on one side and all the Republicans are on the other side.

Ditto the House.  Again, sort by "Trump Score".  Of 435 members, only 5 overlap, the other 430 are lined up on one side or the other.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/




edit: added width=500 to img tags.

[Tugg Speedman]

We vote extremes and we give them a "no compromise" mandate.  Why?  Again, look at the discussions here, they are exactly the same.

So how does this end?  Does one side "win?" by bludgeoning one side into submission?  Do we find a new era of compromise?  How/why does this reverse?  We have been moving further and further apart for 40 years and at the most extreme now.

Do we just keep yelling and belittling each other for the coming decades?  Doesn't this dysfunctionality affect Washington's ability to run the Government, making things worse?

Or, do we start thinking about different countries?

Still many years away but it is getting discussed

JULY 25, 2017, 6:16 P.M.
Backers of another shot at a 'Calexit' ballot measure can now gather signatures
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-coming-to-a-street-corner-near-you-a-1501029304-htmlstory.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/03/will-california-secede-from-united-states.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/texas-secede-breaking-hard/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/26/in-a-first-texas-boys-state-votes-to-secede-from-the-union/?utm_term=.14bd130b17e2

------------------

Is the fact is we are becoming peoples with two different views and eventually are going to get tired of fighting each other and seek a divorce?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You charts seem interesting but the images get cutoff halfway through. Anyway you can make the image smaller?

I don't think we will ever see states splitting off to form their own countries. While there are red states and blue states, the real splits are urban/rural. Even in Texas if you look at a map cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio are blue while all the rural areas are red.

I don't know how to fix political discourse in this country. We have gotten to a place where both sides have such contempt for the other. I think it would take an extremely charismatic leader who ran on a true moderate platform of compromise. The problem is, I don't think either party would support such a candidate getting on the ballot.

Maybe term limits would help? If senators and representatives were less focused on appeasing their base to get reelected and more focused on governing, I could see compromise becoming more of a legitimate option.

[Pakuni]

While there certainly major challenges in today's political atmosphere, I really don't believe it's any worse - or even atypical - for our country.
Is the political atmosphere today as tumultuous and divisive as the 60s and early 70s? I would say not.
Or the 50s, when we had political witch hunts for communist sympathizers and the start of the Civil Rights Movement?
We had a pair of World Wars, one of which was fairly unpopular, a Great Depression, massive labor strife around the turn of the century, an actual civil war, etc., etc.
And let's not forget there are multiple historical instances of American politicians assaulting and even killing one another over policy disputes.

I think many think of today's times as especially divisive because most of us came of age in the 80s and 90s, a remarkably tranquil era in American politics.
In reality, it was the 80s and 90s that were outliers in American history. The last 20 years have been closer to par for the course.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I think the USA beginning was pretty raucous, the late 1700's and early 1800's.  Benjamin Franklin's grandson was publishing fake news to stir up anti-Federalist ideals.  Jefferson was VP and was secretly undermining his President John Adams.  What was in print back then was very inflammatory.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Scoop Superbar is not a microcosm of the country.  The Superbar is a handful of people who like to argue with each other -- this ultimately chases everyone else away.  Plus, by demographics alone scoop can in no way represent the country as a whole since nearly all have either attended or graduated from MU and are here because they are college basketball fans.

I don't know what you are trying to show in the charts...particularly the last two -- I come to completely different conclusions that do not end with succession.

[Galway Eagle]

Scoop Superbar is not a microcosm of the country.  The Superbar is a handful of people who like to argue with each other -- this ultimately chases everyone else away.  Plus, by demographics alone scoop can in no way represent the country as a whole since nearly all have either attended or graduated from MU and are here because they are college basketball fans.

I don't know what you are trying to show in the charts...particularly the last two -- I come to completely different conclusions that do not end with succession.

Woah you can’t lump the superbar just to arguing! What about the handy food and tourism threads? Everything from great spots in “x” city to the smoke meats thread

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Woah you can’t lump the superbar just to arguing! What about the handy food and tourism threads? Everything from great spots in “x” city to the smoke meats thread

I should have referred to the locked threads in the SuperBar.  My guess is this is what the OP was referring to....but then again maybe he was talking about the passion in the beer thread.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Scoop Superbar is not a microcosm of the country.  The Superbar is a handful of people who like to argue with each other -- this ultimately chases everyone else away.  Plus, by demographics alone scoop can in no way represent the country as a whole since nearly all have either attended or graduated from MU and are here because they are college basketball fans.

I don't know what you are trying to show in the charts...particularly the last two -- I come to completely different conclusions that do not end with succession.

I agree.  I'd call Scoop a cross-section of society rather than a true microcosm.

[mu_hilltopper]

TRIGGER WARNING:  For those who don't like to sniff politics, please move on from this thread.  I don't know where it's going, but we'll see how long it goes before degeneration.

This topic is highly interesting to me.   I am convinced that in 100 years, maybe 50, and maybe just 5 .. this country will be organized differently.

My first thought is that Calexit will occur in some regard. 
Supporters need to gather signatures for a referendum to change CA's constitution .. pass that .. then pass a second referendum. 

