Young Dems more likely to despise the other party (opens in new tab)

I would have sincere and heartfelt suspicions of those who continued to support that party while this stuff is going on. It's beyond party politics at that point.

I think the liberal label is more induced by peer pressure than anything else. Not saying that republicans are flawless at all, but that doesn't even matter anymore.

This view is widely considered to be a fringe one. No serious person espouses it. You don't hear it on Fox News, but Alex Jones will say it and his audience will mostly laugh at him. A small fraction of them agree.

On the other hand:

"The only explanation for limiting immigration is racism. No other explanation exists."

"The only explanation for prioritizing action against illegal immigration is white supremacy. No other explanation exists"

This interpretation of the "other side"'s policy is universal. You'll hear it on CNN, MSNBC, late night comedy. Celebrities will tweet about it. It is espoused by folks who say it seriously, framing it as some kind of serious battle of good versus evil. There is no room in the conversation for debating it, therefore you despise anyone who takes this kind of view. Anyone who tries to debate it will be labelled one of Skeletor's minions.

In fact, one of the more charitable explanations of these points of view are things like "unconscious racism" like the evil spirits of old who would possess you and make you think evil things.

After centuries of orthodoxy, in the west there used to be a culture of enlightenment and free enquiry. In the third world we have never really had a serious understanding of the importance of these topics, and the enlightenment movements had a relatively minor impact. There have been occasional spurts of it, but generally there is no mature understanding of freedom amongst the population. In my country a comedian was arrested for allegedly planning to tell a particular joke in his forthcoming standup set. This kind of authoritarianism is supported because there is widespread support for blasphemy laws, and it is a fairly mainstream position.

It seems like western countries are regressing to this kind of worldview, embracing blasphemy laws and the culture of blasphemy where certain "haraam" topics are so unholy that they cannot even be debated, and any infidel who has these views must be removed from society, "by any means necessary". The only difference between this and previous attempts is that the pantheon is some bureaucrats and politicians. I'm reminded of a Stephen Colbert episode where he announced that the President had fired James Comey, and the crowd applauded, and he sprung into action to inform them that James Comey was now on the side of the angels.

As a result of these systems, there is no question of beings friends with an infidel, you can only despise them. Even if one wants to challenge this prevailing orthodoxy, there is fear of being associated with infidels - so for self-preservation, one must go along with this point of view.

There was a TV host - Ellen DeGeneres who is a friend of George W. Bush. When photos of them laughing together and enjoying a sporting event, were published, it became a national conversation about whether she should be held accountable for this friendship. She then had to make a public explanation as to why she was his friend.

This kind of thing exists amongst Republicans too, but it falls flat most of the time. Every now and then there will be a story like Bill Clinton shook hands with Louis Farrakhan or some stupid outrage like that, but it (rightly) doesn't really get much traction and nobody gives it the time of day, because there ought to be freedom of association, and reducing a human being to who they shake hands with is a terrible way of thinking.

Human nature, it repeats itself all the time.

Where as on the flip side, right leaning people likely don't have the same conservative requirements for a partner.

So i'm not really surprised at all by the results.

    Would you __________ someone who voted for the opposing presidential candidate?

Important to point out that stated preferences are not actual preferences. There's a pretty good change a lot of them who say they wouldn't be friends with a Republican actually would be friends with a Republican if they found themselves in that situation.

It is a useful tool for politicians. Like other manipulative techniques, politicians who do not use it may find themselves at a disadvantage.

A more interesting discussion might revolve around democracy incentivizing these base, short-term time preference behaviors. This calls into question the popular premise of democracy being a virtue unto itself.

I am not from the US, but for me condemming the way the Republicans conduct themselves is actually something I would expect anybody who cares about democracy to do in the current state of affairs. They had the choice to change their policy to adapt to a shifting demographic environment – instead they chose to change the rules, change who is allowed to vote, ignore a coup attempt, throw democracy under the bus, all while stoking violence and anger.

I live in Germany and the way US party politics read today remind me very, very much about what I learned and read about the fall of the Weimar Republic. The situation is nothing to joke about, it started with treating Trump like a king and then you realized that really a lot in US politics depends on the will of those in power to honor convention. The institutions saved your asses this time, but they won't be able to do it once more. Where is the bold, free democracy that "denazified" Germany after WWII?

Even those who say I am exaggerating here – imagine where the US would have been today if they managed to "hang Mike Pence", "kill Nancy Pelosi". What would that then have done with the way Trump dealt with the situation? Would he have distanced himself from the mob? Or would he have been emboldened? Maybe the military would have had to remove the guy from office? Maybe that in turn would have lead to a civil war?

In my eyes it is legitimate to have conservative ideas about how society should be, but this is not conservativism, it is fascism.

Not passing judgement either way I'm a left wing Australian.

"The other side" in this case supported a misogynistic, conspiracy-theory spewing, authoritarian grifter with a publicly acknowledged disdain for scientific consensus for president that was disregarding any established limitations on his office and was (and still is) actively trying to undermine a legitimate election.

It's hard to be open for "the other side"'s viewpoints when that other sides viewpoint includes undermining the very system in place to promote consensus.