Impact of a Clinton victory in 2016

[YaBoyNY]

I don't think you really contradicted anything I said. The Early Boomers were liberal draft dodger hippies, but the later, larger wave of Boomers are much more reactionary. Starting with Nixon, the Boomers voted remarkably Republican for a young generation, and have continued to vote Republican since, much to the detriment of the country, if you look at the presidents they chosen or would have chosen. They're really one of the objectively worst generations we've ever had the misfortune to produce in this nation, so it is no surprise that they vote heavily Republican.

Boomers are the second worst. Their ignorant, narcissistic, self absorbed kids, the millennials are the worst.

The ignorant, narcisstic, self absorbed kids who work more for less, and are more likely to be college educated than any other generation?

[YaBoyNY]

While it is hard to predict events either before Election 2016 or during Clinton's first term (a major terror attack, economic crisis, etc.), it seems certain that the GOP, if it loses both the PV and the EV in 2016, will fully embrace SSM and abortion rights. It will have to if it doesn't want to appear to anyone under 50 (60? 70?) as the party of the past. It will find other ways to distinguish itself from the Democrats. Green, conservative and libertarian parties will continue to grow in popularity, and the number of communities that use IRV will grow.  I believe Clinton, like her husband, will govern as a centrist.

What seems quite likely, however, is that Clinton will lose the popular vote but still win the election if the GOP wins back FL, OH, and possibly either VA or CO (but not both). In this case the GOP may be energized as the Dems were after 2000 and might not make any platform changes just yet.

Either way, Clinton governs as a centrist.

It seems quite likely that the Republicans would embrace homosexual marriage, but I doubt they'd embrace abortion.

Ironic, if true, since abortion rights were thought by many to be a done deal in 1973, while homosexuality was still classified as mental illness by the APA.

What I can see is the GOP distinguishing itself from the Dems in supporting abortion rights during the first 20 weeks, supporting the rights of states to decide after that, and supporting bans on late-term abortions, all the while giving moral support to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and expressing a general desire to see the number of abortions (continue to) decline. Too many people I think are uncomfortable with the GOP platform's support of a near-total ban, and have felt this way since at least 1989.

The GOP will remain the prolife party even if they embrace gay marriage. Polls of millennials show they are the most prolife generation with baby boomers the most pro choice generation. The opposite is true of gay marriage.

In fact if the GOP embraces gay marriage they MUST become even MORE prolife so as not to lose socons.

Can we see these polls you speak of?

[YaBoyNY]

While it is hard to predict events either before Election 2016 or during Clinton's first term (a major terror attack, economic crisis, etc.), it seems certain that the GOP, if it loses both the PV and the EV in 2016, will fully embrace SSM and abortion rights. It will have to if it doesn't want to appear to anyone under 50 (60? 70?) as the party of the past. It will find other ways to distinguish itself from the Democrats. Green, conservative and libertarian parties will continue to grow in popularity, and the number of communities that use IRV will grow.  I believe Clinton, like her husband, will govern as a centrist.

What seems quite likely, however, is that Clinton will lose the popular vote but still win the election if the GOP wins back FL, OH, and possibly either VA or CO (but not both). In this case the GOP may be energized as the Dems were after 2000 and might not make any platform changes just yet.

Either way, Clinton governs as a centrist.

It seems quite likely that the Republicans would embrace homosexual marriage, but I doubt they'd embrace abortion.

Ironic, if true, since abortion rights were thought by many to be a done deal in 1973, while homosexuality was still classified as mental illness by the APA.

What I can see is the GOP distinguishing itself from the Dems in supporting abortion rights during the first 20 weeks, supporting the rights of states to decide after that, and supporting bans on late-term abortions, all the while giving moral support to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and expressing a general desire to see the number of abortions (continue to) decline. Too many people I think are uncomfortable with the GOP platform's support of a near-total ban, and have felt this way since at least 1989.