Anyone want to bet against CA and their referendum process?    If you'd be shocked it would pass, you're not paying attention.

Ok, so say these votes pass, and CA signals a desire to leave the Union.   We fought a civil war over that, it's illegal! 

Trump is not Lincoln.  Would you bet against Trump saying "California, you're FIRED!"? 
 Without CA's 55 electoral votes, the GOP would have a HUGE advantage in future elections.   Peter Thiel (Trump supporter, billionaire) has suggested he'd run for CA governor to promote Calexit for this precise reason.  (He wouldn't win, but it indicates this is not purely fantasy.)

No blood spilled, no war, just politicians in DC deciding to let CA go.  Sure, it'd be a royal mess trying to figure out how to move forward.   As the UK how their divorce is going.

The GOP is in power, they want to keep it long term, and "we're" better off without those liberal hippies in California anyhow.  Sure, "we" lose a MAJOR economic hub, but so what, we'll be happier without abortion, gun control, happier with lower taxes and a smaller safety net.

I get it .. that's a lot of what-ifs.  Which one would you bet against happening?  We are truly in the 'stranger things have happened' era, and this doesn't seem so strange anymore. 

Maybe Calexit isn't how it happens .. but I have little doubt, our contryman's bond to eachother has never been weaker, there's no end in sight to the furthering division, and the US will not have 50 states a century from now. 

[Galway Eagle]

If that were to happen how long would it be before New England leaves? I can’t imagine New England would like to stick around as the only left hub in the USA that isn’t the Immediate Lake Michigan Chi/mil/gary area

[mu_hilltopper]

Besides a physical separation .. I know this is crazy and sounds like science fiction .. but what if there was some form of "virtual country" ..

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but .. look, there are people who do not want to live under the rules of the left, and some who don't want to live under the rules of the right.  Physical separation isn't going to cut it .. California, Washington, Oregon and NE decide to form their own country?  Fine.   But 40% of CA, WA, OR conservative citizens are now unhappy, not to mention 40% of all liberals in the other ~47 states.

Imagine a science fiction world where we could .. declare our virtual country.  Two countries, living inside of one.  Two governments, two sets politicians and rules.  The Blues could tax themselves highly and provide heightened governmental services for the blues only, and the Reds could do the same for their own peoples.   -- It's easier to say it than do it, no doubt.  Just spitballin. 

[Pakuni]

TRIGGER WARNING:  For those who don't like to sniff politics, please move on from this thread.  I don't know where it's going, but we'll see how long it goes before degeneration.

This topic is highly interesting to me.   I am convinced that in 100 years, maybe 50, and maybe just 5 .. this country will be organized differently.

My first thought is that Calexit will occur in some regard. 
Supporters need to gather signatures for a referendum to change CA's constitution .. pass that .. then pass a second referendum. 

Anyone want to bet against CA and their referendum process?    If you'd be shocked it would pass, you're not paying attention.

Ok, so say these votes pass, and CA signals a desire to leave the Union.   We fought a civil war over that, it's illegal! 

Trump is not Lincoln.  Would you bet against Trump saying "California, you're FIRED!"? 
 Without CA's 55 electoral votes, the GOP would have a HUGE advantage in future elections.   Peter Thiel (Trump supporter, billionaire) has suggested he'd run for CA governor to promote Calexit for this precise reason.  (He wouldn't win, but it indicates this is not purely fantasy.)

No blood spilled, no war, just politicians in DC deciding to let CA go.  Sure, it'd be a royal mess trying to figure out how to move forward.   As the UK how their divorce is going.

The GOP is in power, they want to keep it long term, and "we're" better off without those liberal hippies in California anyhow.  Sure, "we" lose a MAJOR economic hub, but so what, we'll be happier without abortion, gun control, happier with lower taxes and a smaller safety net.

I get it .. that's a lot of what-ifs.  Which one would you bet against happening?  We are truly in the 'stranger things have happened' era, and this doesn't seem so strange anymore. 

Maybe Calexit isn't how it happens .. but I have little doubt, our contryman's bond to eachother has never been weaker, there's no end in sight to the furthering division, and the US will not have 50 states a century from now.

OK, I'll say it .... this is pure fantasy.

For starters, polls of California voters shows they're strongly opposed to Calexit. The most recent I found shows 68 percent would vote against it. So it's already dead.
But even if proponents were somehow able to flip almost 20 percent of electorate, you'd still need a two-thirds vote of Congress. Tthe same Congress that can't seem to get 51 Senate votes for anything significant.
Even if the Congressional makeup stays the same after 2018 - unlikely for any midterm election - how many Democrats in Congress are going to be cool with this? I'll spare you the math ... you'd need 43 Democrats in the House and 15 in the Senate to vote in favor of California secession.
That's not happening.
And then you'd need three-fourths of the state legislatures - 38 of them -  to sign off.  Also not happening.

The notion that "our contryman's bond to each other has never been weaker" seems off in light of the fact we had a Civil War. I'm thinking it might have been maybe a little weaker then.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Besides a physical separation .. I know this is crazy and sounds like science fiction .. but what if there was some form of "virtual country" ..

