So what is going on in this place?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well while preparing to teach a course in Poli Sci I had to step back from the "partisanship," I mean not a good idea.

So what follows are some concepts of what is going on.

First off we do have quite a bit of partisans on DU... and not just the PL, or the DLC crowd or the independents, or the passers by. Truth is what you are seeing is what is called, VOTER UNIVERSES. Look at this chart, and think of at least three groups, Independents, LBJ Democrats and Clinton Democrats.



Now, just like that chart, every group (and there are more in the democratic party) has it's own interests and some that actually match where others in other voter universes are. So the conflict here is truly a conflict of vision, and how you rule. For some we have to be pragmatic, and realize change is show in this country (which happens to be true).

For others change has to happen immediately if we are to survive as a democracy, which again happens to be true.

So how could this be? Quite simple, two different voter universes with slightly different goals, or in a few cases radically different goals.

And there is another problem here. And that is the acceptance of the other. Yes, some folks ON ALL SIDES see their view of the world as the only valid one. This leads to a lot of LA, LA, LA I can't hear you going on.

We also have a lot of black and white thinking going on. And more than just a few (on all sides) that cannot see somebody else's point of view as valid.

This is in a nutshell the democratic party.

Good news... if all of us who are aware, and that includes the other side by the way, reach 20% of the potential voting population that is a lot. Bad news though, all this infighting, not just between party loyalists (both sides) but also among the parties themselves, is alienating even more people, so our potential voting universes continue to go down.

A big symptom of this are the number of independents. Yes, I used to be a dem, but after a few not fighting the Republicans, well I went screw it... and went Independent. Which brings me to the other problem. A few (In both parties) think that Indies are shiftless and all are centrist. Not quite. Most people that I know (not a valid sample) are independents because of these fucking games... so voting becomes an exercise of the lesser of two evils, or truly who matches my political believes the closest. I also live in an open primary state, so yes I can play. But what is going on here are truly competing voter universes. By the way, I an in the professional left one, most of the time, and feel that as far as the democrats are concerned... Will Rogers was correct... and it is like herding cats.

Finally there is a point I need to make about this. This will only get worst as the trend nationwide is not for partisans who do not understand why the other side don't get it. But it is towards independent voters. And these are whole different voter universes on their own. Oh and I doubt that this will help to reduce any of the fighting... it goes with this.

[Beetwasher]

1. I Think It Has More To Do With The Psychology Of Group Dynamics

The motivations for group behavior are mostly rooted internally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Which is exactly what this is about

group dynamics, group believes and in this case voter universes.

Ah Will Rogers when asked about his political Party...

No Sir I do not belong to any organized party... I am a Democrat!

[Beetwasher]

3. Yes, But The Root Causes For Group Motivation Are Internal And Psychological

People think they are motivated by external causes, but actually their motivations are internal which cause their reaction to various external events.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Again that goes with it

it is standard in political science to look at what motivates group sand individuals.

[Beetwasher]

8. Not Examining It From A Psychological Perspective

Political science will look at motivations from external sources, at least in my experience. "Group x is motivate to attack group y because of this event or this difference in belief systems". That is the standard examination. You rarely see a group psychoanalyzed for the deeper psychological motivations that unite them may be behind their actions.

Not saying it never happens, but I don't believe it's standard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Psychology is also part and parcel of Poli Sci

having to go though the current lit... I found that interesting.

So is history and sociology, but those were kind of a given.

[Beetwasher]

12. In A Very Superficial And Limited Way, IMO

Émile Durkheim: "The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among social facts preceding and not among the states of individual consciousness".

I don't agree with Durkheim here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. We will have to agree to disagree then

Which is a rare thing on DU these days.

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

19. That's Cool

It's a fascinating topic though that I've been giving much thought. I really think that the reasons for group schism's are much deeper and more psychologically rooted than what we see actually discussed on the surface. The surface discussions hold clues in the language that is used. But most examinations rarely go deeper than that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. IN that I fully agree

and does not matter if the group in question is DU, the local school board, the local union hall or family dynamics.

[Beetwasher]

21. Yup, Exactly

:thumbsup:

[old mark]

14. I still think someone should do a movie on him...many people never heard of him at all. nt

[zabet]

4. Here....

at DU....we have many that thrive on the fighting (with other members), so that will not change.

[AsahinaKimi]

6. Oh! you just struck a big Nerve!

:loveya::loveya::loveya:

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I am not sure, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

:hi:

[AsahinaKimi]

9. I just

loves me some of that Richard Dean Anderson! :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Well he is cute

:-)

[Jim__]

15. "...the trend nationwide is not for partisans who do not understand why the other side don't get it.

I'm not sure what that sentence means. A sequence of "not" in one sentence is confusing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Simple translation

people are leaving parties, and declaring themselves INDIES.

[blindpig]

22. There is a reason people are leaving both parties...

both parties are totally divorced from the needs of the people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. It is more complex but yes

that is happening and it is not just the US.

[Octafish]

16. OT: You hard sciences types need to do some journalism arts on occassion...

Editing 101: "Engineering."

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Well you are right

I usually edit my stuff at least five times. But for DU... I don't do it that often.

My apologies.

Hell a copy of the "bible" (Strunk and White) even resides on the Pod.

:hi: back at you.

[namahage]

25. On "occassion"?

I always thought it was "occasion," but maybe I was asleep that day in Editing 101 (which I only took for the units anyway).

[jesus_of_suburbia]

24. Just thought I'd let you know that I enjoy reading your posts.

K&R


In my experience (coming from an extreme-right household), I started out as a right-leaning Dem. So I was in one circle. I never even started paying attention to details of politics until after the 2000 election (the first election I was old enough to vote in). I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Clintons, because as someone who grew up in an insanely religious household, they were "far left" to me (and I embraced it). Even while Pres Clinton was signing DADT or DOMA act, I felt like he was doing it to stop something worse from happening (and I still believe that). I sat in church on Sundays listening to the preacher foam at the mouth while talking about President Clinton. That's where I came from. That was my starting point on DU.

However, as time marches on, I find myself merging with different circles found on DU (I am travelling further to the left). So even though DU seems like a mess at times, that mess can open minds for the better.

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I did vote for the first time in 2000 too

I became naturalized the year before. I still remember the local GOP fans trying to get newly minted citizens and getting rebuffed nine out of ten times.

And the years of bush, ahem radicalized me.

But when the distant chance of a gig opened I had to take off the partisan goggles, as it were.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

27. "And the years of bush, ahem radicalized me."

Same here.

Also, the proliferation of the internet changed EVERYTHING. Even though there are many dangerous aspects for young people, I sure wish I had it when I was growing up. The good outweighs the bad (especially for those who live in situations that are different than what the ideal would be).


edit - I had said the bad outweighs the good :-)

[DavidDvorkin]

28. Enginnering?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. No, but that was the only damn chart

I could find...

:-)

If and when I teach that concept to College Freshmen it will be properly labeled of course.

Now if you must... Political Scientists use a lot of statistics though.