Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   As Democratic members are increasingly liberals and Republican members are increasingly conservative, moderates are less likely to run for Congress   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 201
    More: Amusing, congresses, moderates, state legislators  
•       •       •

537 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2014 at 9:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-08 08:25:46 AM  
Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.
 
2014-07-08 08:34:18 AM  
As Democratic members are increasingly liberals

benderserious.jpg

/is "moderate" the newspeak word for "sane" now?
 
2014-07-08 08:35:02 AM  

Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.


Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.
 
2014-07-08 08:57:24 AM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.


Hmm, turns out there's an accepted and widely used way to measure such things.  But some random post-doc disagrees, so I guess we should throw it out the window.  (gj linking to her bio instead of anything useful or informative, btw)

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/house-and-senate -p artisanship

Democrats - steady since the mid 90's
Republicans - getting more and more conservative since Carter, and currently about twice as conservative as dems are liberal
 
2014-07-08 08:57:44 AM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.


You didn't actually read her report, did you?

Also, and particularly significant here, the Democratic delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed (Bonica
2013a).
  Bonica's (2013b) CFscores show that in the 112th Congress (2011-12), the standard
deviation for the Democratic Party was 0.33, compared to 0.24 for Republicans.2
 The moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats have retained an organized presence in Congress, while the Republicans have all but lost their moderate faction.

...

The Democratic Party delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed than the Republican delegation (Bonica 2013a). As a result, there will be fellow members for moderate Democrats to work with on policy issues, and the party may not seem as distant to moderate
Democrats in the congressional pipeline.



You may want to believe that the Democrats have moved to the left, but it isn't true. It is only because the GOP has moved so far to the right that the Democrats appear to be farther to the left.
 
2014-07-08 09:01:24 AM  
Define "moderate".  Loves abortion but hates gay marriage? Pro-second amendment militant atheist?
 
2014-07-08 09:03:17 AM  

dookdookdook: about twice as conservative as dems are liberal


Is that measured in Derp or in the traditional Reagans?
 
2014-07-08 09:04:49 AM  

hinten: dookdookdook: about twice as conservative as dems are liberal

Is that measured in Derp or in the traditional Reagans?


When this baby hits 88 Reagans, you're going to see some serious shiat.
 
2014-07-08 09:05:42 AM  
They better update this Wikipedia article then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries
 
2014-07-08 09:19:50 AM  

Dinki: Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.

You didn't actually read her report, did you?

Also, and particularly significant here, the Democratic delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed (Bonica
2013a).  Bonica's (2013b) CFscores show that in the 112th Congress (2011-12), the standard
deviation for the Democratic Party was 0.33, compared to 0.24 for Republicans.2
 The moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats have retained an organized presence in Congress, while the Republicans have all but lost their moderate faction.
...

The Democratic Party delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed than the Republican delegation (Bonica 2013a). As a result, there will be fellow members for moderate Democrats to work with on policy issues, and the party may not seem as distant to moderate
Democrats in the congressional pipeline.


You may want to believe that the Democrats have moved to the left, but it isn't true. It is only because the GOP has moved so far to the right that the Democrats appear to be farther to the left.


I did read it. The trend is fewer moderates running. Which, if that holds, will pull the Democrats to the left.
 
2014-07-08 09:35:10 AM  
Anyone who thinks that the Democrats are getting "increasingly Liberal" might want to take a look at this lovely bridge that I can totally sell them, at cost, and it will make them a huge amount of money in free market tolls for its use. Pinkie swearsies.
 
2014-07-08 09:35:34 AM  

Nabb1: The trend is fewer moderates running. Which, if that holds, will pull the Democrats to the left.


With unassailable logic like that we have reached 125  Reagans per Fark which is way past the safety limit.
 
2014-07-08 09:39:10 AM  
Democrats liberal


CITATION NEEDED
 
2014-07-08 09:41:17 AM  
The only way you can say Democrats are getting "increasingly liberal" is if you're measuring via Doppler effect.
 
2014-07-08 09:42:16 AM  
Democrats are "increasingly liberal" in the sense that it's warmer upstairs because it's increasingly close to the sun.
 
2014-07-08 09:42:44 AM  

James!: Define "moderate".  Loves abortion but hates gay marriage? Pro-second amendment militant atheist?