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but .. look, there are people who do not want to live under the rules of the left, and some who don't want to live under the rules of the right.  Physical separation isn't going to cut it .. California, Washington, Oregon and NE decide to form their own country?  Fine.   But 40% of CA, WA, OR conservative citizens are now unhappy, not to mention 40% of all liberals in the other ~47 states.

Imagine a science fiction world where we could .. declare our virtual country.  Two countries, living inside of one.  Two governments, two sets politicians and rules.  The Blues could tax themselves highly and provide heightened governmental services for the blues only, and the Reds could do the same for their own peoples.   -- It's easier to say it than do it, no doubt.  Just spitballin.

You may have just pitched the idea for the next great dystopian novel. Fascinating concept though I can't think of any way it could be practically implemented.

[mu_hilltopper]

OK, I'll say it .... this is pure fantasy.

For starters, polls of California voters shows they're strongly opposed to Calexit. The most recent I found shows 68 percent would vote against it. So it's already dead.
But even if proponents were somehow able to flip almost 20 percent of electorate, you'd still need a two-thirds vote of Congress. Tthe same Congress that can't seem to get 51 Senate votes for anything significant.
Even if the Congressional makeup stays the same after 2018 - unlikely for any midterm election - how many Democrats in Congress are going to be cool with this? I'll spare you the math ... you'd need 43 Democrats in the House and 15 in the Senate to vote in favor of California secession.
That's not happening.
And then you'd need three-fourths of the state legislatures - 38 of them -  to sign off.  Also not happening.

The notion that "our contryman's bond to each other has never been weaker" seems off in light of the fact we had a Civil War. I'm thinking it might have been maybe a little weaker then.

Fair points.  But .. 68% are against it NOW.  Slosh some money around that, stoke some anti-Trump/GOP fears .. 18% flipping is possible -- not to mention that polls haven't been super accurate lately.  Brexit, nor Trump were going to happen.  You want to be on record favoring an un-American secession?   Gosh, I wonder when others have lied to pollsters about their choices lately.

Point of info, you say we need 2/3rds of Congress to vote on a secession.  Where is that written?  (Honestly don't know .. didn't think there'd be some actual law on the books about the procedure to vote on removing a state.) 

Same question about the 38 state legislatures.  I get it, that's the number for a Constitutional Amendment .. but is this that?

Good point on the Civil War countrymen bond thing.  How about "never been weaker in 150 years."

[Tugg Speedman]

While there certainly major challenges in today's political atmosphere, I really don't believe it's any worse - or even atypical - for our country.
Is the political atmosphere today as tumultuous and divisive as the 60s and early 70s? I would say not.
Or the 50s, when we had political witch hunts for communist sympathizers and the start of the Civil Rights Movement?
We had a pair of World Wars, one of which was fairly unpopular, a Great Depression, massive labor strife around the turn of the century, an actual civil war, etc., etc.
And let's not forget there are multiple historical instances of American politicians assaulting and even killing one another over policy disputes.

I think many think of today's times as especially divisive because most of us came of age in the 80s and 90s, a remarkably tranquil era in American politics.
In reality, it was the 80s and 90s that were outliers in American history. The last 20 years have been closer to par for the course.

good comments ... like that we can talk without resorting to name calling.  I vow I will not.

My only comment to this is that the charts in the first post say we are the most extreme in history.  More so than any time since the civil war.  So they do argue that we are at a place we have not been at before.

I think the USA beginning was pretty raucous, the late 1700's and early 1800's.  Benjamin Franklin's grandson was publishing fake news to stir up anti-Federalist ideals.  Jefferson was VP and was secretly undermining his President John Adams.  What was in print back then was very inflammatory.

Yes and that was a period of extreme turmoil and growth that ended with us splitting into two different countries and fighting the bloodiest war in our history to put it back together.

[Tugg Speedman]

You charts seem interesting but the images get cutoff halfway through. Anyway you can make the image smaller?

I don't think we will ever see states splitting off to form their own countries. While there are red states and blue states, the real splits are urban/rural. Even in Texas if you look at a map cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio are blue while all the rural areas are red.

I don't know how to fix political discourse in this country. We have gotten to a place where both sides have such contempt for the other. I think it would take an extremely charismatic leader who ran on a true moderate platform of compromise. The problem is, I don't think either party would support such a candidate getting on the ballot.

Maybe term limits would help? If senators and representatives were less focused on appeasing their base to get reelected and more focused on governing, I could see compromise becoming more of a legitimate option.

Bingo on the highlighted part!  We are a rural/urban divided country.  If it was geographic, we would have split long ago.  Given that the charts in the first block say we are the most polarized, don't know how this resolves itself.

Term limits make it worse.  It forces out the older politicians, that tend to be centrist so we can elect more left (Liz Warren) and right (Roy Moore?) take no prisoners firebrands.

[Tugg Speedman]

Scoop Superbar is not a microcosm of the country.  The Superbar is a handful of people who like to argue with each other -- this ultimately chases everyone else away.  Plus, by demographics alone scoop can in no way represent the country as a whole since nearly all have either attended or graduated from MU and are here because they are college basketball fans.

