Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: More on the Arlington Cemetery incident
Date: 08/30/24 12:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
not trying to perpetuate something unproductive here, but what's really new?

In the past, partisan identification and voting patterns were largely driven by positive partisanship. Voters that were true partisans would be allied to their preferred party because of positive support for their identified party. A lifelong yellow dog Democrat would be dedicated to their party because of their party - they might be convinced of the rightness of their policies, or derive patronage benefits from being affiliated with the party, or admire/esteem its leaders, or any of a bunch of other factors specific to their party. And the same would be true of a rock-ribbed Republican.

That's now been replaced to a large degree by negative partisanship. Partisan voters aren't supporting their party; they are opposing the other party. The die-hard Democratic voter isn't motivated by what they love about the Democrats, but what they hate about Republicans (and vice-versa).

This matters, because it affects how voters respond to parties' failures and problems. When voters are positively partisans, keeping their support requires keeping their love/esteem/well regard for your party. Democrats keep the Democratic base in their column by delivering them the things they love, and vice-versa for the Republicans. The degree of support that positive partisans will provide depends a lot on how they are feeling about their own party.

With negative partisanship, though, voters are far less concerned about what's happening within their own party - they're motivated by what's happening in the opposition party. It doesn't matter all that much whether their own party is doing something that's disappointing to them - they're motivated by resistance to the other guys, after all. As long as you're stopping the other guys from winning, you're meeting the needs of those voters.

For negative partisans, their candidate isn't all that central to their decision-making. What matters is the other candidate. Which is why, I think, this explains why Trump has such a high floor despite all of his many faults. Those faults are beside the point, except to the extent that they make it harder for him to stop the Democrats. Because stopping the Democrats is what's necessary to help the country, irrespective of whether Trump is a terrible person or not.



Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (27) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community