Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: China Has Stopped Buying U.S. Soybeans, Bunge Says [View all]Hortensis
(58,785 posts)38. No. That's one factor, big for some people. Hyperpartisanship
is probably a much stronger factor in the Republican electorate's descent into political idiocy and insanity. A huge warning for us to beware and monitor our own thinking. It is also happening on the left.
Here's one discussion of partisanship, among thousands now, as a factor.
Why did so many Republicans support Trump? Most voted for him simply because he was the Republican nominee. About 30 percent of Trump voters said they were voting primarily against Clinton. True, many Republicans had their concerns about Trump.
But whatever qualms Republicans might have about Trump, at least he was on the side of people like them. And by the end of the campaign, Hillary Clinton appeared as the devil incarnate. In a two-party system, what alternative did they have?
The logic of this was simple: The key to winning was disqualifying the other side. In a two-party system, with only two choices, you just have to be less unappealing than the other side. Such is the twisted logic of negative partisanship.
In a parliamentary multi-party system, Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump as their leader could have formed a new conservative party without guaranteeing a Democratic victory. But in our two-party, winner-take-all presidentialist system, they were stuck. And they are still stuck. No matter how unhappy they might be sticking with Trump, to align with Democrats feels like treason, and theres no real option for a third party. And in a presidentialist system, with so much power in the executive, the stakes of presidential power consume everything else.
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological
But whatever qualms Republicans might have about Trump, at least he was on the side of people like them. And by the end of the campaign, Hillary Clinton appeared as the devil incarnate. In a two-party system, what alternative did they have?
The logic of this was simple: The key to winning was disqualifying the other side. In a two-party system, with only two choices, you just have to be less unappealing than the other side. Such is the twisted logic of negative partisanship.
In a parliamentary multi-party system, Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump as their leader could have formed a new conservative party without guaranteeing a Democratic victory. But in our two-party, winner-take-all presidentialist system, they were stuck. And they are still stuck. No matter how unhappy they might be sticking with Trump, to align with Democrats feels like treason, and theres no real option for a third party. And in a presidentialist system, with so much power in the executive, the stakes of presidential power consume everything else.
https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological
Btw, these people who were twisted to believe Hillary Clinton was "the devil incarnate" came to this election knowing a great deal about her, which experts thought would limit the ability of mind-twisters to affect their preexisting opinions. She had high approval ratings (including from some of them) as a senator and secretary of state. But hyperpartisanship (and a woman trying to break the highest glass ceiling remaining) lead many fairly rational millions to discard previous dislike, neutrality, or approval in favor of wondering how many people she actually did have murdered. And Bill drag out for burial in black plastic garbage bags.
To my mind, they were turned into partisan attack dogs a long time ago, but it was only with W that I finally realized my sensible conservative friends would never hit bottom and refuse to support their party. Bottom has to hit them. Bad.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Brazil is a huge producer of soy beans. Even if trump backs off his tarriffs now, I don't see
still_one
May 2018
#8
clearly the moron thinks a trade war is checkers, meanwhile china just checked him.
pansypoo53219
May 2018
#26
Oh but ya know trade wars are easy to win... Sarah f..kbee says her boss told her. Has to be true
Thekaspervote
May 2018
#30
I find this interesting that there is little coverage of this by the news outlets
still_one
May 2018
#36