I don't know what you are trying to show in the charts...particularly the last two -- I come to completely different conclusions that do not end with succession.

The highlighted part is a perfect description of political discussions in 2017.

[mu03eng]

Fair points.  But .. 68% are against it NOW.  Slosh some money around that, stoke some anti-Trump/GOP fears .. 18% flipping is possible -- not to mention that polls haven't been super accurate lately.  Brexit, nor Trump were going to happen.  You want to be on record favoring an un-American secession?   Gosh, I wonder when others have lied to pollsters about their choices lately.

Point of info, you say we need 2/3rds of Congress to vote on a secession.  Where is that written?  (Honestly don't know .. didn't think there'd be some actual law on the books about the procedure to vote on removing a state.) 

Same question about the 38 state legislatures.  I get it, that's the number for a Constitutional Amendment .. but is this that?

Good point on the Civil War countrymen bond thing.  How about "never been weaker in 150 years."

Given the amount of money California would lose from the Federal government is staggering, that alone would prevent any such behavior....not to mention the cost/infrastructure required to stand-up a California "national" defense force.

What I would be curious about is what sort of self-selecting would happen if California would be allowed/able to seceded. What would the population look like post-secession?

[GGGG]

Secession isn't happening here.  It isn't happening in Spain either.

[mu_hilltopper]

Given the amount of money California would lose from the Federal government is staggering, that alone would prevent any such behavior....not to mention the cost/infrastructure required to stand-up a California "national" defense force.

California currently pays $369b in federal taxes, gets back $356b .. so yeah, it'd need to create a new nation tax to make that up, but net net, slightly cheaper. 

The bigger money question is stuff like individual social security accounts.  -- No doubt, a royal mess to figure out. 

As for a California military .. perhaps they forego that .. or have some form of agreement, e.g., the US has military bases in countries that they pledge to defend.   

[Galway Eagle]

Besides a physical separation .. I know this is crazy and sounds like science fiction .. but what if there was some form of "virtual country" ..

I'm not smart enough to figure it out, but .. look, there are people who do not want to live under the rules of the left, and some who don't want to live under the rules of the right.  Physical separation isn't going to cut it .. California, Washington, Oregon and NE decide to form their own country?  Fine.   But 40% of CA, WA, OR conservative citizens are now unhappy, not to mention 40% of all liberals in the other ~47 states.

Imagine a science fiction world where we could .. declare our virtual country.  Two countries, living inside of one.  Two governments, two sets politicians and rules.  The Blues could tax themselves highly and provide heightened governmental services for the blues only, and the Reds could do the same for their own peoples.   -- It's easier to say it than do it, no doubt.  Just spitballin.

Dibs on the movie rights to this.

[mu03eng]

California currently pays $369b in federal taxes, gets back $356b .. so yeah, it'd need to create a new nation tax to make that up, but net net, slightly cheaper. 

The bigger money question is stuff like individual social security accounts.  -- No doubt, a royal mess to figure out. 

As for a California military .. perhaps they forego that .. or have some form of agreement, e.g., the US has military bases in countries that they pledge to defend.

So California becomes part of NATO....lolz

Maybe California can secede and make Bitcoin their national currency.


(side note, Bitcoin isn't a bad play right now, Amazon is going to start accepting payments in it in November).

[Jockey]

Given the amount of money California would lose from the Federal government is staggering, that alone would prevent any such behavior....not to mention the cost/infrastructure required to stand-up a California "national" defense force.

What I would be curious about is what sort of self-selecting would happen if California would be allowed/able to seceded. What would the population look like post-secession?

I agree it won't happen, but I don't know that Cali would lose money from the feds. They would no longer have to pay a Federal income tax and they might come out ahead if that federal tax money was paid to California instead of the Feds. They get less that $1.00 in return for each dollar they pay in Federal tax.

Most red states however would get killed by seceding. S Carolina gets back almost $8.00 for each dollar it pays in Fed tax. Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, W Virginia, etc. all get back more than double what they pay in. They would have to raise their state taxes by multiples in order to survive.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

There is no secession process in the United States.  I already commented on secession in NM thread (Civil War tangent).  I posted:

Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position by declaring the seceding states were in “rebellion” and therefore still members of the Union. The Constitution, then, was still legally enforceable in those states, including Article I, Section 10.

So until a Constitutional Amendment modifies Article I, Section 10, states have no legal grounds to secede.

As for the great dystopian novel/movie idea, would you prefer the Hilltoppers refer to the people of the blue country or the red?

[mu_hilltopper]

Constitution, Schmonstitution.  This is 2017!

[Pakuni]

There is no secession process in the United States.  I already commented on secession in NM thread (Civil War tangent).  I posted:

Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position by declaring the seceding states were in “rebellion” and therefore still members of the Union. The Constitution, then, was still legally enforceable in those states, including Article I, Section 10.

So until a Constitutional Amendment modifies Article I, Section 10, states have no legal grounds to secede.

As for the great dystopian novel/movie idea, would you prefer the Hilltoppers refer to the people of the blue country or the red?

It would require a Constitutional amendment, hence my stating that it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

[Tugg Speedman]

It would require a Constitutional amendment, hence my stating that it would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Did any of the states that left before 1860 get constitutional approval?

