This is straight up wrong. President Trump derailed lots of regulations put in place by Democratic party politicians. President Clinton put the U.S. gov't into the black on annual spending; President Bush immediately reversed course and put the U.S. gov't back into the red. There are many many other examples of opposing parties implementing opposing policies. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
I don't deny partisan differences (see paragraph three). But the political science literature is clear; popular perceptions of partisan differences are very exaggerated.
Incorrect. Look at which President's ran up the deficits the most. Look at which presidents appointed which Justices. Look at which Presidents presided over New Deal and similar legislation, and which didn't. Look at which Presidents generally made life better for the average American (unions, abortion, social safety net, tax rates on high- and low-incomes, civil rights, to name a few), and which made it worse. People may perceive partisan differences incorrectly, but there are nevertheless strong partisan differences reflected in elected officials' behavior. Current vivid example: Look at the Trump/Meadows PowerPoint presentation -- it was shown to many Republican Legislators and not one notified law enforcement or DOJ officials that a coup was being planned. It was not shown to Democratic Legislators, because the plotters knew they would report it. Because the evidence is so clear on this matter, I perceive the argument that partisan differences are minimal to be a Right Wing Talking Point.
Imbeau et al (2003) undertook a statistical analysis of hundreds of studies, finding that the 'average correlation between the party composition of government and policy outputs is not significantly different from zero’. More recently, Dynes and Holbein (2020) published a quasi-experimental study of Republican and Democrat state administrations in the prestigious APSR journal, finding that partisan differences were minimal. You have merely listed impressionistic anecdotes.
I found a 2018 paper of the same title here, http://adamdynes.com/documents/WP_2018_holbein-dynes_noisy-retrospection.pdf I'm not sure this is a convincing study, but it's not my area. One aspect in this discussion is of course, how much can one expect from 2 years of governing. How much should one expect.
I think the study is convincing - the 2018 version is a working paper, but this was eventually published in American Political Science Review, one of the field's top journals. I agree that the question of long-term effects is a different one - the Dynes and Holbein study doesn't cover this. But there are other studies of long-term partisan effects. Of course, some studies find partisan effects, yet effects tend to be much smaller than one would expect...
As you are citing published works, why do you talk about secrets?
Secrets for laypeople ;-)
This is straight up wrong. President Trump derailed lots of regulations put in place by Democratic party politicians. President Clinton put the U.S. gov't into the black on annual spending; President Bush immediately reversed course and put the U.S. gov't back into the red. There are many many other examples of opposing parties implementing opposing policies. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
I don't deny partisan differences (see paragraph three). But the political science literature is clear; popular perceptions of partisan differences are very exaggerated.
Incorrect. Look at which President's ran up the deficits the most. Look at which presidents appointed which Justices. Look at which Presidents presided over New Deal and similar legislation, and which didn't. Look at which Presidents generally made life better for the average American (unions, abortion, social safety net, tax rates on high- and low-incomes, civil rights, to name a few), and which made it worse. People may perceive partisan differences incorrectly, but there are nevertheless strong partisan differences reflected in elected officials' behavior. Current vivid example: Look at the Trump/Meadows PowerPoint presentation -- it was shown to many Republican Legislators and not one notified law enforcement or DOJ officials that a coup was being planned. It was not shown to Democratic Legislators, because the plotters knew they would report it. Because the evidence is so clear on this matter, I perceive the argument that partisan differences are minimal to be a Right Wing Talking Point.
Imbeau et al (2003) undertook a statistical analysis of hundreds of studies, finding that the 'average correlation between the party composition of government and policy outputs is not significantly different from zero’. More recently, Dynes and Holbein (2020) published a quasi-experimental study of Republican and Democrat state administrations in the prestigious APSR journal, finding that partisan differences were minimal. You have merely listed impressionistic anecdotes.
I found a 2018 paper of the same title here, http://adamdynes.com/documents/WP_2018_holbein-dynes_noisy-retrospection.pdf I'm not sure this is a convincing study, but it's not my area. One aspect in this discussion is of course, how much can one expect from 2 years of governing. How much should one expect.
I think the study is convincing - the 2018 version is a working paper, but this was eventually published in American Political Science Review, one of the field's top journals. I agree that the question of long-term effects is a different one - the Dynes and Holbein study doesn't cover this. But there are other studies of long-term partisan effects. Of course, some studies find partisan effects, yet effects tend to be much smaller than one would expect...