Guilty! (raises hand)
 
2014-07-08 09:43:46 AM  
I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.
 
2014-07-08 09:43:55 AM  
How about normal people just don't want to deal with insane people???

/better things to do with their lives...
 
2014-07-08 09:44:19 AM  

Nabb1: I did read it. The trend is fewer moderates running. Which, if that holds, will pull the Democrats to the left.


LOL what the fark

As a result, there will be fellow members for moderate Democrats to work with on policy issues, and the party may not seem as distant to moderate Democrats in the congressional pipeline.

Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2014-07-08 09:46:25 AM  
Purity tests for freedom!
 
2014-07-08 09:46:39 AM  

Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.


Actually the article (and the Fark headline) says Democrats are "increasingly liberals."  Which I'm pretty sure is a stupid typo in the first sentence of the article.  Which I'm positive is a sign of how stupid the article is.

But your point is well taken.  Democrats abandoned liberalism decades ago.  Now they're just mouthpieces for the ever-growing bureaucratic state, and champions of the status quo.
 
2014-07-08 09:47:23 AM  

Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.


It's not so much "howling about the use of the word" as it is trying to cut through the pure spin that "fewer moderates are running" when the REAL issue is that what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right.
 
2014-07-08 09:47:44 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Nabb1: I did read it. The trend is fewer moderates running. Which, if that holds, will pull the Democrats to the left.

LOL what the fark

As a result, there will be fellow members for moderate Democrats to work with on policy issues, and the party may not seem as distant to moderate Democrats in the congressional pipeline.

Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.


I don't think she's an idiot. There are more moderate Democrats than moderate Republicans right now, but her point was that the trend is fewer moderates are running.
 
2014-07-08 09:47:46 AM  

Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.


img.fark.net
 
2014-07-08 09:50:12 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-08 09:51:09 AM  

Garet Garrett: Democrats abandoned liberalism decades ago.  Now they're just mouthpieces for the ever-growing bureaucratic state, and champions of the status quo.


Which is largely part of the problem, as detractors point to this behavior and go "see?! Liberalism!" and their followers lap it right up.

Heck, I'm having a hard time thinking of any actual liberals in the Senate beyond Sanders and Warren.
 
2014-07-08 09:51:44 AM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.

You didn't actually read her report, did you?

Also, and particularly significant here, the Democratic delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed (Bonica
2013a).  Bonica's (2013b) CFscores show that in the 112th Congress (2011-12), the standard
deviation for the Democratic Party was 0.33, compared to 0.24 for Republicans.2
 The moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats have retained an organized presence in Congress, while the Republicans have all but lost their moderate faction.
...

The Democratic Party delegation has remained relatively more ideologically dispersed than the Republican delegation (Bonica 2013a). As a result, there will be fellow members for moderate Democrats to work with on policy issues, and the party may not seem as distant to moderate
Democrats in the congressional pipeline.


You may want to believe that the Democrats have moved to the left, but it isn't true. It is only because the GOP has moved so far to the right that the Democrats appear to be farther to the left.

I did read it. The trend is fewer moderates running. Which, if that holds, will pull the Democrats to the left.


www.quickmeme.com

As a population, yeah, the Democratic caucus is becoming more liberal, but it seems pretty ridiculous to say Democratic caucus members are themselves becoming more liberal. If there are a hundred people in a room and I ask the tallest ten people to leave, nobody else's height is changing even though the mean height of people in the room just went down.
 
2014-07-08 09:51:56 AM  
The study is linked and it is well-cited, explains the methodology. I guess I may be asking a bit much for anyone to read a thirty-eight page academic paper.
 
2014-07-08 09:54:19 AM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.


Did you even read the like... what... 8 paragraphs of content she has on her site?

Cause damnit if it doesn't look like you're just winging it and hoping nobody notices.
 
2014-07-08 09:54:46 AM  
Well, there HAS been a severe reduction in the number of Blue Dog Democrats. . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
 
2014-07-08 09:54:51 AM  

The Bestest: Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.

It's not so much "howling about the use of the word" as it is trying to cut through the pure spin that "fewer moderates are running" when the REAL issue is that what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right.