[Babybluejeans]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

[warriorchick]

I agree it won't happen, but I don't know that Cali would lose money from the feds. They would no longer have to pay a Federal income tax and they might come out ahead if that federal tax money was paid to California instead of the Feds. They get less that $1.00 in return for each dollar they pay in Federal tax.

Most red states however would get killed by seceding. S Carolina gets back almost $8.00 for each dollar it pays in Fed tax. Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, W Virginia, etc. all get back more than double what they pay in. They would have to raise their state taxes by multiples in order to survive.

You are assuming that the spending would stay exactly the same same, but it would just be paid by a different government.

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

[warriorchick]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

[Pakuni]

Did any of the states that left before 1860 get constitutional approval?

No. They got decimated by the Union forces.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

That's one way of looking at it I guess. Except how many people "discern" for themselves instead of just using the source(s) that reinforce their own POV? 

The larger issue is that these dueling sources have created two realities. There is no common truth that everybody aligns to because these sources are all peddling their version of the truth.

[mu03eng]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

There is a reason there is a thing called yellow journalism

[Tugg Speedman]

I think what makes the divisiveness harder to get past in post-modern American than in previous eras, like the 60's or back in the days of Benji Franklin, is the way that information is disseminated. The bubbles, so to speak. People can exist in an echo chamber now that only reinforces their beliefs, regardless of the issue, in a way we've never seen before.

Take civil rights movement, by contrast. That movement really gathered steam in the 60's after folks saw broadcasts (from the national networks, which were the only TV outlets that existed) of Jim Crow-style law enforcement spraying water hoses and sicking dogs on peaceful protesters. The nation all saw the same thing, and many were rightly horrified.

It wouldn't happen that way now. Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle and then lots of people would dismiss the whole movement out of pocket, while liberal outlets would play what really happened. The nation would be divided on the merits of the movement rather than unified by the same horrific images. Of course, I'm using an example of a "liberal" cause that unified liberals and plenty of conservatives back then, but it definitely goes the other way too now, where some credible conservative causes that might have otherwise created unity are given less credibility in liberal circles because of the state of our fractured media.

I'm not sure how the fractured state of the Internet/media can ever create unity again because we rarely, if ever, all see the same objective images (without talking heads and scroll bars and all that stuff immediately popping in to guide peoples' opinions).

The idea of media echo chambers has merit.  Then the example is liberal outlets would play what really happened and Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle so "my side is right and the other side distorts what happened and is wrong."

This is a good example of the problem.

(The reality is both sides show outliers and argue the other side totally wrong, morally bankrupt and must not be reasoned with but bludgeoned into submission.)

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The idea of media echo chambers has merit.  Then the example is liberal outlets would play what really happened and Conservative outlets would show an outlier protester hurling a bottle so "my side is right and the other side distorts what happened and is wrong."

I think he was specifically talking about the civil rights movement in the 1960s, on that particular issue the liberals were on the right side of history. Later in his example he talks about both sides of the fractured media.

[Jockey]

You are assuming that the spending would stay exactly the same same, but it would just be paid by a different government.

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

Maybe, but not necessarily. If Cali didn't want to go full in militarily, something would be worked out. The US would not risk a hostile power taking over a a state/country on its border. And by just applying what were previously Fed taxes to its own taxes, Cali would come out far ahead.

There is also the issue of goods coming into the country. Would Cali charge a tariff to the US to run goods from the Far East across the state? Trade with Mexico would also be huge in California's favor. We could go on and on about what would benefit them and what would hurt them and its kinda fun to do.......

but it ain't ever happenin'.

[Tugg Speedman]

Secession isn't happening here.  It isn't happening in Spain either.

Below is from earlier today ...

Catalan referendum: Region's independence 'in matter of days'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41493014
Catalonia will declare independence from Spain in a matter of days, the leader of the autonomous region has told the BBC. In his first interview since Sunday's referendum, Carles Puigdemont said his government would "act at the end of this week or the beginning of next".

LIVE: Thousands take to streets in MASS uprising to bring Spain to its knees
CATALONIA is at a standstill after thousands of protesters took to the streets during a mass strike to protest the Spanish government's violent crackdown on voters during the independence referendum.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861742/Catalonia-spain-referendum-strike-independence-barcelona-catalunya-violence-video

[Babybluejeans]

I think he was specifically talking about the civil rights movement in the 1960s, on that particular issue the liberals were on the right side of history. Later in his example he talks about both sides of the fractured media.

Exactly, thanks. I don't think he read the whole post.

[Tugg Speedman]

Exactly, thanks. I don't think he read the whole post.

sorry I misread it.

[brewcity77]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

Many, many news sources? Not really. Six companies control 90% of the media in this country. GE, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner. Those are also multinational companies that control media in numerous countries.

[Tugg Speedman]

Many, many news sources? Not really. Six companies control 90% of the media in this country. GE, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, CBS, and Time Warner. Those are also multinational companies that control media in numerous countries.

You’re out of date ... the dominant media companies are Google (which owns the largest broadcast network in the world, YouTube), Facebook (which also owns instagram), Microsoft, Yahoo and Baidu (China).

