Why do you guys think the country is so divided?

[ThaSaltCracka]

do you think the citizens emotions are being used? because it seems like people have rallied around their parties regarding issues like the war on terrorism, abortion, gay rights, and even the economy. Some of you guys have gone off on a tangent with the judges, but lets be honest, that has nothing to do with the polarization. What role do you guys think the media has to do with this? (BTW, I don't buy the liberal media BS, conservatives have many popular media outlets as well).

[ThaSaltCracka]

thats true, but its amazing that it is basically split right down the middle though.

[adios]

FWIW I agree with this analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since the Vietnam era, progressives and traditionalists have been clashing. Ideologists on both sides became more and more entrenched through the 80s and 90s, and now with the media and information overload, people can find websites or radio programs that agree with everything that person thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made this point before but not as well as you did here.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah I think the President has caused it, but what is surprising is how many people support him.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the president would just go along with what the minority wanted (remember the election?) everybody would be happy and there wouldn't be a divide [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't alienate himself, he just alienated about half of America.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this before 2000 or after 2000? If memory serves Bush increased his vote totals in 2004 from 2000. At the national level there are more Republican Senators than there were in 2000 and more Republican House members than there were in 2000. By your criteria the country was more divided before Bush was elected in 2000 as it showed up in the 2000 election. So what did Bush do prior to the 2000 election to divide the country? Methinks many of you feel the country is "divided" because the results of the election aren't what many of you wanted or expected.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
thats true, but its amazing that it is basically split right down the middle though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The country has always been divided, people just forget over time as memory fades and the issues change.

Actually, the country has picked a side for now and isn't as divided as in the past. Of course as in the past, the country will change sides back and forth again in the future.

Certainly you aren't so young to not remember the division under Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, etc. The premise of this thread is flawed.

[ericd]

Great answer. You really nailed it. Though I disagree with your point of view on most issues, time is the great equalizer. I hope for my sake that the swing back to my liking is sooner rather than later.

[ACPlayer]

Divided is good. Otherwise we may be overrun by moronic neo-cons or pot smoking liberals.

Of course I would rather smoke pot than be a moron [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
So what did Bush do prior to the 2000 election to divide the country

[/ QUOTE ] come on Adios, don't play dumb. I haven't been trying to argue that his policies are right or wrong, just that those policies have led to the polarization.

We saw one of the largest voter turnouts in history this past election with the President receiving the most votes ever. But Kerry also received the most votes ever by a loosing candidate. This past election wasn't Reagan vs. Mondale, this [censored] was close.

[ QUOTE ]
Methinks many of you feel the country is "divided" because the results of the election aren't what many of you wanted or expected.

[/ QUOTE ] I think this has nothing to do with it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

so essentially, what you are saying is that the country is not any more divided than it has been in years past? I actually agree with you, but why do you think we hear so much about it now. Is it politicians or the media causing this?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
so essentially, what you are saying is that the country is not any more divided than it has been in years past? I actually agree with you, but why do you think we hear so much about it now. Is it politicians or the media causing this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we hearing so much more now than in the past? I don't think so.

There is a media component. Those in the media whose candidate lost want to diminish their loss. So they emphasize "moral values" as they did "angry white men" in 1994 to suggest that a small sub-group changed the outcome. It should be noted that the whole "moral values" thing this year was just a misreading of poorly conducted exit polls.

My 51% this year is higher than Clinton's 49% reelect number in 1996. My 48% in 2000 was also higher than his 43% in 1992. There was less talk about how divided we were then because the media in general supported his being in office. So the story was "the normal voter" versus "the right wing conspiracy"(or "the angry white men").