The study is about candidates increasingly conforming to each party's platform and the overall party ideology. "Moderates" in that sense would be those whose positions on some issues cross party lines, e.g. "Blue dog Democrats" who in the passed often crossed party lines on some fiscal issues.
 
2014-07-08 09:55:04 AM  
On the right you have rabid teatards with purity tests trying to primary out what they call RINOs so yeah getting a moderate Republican to run aint easy in that type of climate.

Even if you do find one he won't last long if he doesn't placate the nuts in the party by pretending to be as crazy as them.

The "increased liberal" thing is laughable as many have already noted.
 
2014-07-08 09:58:01 AM  

BeesNuts: Nabb1: Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.

Apparently, this political scientist did some rather thorough research on it. Perhaps you can contact her and tell her what an idiot she is.

Did you even read the like... what... 8 paragraphs of content she has on her site?

Cause damnit if it doesn't look like you're just winging it and hoping nobody notices.


I read her study. It's linked in the article. I think the vast majority of people commenting here either did not read it or simply misunderstood it.
 
2014-07-08 09:58:03 AM  

The Bestest: what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right


Lulz, those jackbooted fascists like Olympia Snowe.

You could really use some perspective.  Gay rights and abortion were radical ideas anathema to the Democratic party (qua party) not too long ago.  Now you're a hardcore conservative if you support limiting unemployment benefits to a mere 52 weeks and have a passing familiarity with the concept of enumerated powers.
 
2014-07-08 09:58:05 AM  

Nabb1: The study is linked and it is well-cited, explains the methodology. I guess I may be asking a bit much for anyone to read a thirty-eight page academic paper.


Nabb1:
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-07-08 09:58:40 AM  
Since "liberal" and "conservative" are useless terms that describe a wide variety of unrelated beliefs, that doesn't really tell you anything.
 
2014-07-08 09:58:52 AM  

Nabb1: The Bestest: Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.

It's not so much "howling about the use of the word" as it is trying to cut through the pure spin that "fewer moderates are running" when the REAL issue is that what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right.

The study is about candidates increasingly conforming to each party's platform and the overall party ideology. "Moderates" in that sense would be those whose positions on some issues cross party lines, e.g. "Blue dog Democrats" who in the passed often crossed party lines on some fiscal issues.


That's an utterly absurd definition of moderate. If you're crossing party lines to side with right wing extremists, you're not displaying moderation.
 
2014-07-08 09:59:05 AM  

Nabb1: The Bestest: Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.

It's not so much "howling about the use of the word" as it is trying to cut through the pure spin that "fewer moderates are running" when the REAL issue is that what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right.

The study is about candidates increasingly conforming to each party's platform and the overall party ideology. "Moderates" in that sense would be those whose positions on some issues cross party lines, e.g. "Blue dog Democrats" who in the passed often crossed party lines on some fiscal issues.


For such a smart man, you certainly do excel at sounding obtuse and dimwitted when it suits your purpose.
 
2014-07-08 09:59:31 AM  
[rickromero.jpg]
 
2014-07-08 10:01:39 AM  

The Bestest: Heck, I'm having a hard time thinking of any actual liberals in the Senate beyond Sanders and Warren.


I think you mean progressives.  Warren's belief in liberty is weaker than her claims of native american heritage.  And Sanders claims to be a socialist, though both Trotsky and Goering would've kicked him out of the club as a bourgeois enabler.
 
2014-07-08 10:01:55 AM  

Nabb1: The study is linked and it is well-cited, explains the methodology. I guess I may be asking a bit much for anyone to read a thirty-eight page academic paper.


Well, the bigger issue is that it doesn't really say what you're claiming it says.  Well, it does, but you've distilled "a thirty-eight page academic paper" into a trite, meaningless conclusion of "fewer moderates are running"

In fact, that's the kind of conclusion somebody who just *skimmed* the paper might reach before screeching about how everyone who disagrees with them is intellectually inferior.  Not that this is what you've done, of course.  Not at all.
 
2014-07-08 10:02:17 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-08 10:03:32 AM  

BMulligan: For such a smart man, you certainly do excel at sounding obtuse and dimwitted when it suits your purpose.


Which should make you wonder about the contexts in which you would consider him a smart man.
 