85% of all new advertising dollars is spent on digital and Google (and YouTube), and Facebook (and Instagram) get half that.  Google generates more advertising revenue  than Disney.

https://www.ft.com/content/6c6b74a4-3920-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7

http://www.adweek.com/digital/google-now-controls-12-percent-all-global-media-spend-171701/

Alphabet controls 12 percent of all global media spend, which primarily comes from Google and YouTube's ad sales. The company collects $60 billion in U.S. ad spend—a figure 166 percent larger than No. 2 ranking The Walt Disney Company. To compare, Google's ad revenue was 136 percent larger than Walt Disney last year. Alphabet's overall ad revenue is up 17 percent year-over-year.

Comcast, Twentieth Century Fox and Facebook round out the top five media owners in Zenith's "Top Thirty Global Media Owners" report.

Five digital players—Google, Facebook, Baidu, Yahoo and Microsoft—collectively generated 19 percent of all global ad budgets. And when looking specifically at digital money, the companies make up 65 percent of Internet revenue globally, with $88 billion in ad sales in the U.S. alone. According to Zenith, digital ad spend has grown 18 percent every year for the past five years while spend across all other types of media has grown .6 percent.


So powerful is google that they are going to end the 30 second commercial on YouTube and YouTube is so critical to all 30 second commercial campaigns that the entire format of a 30 second commercial might be in its final years.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/14649018/youtube-ending-unskippable-30-second-ads-2018

——-

The companies mentioned above USED TO matter, now they don’t.

[GGGG]

Below is from earlier today ...

Catalan referendum: Region's independence 'in matter of days'
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41493014
Catalonia will declare independence from Spain in a matter of days, the leader of the autonomous region has told the BBC. In his first interview since Sunday's referendum, Carles Puigdemont said his government would "act at the end of this week or the beginning of next".

LIVE: Thousands take to streets in MASS uprising to bring Spain to its knees
CATALONIA is at a standstill after thousands of protesters took to the streets during a mass strike to protest the Spanish government's violent crackdown on voters during the independence referendum.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/861742/Catalonia-spain-referendum-strike-independence-barcelona-catalunya-violence-video

They will end up with more autonomy.  Not independence.

[B. McBannerson]

——-

The companies mentioned above USED TO matter, now they don’t.

You have a habit of burying living things well before their time.  I saw a cab yesterday in New York, in fact 100's of them but you told me that industry died.  You said not long ago that electric cars will dominate in 5 years, which everyone here knows is wrong.  In this instance you mixing delivery vs actual media creation. 

Google does not own the largest broadcast network, they don't own the internet.  YouTube sits on the internet, it is a destination.  Yes, they drive massive volume, but that is not where people are obtaining their news in masses, and certainly not at the age groups that matter at this point.

You are correct on the ad budget spend, but one should also look at the conversions of those spends which is highly enlightening. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

For example, think of all the military installations that are in California. That money and those jobs are gone. And do you think a government run by liberals  are going do the equivalent amount of military spending? Doubtful.

Another misconception.  Defense budgets never change regardless of the party in charge.

[warriorchick]

Another misconception.  Defense budgets never change regardless of the party in charge.

Let me clarify.  The money and the jobs are gone  from California.

Do you honestly think that an independent California is going to allocate $50 billion of their budget to the military?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

[Jockey]

Do you honestly think that people historically  had "objective images" until very  recently? Except for the past 100 years or so, the only source of news the overwhelming majority of Americans had was one local newspaper. You don't think those editors picked  and chose what they reported? At least now, people have many, many news sources so they can discern for themselves.

Away from the bigger cities, that was true. Big cities often had ten or more newspapers each trying to out-sensationalize each other.

Much more of America lived outside of cities, however, and newspapers in these areas tended to toe the gov't line. Their "reporting was mostly local.

[rocky_warrior]

Let me clarify.  The money and the jobs are gone  from California.

Do you honestly think that an independent California is going to allocate $50 billion of their budget to the military?

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

First, I strongly disagree with letting this thread go.  But I'll leave 'topper with that headache

Second, just as the US keeps military bases going around the globe, they would strike a deal with California to keep bases there.  The jobs would not be gone, and military personnel would still spend money in CA. Too dangerous for the US to abandon that stretch of coast.

[Herman Cain]

I still think MU Has to raise its admissions standards if it wants to compete academically. If the University were to move in the direction I am advocating it would be top 50 in no time.   

[cheebs09]

I still think MU Has to raise its admissions standards if it wants to compete academically. If the University were to move in the direction I am advocating it would be top 50 in no time.

If we take out the California schools, I'm sure we would jump up the rankings. If Lovell isn't pushing for California secession, he should be out.

[warriorchick]

If we take out the California schools, I'm sure we would jump up the rankings. If Lovell isn't pushing for California secession, he should be out.

California's secession would certainly help MU's goal of attracting more foreign students.....

[cheebs09]

California's secession would certainly help MU's goal of attracting more foreign students.....

