To repeat myself, educational polarization and the demise of ticket splitting are national phenomena that are determining the outcomes of our federal elections. They can't be dismissed as a meaningless online thing
To repeat myself, educational polarization and the demise of ticket splitting are national phenomena that are determining the outcomes of our federal elections. They can't be dismissed as a meaningless online thing
I agree about the polarization, but I think there are many factors at play, with online ranting about who's out and who's in as one factor, and, I believe secondary to Cable TV and gerrymandering as causes.
The impact of cable TV would be impressive considering how tiny of a fraction of the electorate watches it (presuming you mean the news channels and not, like, ESPN). The popularity of Fox News and MSNBC is massively overstated online.
I follow state politics and the poor little Gerrymander only comes out every decade. He is hated in Illinois by Republicans. He is hated in Florida by Democrats. He doesn't live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, or Wyoming.
How do you reconcile that with ticket splitting beginning its decline in the 90s? Surely weтАЩre not blaming this on Usenet. It seems unlikely these phenomenon are causally related.
I think this is much closer to the truth than "the internet did it," although even this underrates the general weirdness that we live in a country where Blacks voted for Abraham Lincoln and white Southerners voted against Abraham Lincoln for 100-130 years after his death. A look at any graph or voting trends really drives home that up until the 90s most of them were driven by Lincoln and FDR.
I thought this was insightful but I didn't realize it. I've always split tickets since I voted in Chicago and the precinct captain yelled at you if you were in the booth too long--like he could DO anything to me since I wasn't a city worker.
To repeat myself, educational polarization and the demise of ticket splitting are national phenomena that are determining the outcomes of our federal elections. They can't be dismissed as a meaningless online thing
I agree about the polarization, but I think there are many factors at play, with online ranting about who's out and who's in as one factor, and, I believe secondary to Cable TV and gerrymandering as causes.
The impact of cable TV would be impressive considering how tiny of a fraction of the electorate watches it (presuming you mean the news channels and not, like, ESPN). The popularity of Fox News and MSNBC is massively overstated online.
I follow state politics and the poor little Gerrymander only comes out every decade. He is hated in Illinois by Republicans. He is hated in Florida by Democrats. He doesn't live in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, or Wyoming.
How do you reconcile that with ticket splitting beginning its decline in the 90s? Surely weтАЩre not blaming this on Usenet. It seems unlikely these phenomenon are causally related.
Someone has been reading their Ezra Klein... or should be. :)
I think this is much closer to the truth than "the internet did it," although even this underrates the general weirdness that we live in a country where Blacks voted for Abraham Lincoln and white Southerners voted against Abraham Lincoln for 100-130 years after his death. A look at any graph or voting trends really drives home that up until the 90s most of them were driven by Lincoln and FDR.
The techno-populist dynamic of politics under neoliberalism was A Thing during the '90s.
I thought this was insightful but I didn't realize it. I've always split tickets since I voted in Chicago and the precinct captain yelled at you if you were in the booth too long--like he could DO anything to me since I wasn't a city worker.