No, that's not what has happened, you are misrepresenting the chart, which is why I posted it to begin with. What you quoted was consistent with the chart if you look at it, but somehow your takeaway is completely opposite what the chart shows. Anyway, if you can't do a better job than that of interpreting what a chart shows then we're wasting our time attempting to talk about it.
I think you are very confused and lost, you must not know what the purple area of the diagram represents. "By comparison, in 1994 there was substantially more overlap between the two partisan groups than there is today: Just 64% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat, while 70% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. Put differently, in 1994 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 1% and 3%, respectively." Looks like you actually can't read, maybe you don't know what respectively means? So, let's plug it in so that it makes sense for you. "Put differently, in 2017 1% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 3% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican." So it is actually exactly as read. There are more democrats that are more conservative than the median Republican. Nothing about whose more extreme or who has more diverse thoughts, just that, as is, is what this study gives us. As usual, I understand why you'd tuck tail and run because you read the diagram and graph wrong and won't admit it. It would have been better if you just replied with "Ah, guess I just looked at it wrong but yes, both sides are further from each other..." But instead you have to dunk on eeeevil democrats and just like those that used the picture you used, which were all opinion pieces dunking on democrats, you ran with it. My posts here was just to smack aside the nonsense is all and present the data as it was originally presented and of course to provide the context of the data.
This is accurate, and the reason for this is because the Democratic party moved to the fringes and shut down all heretics who didn't move with them. I mean, you are accurately saying the what, but you are seemingly lost when it comes to the why.....despite the fact that the graphs all but spell it out for you.
Bobby Translation because he won't admit he read the graph wrong: This is accurate, and the reason for this is because the Republican party moved to the fringes and shut down all heretics who didn't move with them. I mean, you are accurately saying the what, but you are seemingly lost when it comes to the why.....despite the fact that the graphs all but spell it out for you.
Well, of course it doesn't show that, and of course what I quoted is silly because it came from you and also because the graph and data simply says that both sides moved away from each other. You are the only one claiming something that is nowhere in the study. Maybe if you can show where the study says that liberals moved to an extreme position I'd admit you were right...but, it simply doesn't state or show this anywhere.
I've already accepted that you've read it incorrectly Bobby, and since you are now moving on without providing any context (Like I did) I will be taking the victory. Thanks!
Democrats better start dealing with realiythat his term in terms of day to day life has gone smoothly. All this mid term success they're expecting is no guarantee Its all about the economy stupid All that Charlottesville type fodder is just the 24 hour news cycle