[GWSwarrior]

The typical superbar thread descends into a political argument with both sides yelling and belittling the other side.  Yes, I'm as guilty as the rest.  Because modern political arguments are no longer about finding common ground.  They are about who screams the loudest to bludgeon their opponent into submission.  It's all about winning, not about common ground.

The superbar is a microcosm of the country

This charts below come from a study of every vote back to 1879

https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm

Below are graphs of the difference between the Republican and Democratic Party.  It averages the voting record of each party.  More positive numbers mean more conservative.  More negative numbers mean more liberal.

The chart shows that since 1879 the Republicans are more conservative than ever.  The Democrats are the most liberal in 100 years.




The next chart shows the distance between the Republican and Democrat voting record.  The record peaks mean the Republicans and Democrats are further apart than any-time in history.



The percentage of "non-centrists" in the Senate is the highest in history.  This is driven largely by Republicans (red line, 61% are non-centrists, the highest ever).  Democrats are in blue (highest in 40 years) and the overall chamber in black is the highest ever



Same chart for the House, same conclusion.



-------------------------

The charts above do not include the current Congress, which could be the most polarized ever.

538 tracks the voting of the current Congression session (which started in January 2017).

Here is the Senate record.  Sort by "Trump Score"

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

You will notice zero overlap.  All the Democrats are on one side and all the Republicans are on the other side.

Ditto the House.  Again, sort by "Trump Score".  Of 435 members, only 5 overlap, the other 430 are lined up on one side or the other.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/




edit: added width=500 to img tags.

no just stop. you've always used incorrect information and factual errors to make your claim, and yet when this has been pointed out you double down. you are the Donald Trump of Scoop

[brewcity77]

You’re out of date ... the dominant media companies are Google (which owns the largest broadcast network in the world, YouTube), Facebook (which also owns instagram), Microsoft, Yahoo and Baidu (China).

And when you go to Google, it links you to... 

[PBRme]

Whoever pays the most ?

[Benny B]

The only thing I can agree with in this thread is where Topper says the US won't have 50 states a century from now... I think he's right because we'll probably have 52 - the 50 we currently have plus whatever the USVI and PR decide to call themselves (Puerto Virginia) and whatever Guam and the Marianas decide to call themselves (Guamiana).


The ship sailed on secession a couple centuries ago.  Doesn't matter what the studies say, economically, it would be disastrous for both for no other reason than disrupting the perceived credit rating of the US, thus causing both interest rates to skyrocket and ultimately devaluing the dollar.

Now, if the federal debt were ever paid off, then we can start talking probability.  Until then, Topper has a better chance of getting Taylor Swift in a three-way with Angela Lansbury than California (or any state for that matter) has of seceding.  Take that to the bank.

[mu03eng]

The only thing I can agree with in this thread is where Topper says the US won't have 50 states a century from now... I think he's right because we'll probably have 52 - the 50 we currently have plus whatever the USVI and PR decide to call themselves (Puerto Virginia) and whatever Guam and the Marianas decide to call themselves (Guamiana).


The ship sailed on secession a couple centuries ago.  Doesn't matter what the studies say, economically, it would be disastrous for both for no other reason than disrupting the perceived credit rating of the US, thus causing both interest rates to skyrocket and ultimately devaluing the dollar.

Now, if the federal debt were ever paid off, then we can start talking probability.  Until then, Topper has a better chance of getting Taylor Swift in a three-way with Angela Lansbury than California (or any state for that matter) has of seceding.  Take that to the bank.

PR won't ever be a state. The population is split in thirds, a third who wants to go independent, a third that want to become a state, and a third that wants to maintain the status quo. Any vote, the status quo group joins the opposition to vote it down by 2/3s.

Maybe in changes post-Maria, but who knows.

[mu_hilltopper]

The reason I think it has a chance is that ..  the world is broken.  Voters are broken.   Politics and politicians are broken, globally.   The courts, perhaps the last bastion of honesty and justice .. is political and broken.

What the "experts" claim will happen is now discounted by the voters, and those in power.    Facts are just as often rejected than accepted.  Political tribes are everything.

Secession is a long shot.  So was Brexit and Trump. 

If you think you can predict what's going to happen in politics next week or next year .. good luck with that. 

I'm bullish on chaos, and what you know for sure what will not happen .. has a way greater chance than everyone thinks.

[Hards Alumni]

The reason I think it has a chance is that ..  the world is broken.  Voters are broken.   Politics and politicians are broken, globally.   The courts, perhaps the last bastion of honesty and justice .. is political and broken.

What the "experts" claim will happen is now discounted by the voters, and those in power.    Facts are just as often rejected than accepted.  Political tribes are everything.

Succession is a long shot.  So was Brexit and Trump. 

If you think you can predict what's going to happen in politics next week or next year .. good luck with that. 

I'm bullish on chaos, and what you know for sure what will not happen .. has a way greater chance than everyone thinks.

100%

[Babybluejeans]

The reason I think it has a chance is that ..  the world is broken.  Voters are broken.   Politics and politicians are broken, globally.   The courts, perhaps the last bastion of honesty and justice .. is political and broken.

What the "experts" claim will happen is now discounted by the voters, and those in power.    Facts are just as often rejected than accepted.  Political tribes are everything.