The GOP will remain the prolife party even if they embrace gay marriage. Polls of millennials show they are the most prolife generation with baby boomers the most pro choice generation. The opposite is true of gay marriage.

In fact if the GOP embraces gay marriage they MUST become even MORE prolife so as not to lose socons.

Can we see these polls you speak of?

find them yourself and do some reading.

That's not how sourcing works.

As far as everybody is concerned, you're now just talking out of your ass and have no actual logic behind your "argument."

[YaBoyNY]

While it is hard to predict events either before Election 2016 or during Clinton's first term (a major terror attack, economic crisis, etc.), it seems certain that the GOP, if it loses both the PV and the EV in 2016, will fully embrace SSM and abortion rights. It will have to if it doesn't want to appear to anyone under 50 (60? 70?) as the party of the past. It will find other ways to distinguish itself from the Democrats. Green, conservative and libertarian parties will continue to grow in popularity, and the number of communities that use IRV will grow.  I believe Clinton, like her husband, will govern as a centrist.

What seems quite likely, however, is that Clinton will lose the popular vote but still win the election if the GOP wins back FL, OH, and possibly either VA or CO (but not both). In this case the GOP may be energized as the Dems were after 2000 and might not make any platform changes just yet.

Either way, Clinton governs as a centrist.

It seems quite likely that the Republicans would embrace homosexual marriage, but I doubt they'd embrace abortion.

Ironic, if true, since abortion rights were thought by many to be a done deal in 1973, while homosexuality was still classified as mental illness by the APA.

What I can see is the GOP distinguishing itself from the Dems in supporting abortion rights during the first 20 weeks, supporting the rights of states to decide after that, and supporting bans on late-term abortions, all the while giving moral support to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and expressing a general desire to see the number of abortions (continue to) decline. Too many people I think are uncomfortable with the GOP platform's support of a near-total ban, and have felt this way since at least 1989.

The GOP will remain the prolife party even if they embrace gay marriage. Polls of millennials show they are the most prolife generation with baby boomers the most pro choice generation. The opposite is true of gay marriage.

In fact if the GOP embraces gay marriage they MUST become even MORE prolife so as not to lose socons.

Can we see these polls you speak of?

find them yourself and do some reading.

That's not how sourcing works.

As far as everybody is concerned, you're now just talking out of your ass and have no actual logic behind your "argument."

i dont have to source anything for you and i dont care if you believe me or not. If you dont know how your generation thinks about abortion, then fine with me.

Why do you post then? If you don't care whether people believe you or not, did you not just admit to rambling?

I also don't need someone to tell me how my generation thinks about abortion, especially when they don't have a clue.

[YaBoyNY]

youre right, your generation doesnt have a clue

The irony of this post isn't lost, believe me.

You know, it's considered common courtesy to cite a source when someone asks for it, so they know you're not just pulling numbers out of your ass. You don't have to get so defensive whenever someone just asks for a source.

EDIT: Oh, and just to put an end to this pointless back-and-forth, I've disproved your claim.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/11/ralph-reed/ralph-reed-millennials-more-pro-life-boomers-or-se/

Millennials were least likely of all age groups to call themselves pro-life:

Millennial: 40%
Gen-X:  45%
Baby boomer:  47%
Seniors:  53%

I'm fairly confident in asserting he's probably not going to return to this thread now.

[YaBoyNY]

Guess again:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-isnt-millennial-support-for-abortion-rights-increasing/244442/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx

So your first source is an opinion piece based entirely on the author's anecdotes. So, in other words, entirely useless and irrelevant.

Your second contradicts your assertion that they're pro-life, because, even being as "pro-life" as you assert this generation is, only 23% support making it completely illegal. The poll is also, what, 5 or 6 years old now? A huge chunk of the Millennial generation just came of age within' the last 5 years.

Anyway, I've taken the time to find a poll which surveys Millennials, and even breaks them down by race.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Millennials-Topline-V5-FINAL.pdf