2014-07-08 10:03:36 AM  

Garet Garrett: Gay rights and abortion were radical ideas anathema to the Democratic party (qua party) not too long ago.


How long ago?


Garet Garrett: Now you're a hardcore conservative if you support limiting unemployment benefits to a mere 52 weeks and have a passing familiarity with the concept of enumerated powers


Has anyone said that? Because you are called a RINO if you support tax rates that Reagan had.
 
2014-07-08 10:04:16 AM  

HighOnCraic: Well, there HAS been a severe reduction in the number of Blue Dog Democrats. . .


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition


Nabb1: he study is about candidates increasingly conforming to each party's platform and the overall party ideology. "Moderates" in that sense would be those whose positions on some issues cross party lines, e.g. "Blue dog Democrats" who in the passed often crossed party lines on some fiscal issues.


..and the reason is they are being replaced by Republicans

most of the blue dogs came from states/districts where the base is mostly conservative, but many still held some positions that better aligned with Democrats. In the past decade, certain issues made voting Democrat unappealing to these people for whatever reason even if many of their views still aligned. As a result, being a blue dog became untenable.

The reason the "moderates" are disappearing from both sides is because of the notion of right ideological purity, and (unscientific opinion to follow) I tend to think this is because of the conservative mindset being inherently less flexible.
 
2014-07-08 10:04:19 AM  

BeesNuts: Nabb1: The study is linked and it is well-cited, explains the methodology. I guess I may be asking a bit much for anyone to read a thirty-eight page academic paper.

Well, the bigger issue is that it doesn't really say what you're claiming it says.  Well, it does, but you've distilled "a thirty-eight page academic paper" into a trite, meaningless conclusion of "fewer moderates are running"

In fact, that's the kind of conclusion somebody who just *skimmed* the paper might reach before screeching about how everyone who disagrees with them is intellectually inferior.  Not that this is what you've done, of course.  Not at all.


As opposed to coming in half cocked and instead of offering a thoughtful counter-points simply hurl invective.
 
2014-07-08 10:04:34 AM  

Garet Garrett: The Bestest: Heck, I'm having a hard time thinking of any actual liberals in the Senate beyond Sanders and Warren.

I think you mean progressives.  Warren's belief in liberty is weaker than her claims of native american heritage.  And Sanders claims to be a socialist, though both Trotsky and Goering would've kicked him out of the club as a bourgeois enabler.


Jesus. Why do you pretend to be a lawyer on the internet?
 
2014-07-08 10:04:40 AM  

Nabb1: The Bestest: Nabb1: I guess we can all howl about the use of the word "liberal," but the thrust of the issue is fewer moderates are running for Congress in both parties, which doesn't bode well for any easing of partisan tension in the near future.

It's not so much "howling about the use of the word" as it is trying to cut through the pure spin that "fewer moderates are running" when the REAL issue is that what it means to be "moderate" has shifted so strongly to the right.

The study is about candidates increasingly conforming to each party's platform and the overall party ideology. "Moderates" in that sense would be those whose positions on some issues cross party lines, e.g. "Blue dog Democrats" who in the passed often crossed party lines on some fiscal issues.


The Blue Dog Coalition poses a difficult test case for the theory you're supporting. In 2010, 23 members of the Blue Dog Coalition failed to be reelected by losing in the general election to a Republican. It's hard to blame those people for not wanting to run again after getting thrown out of office.
 
2014-07-08 10:04:44 AM  

Nabb1: The study is linked and it is well-cited, explains the methodology. I guess I may be asking a bit much for anyone to read a thirty-eight page academic paper.


I skimmed the study.  Unless I missed something, they said they determined political affiliation based on a survey and then gave NO details on what the questions in the survey were.  Doing some ctrl+f for political issue words like "gay" "abortion" "healthcare" "jobs" and "carbon" "china" turn up NOTHING.  One could easily distort results based on a distorted survey.

For example, if that survey considered support for Obamacare to be the liberal position, the study is bullshiat because the true liberal position would be a full nationalization of healthcare like the NHS in Britain.
 
2014-07-08 10:05:05 AM  

Dinki: Anyone that says that the Democrats are getting more Liberal is an idiot.


But every new Democrat that runs for office is automatically the liberalist libby to lib.
 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report