Secession is a long shot.  So was Brexit and Trump. 

If you think you can predict what's going to happen in politics next week or next year .. good luck with that. 

I'm bullish on chaos, and what you know for sure what will not happen .. has a way greater chance than everyone thinks.

Indeed. Laws of physics say that systems become more disordered over time. Why would political systems be different? We're already watching it happen rapidly in real time.

[Tugg Speedman]

You have a habit of burying living things well before their time.  I saw a cab yesterday in New York, in fact 100's of them but you told me that industry died.  You said not long ago that electric cars will dominate in 5 years, which everyone here knows is wrong.  In this instance you mixing delivery vs actual media creation. 

Google does not own the largest broadcast network, they don't own the internet.  YouTube sits on the internet, it is a destination.  Yes, they drive massive volume, but that is not where people are obtaining their news in masses, and certainly not at the age groups that matter at this point.

You are correct on the ad budget spend, but one should also look at the conversions of those spends which is highly enlightening.

Four years ago NYC taxi medallion was $1.3 million.  Today it is worth $241,000, a 15 year low.
Six years ago 13,000 NYC taxis and 0 Uber/lyft cars.  Today, 13,000 NYC taxis and 50,000 Uber/Lyft cars.
But hey you saw a taxi in NYC so this Uber thingy is overhyped.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-is-a-nyc-taxi-medallion-worth-these-days/

Regarding Google/Facebook ... don't all the political consultants feel like idiots spending million and millions on ads when this is the story today ... just get a computer and some electricity and you can elect anyone, TV is irrelevant.  Because the news TODAY is a couple of Russian programmers flooded Facebook with ads while Hillary was spending a $1 billion and these ads did more to elect Trump than Hillary's $$$.  I guess this is either fake news or TV is irrelevant.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/04/facebook-russia-ads-michigan-wisconsin/

[Tugg Speedman]

no just stop. you've always used incorrect information and factual errors to make your claim, and yet when this has been pointed out you double down. you are the Donald Trump of Scoop

Why don't you enlighten us all as to what the Princeton professors got wrong in this post?

And how is the first post in a thread a "double down."

[B. McBannerson]

Four years ago NYC taxi medallion was $1.3 million.  Today it is worth $241,000, a 15 year low.
Six years ago 13,000 NYC taxis and 0 Uber/lyft cars.  Today, 13,000 NYC taxis and 50,000 Uber/Lyft cars.
But hey you saw a taxi in NYC so this Uber thingy is overhyped.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-is-a-nyc-taxi-medallion-worth-these-days/

Regarding Google/Facebook ... don't all the political consultants feel like idiots spending million and millions on ads when this is the story today ... just get a computer and some electricity and you can elect anyone, TV is irrelevant.  Because the news TODAY is a couple of Russian programmers flooded Facebook with ads while Hillary was spending a $1 billion and these ads did more to elect Trump than Hillary's $$$.  I guess this is either fake news or TV is irrelevant.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/04/facebook-russia-ads-michigan-wisconsin/

Will cabs eventually be dead, likely.  May I suggest in the future instead of burying live businesses, you portray it that down the road and in the future that industry will be gone. Instead you declare patients dead and they are standing right next to you breathing air.

Your Facebook comments are out of touch with reality.  First of all, Hillary spent plenty on social media, too.  You are giving way too much credit to Facebook ads.  How many ads do you see on Facebook that you do not act on, 99%?  How about all the people that don't have Facebook, don't even tap into social media?  Which tends to be older folks who vote?  And even those that see these ads, how are you going to decide how effective they were? Was it a Facebook ad that made them vote that way, or was it their dilusion with the previous 8 years?  Was it their concern on the war on terror, illegal immigration, health care costs, or other issues? Instead, you think it's because of Facebook ads?

How about we use Occam's Razor for a minute

• She visited Wisconsin 0.0 times in the 12 months leading to the election.  Her opponent visited there 7 times.  Meanwhile she went to California 13 times to fund raise in a state impossible for her to lose
• Millions of voters that were excited to vote for Obama, didn't bother to vote in this election. She couldn't rally them
• The last time Democrats won three straight terms in the Oval office was during WWII
• She ran a horrible campaign. Bernie voters and her don't mix well
• Her health, which many denied was an issue, then she collapses in September with video for all to see
• Goldman Sachs speeches - dumb
• Calling half the country Deplorables - dumb
• Denying her emails, denying she scrubbed them, just lie after lie - dumb.  The coverup is always the most damaging
• Not listening to their own data people that said the polls are wrong, you are in trouble in many of these states.
• A Clinton has never won 50% of the vote in a presidential election. They are not a popular family
• Her rallies, people not energized.  His, people were very energized
• DNC rigging their own primary pissed off many liberal voters who sat out or voted someone else
• Wikilieaks emails that showed vast corruption by the DNC and her campaign
• Polls? Polls have been so dramatically wrong the last 5 years why do people even bother? Poll takers lie, poll questions skewed, poll sampling not credible
• The economy was so so.  Unemployment decent, low wages and people not getting ahead.
• She was untrustworthy, as was he.  Two deplorable candidates

But Facebook ads - uhm, ok.