Are young voters really as Democratic as being portrayed?

[CJK]

One narrative I keep hearing is that one of the reasons the GOP is in trouble is because it is doing poorly with young people who are more supportive of the liberal agenda.

As a "young person" myself, I really don't think the GOP has "turned a generation against them" as it is commonly said. I think Republican problems in this area can largely be linked to Bush's failures and the fact that the media protected Obama for many disengaged voters. As these voters grow up they will become more politically saavy and lest reactive.

In other words I don't think that young people are exceptionally liberal, and that some of this is a function of the fact that their are more minorities in this group.

[CJK]

I honestly don't believe there is any evidence that social issues are to blame. Sure, young people support gay marriage (though not as much as some want us to believe). So? Who steps into the voting booth and votes on gay marriage?

I don't think the Republicans have to scrap these social issues, they just need to do a better job in explaining them.

[CJK]

I honestly don't believe there is any evidence that social issues are to blame. Sure, young people support gay marriage (though not as much as some want us to believe). So? Who steps into the voting booth and votes on gay marriage?

I don't think the Republicans have to scrap these social issues, they just need to do a better job in explaining them.

What makes you think the support of young people for gay marriage isn't as much as some people want you to believe?  What do you think it is?  


The GOP has become the anti-gay, anti-environment party.  They aren't going to have a chance with young voters if they don't get away from that.

Well I'm a young person and I oppose gay marriage. I know many people that agree with me too. But many people who agree that it's wrong don't see any good reason to oppose it. Republicans need to flat out say something along the lines of "gays cannot naturally reproduce to create a family so their marriage is illegitimate and should not be recognized by the state" instead of taking the "sanctity of marriage" dodge. Or something like that.

[CJK]

Of course people eventually can't have kids, but that's not the same thing as never being able to have kids, like gays.

Basically, if your biological functions permitted you to have a child with your partner (whether or not that actually happens), its legitimate, otherwise, its not natural.

(In the case of cripples, it still would be legit if they could have had a kid in the absence of the physical disability.)

I believe the instituion of marriage is primarily about building a family.

Although I guess that does sound complicated.

Support for big government would not be as high if they were aware of the high costs involved.

[CJK]

Infamous Generation X? Obama is sometimes considered part of it. 

During 1990-96 (my teenage years) there was a constant stream of stories about Gen X.  The slant of the coverage was largely that we were apathetic, shallow, self-centered, cynical, slackers, materialistic, nihilistic and generally losers.  Boomer commentators sneered at our supposed lack of idealism and motivation.  Gen Xers, in turn, blamed boomers for screwing everything up for them (Gen Xers are much more likely to come from divorced families than their parents). Ours was the first generation to confront AIDS, back when it was much more frightening than it is now.  Fortunately or unfortunately, Kurt Cobain became a symbol of Gen X. 

You might be interested in the Fourth Turning debate, some of which dovetails with politics (including elections).  The vices enumerated were true of much of Generation X in the 1980s and 1990s -- but that is past. Now your generation has its own concerns -- survival in an economy run on "All for the Few" guidelines, the survival of your children, and prevention of further decay of the American way of life -- a way that used to be better and more satisfying in many respects.

You will notice that Boomers do not get off without criticism. At their worst they are ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the perfect combination for despots, harsh bosses, and rapacious plutocrats. Boomers came up with a flawed President (Bill Clinton) and what may be the worst in anyone's memory (Dubya -- Herbert Hoover at least had a moral compass). Boom executives pushed the megabuck compensation for corporate executives; their right-wing politicians pushed income tax cuts that could aid only the super-rich in buying out or destroying small-business competition (even in farming) while forcing regressive taxes onto everyone else to fund basic services. Boom religious leaders pushed superstition as a substitute for science on the specious claim that religious faith is the only basis of human goodness. As executives they transformed manufacturing businesses into importers. They used legalized loansharking as a means of draining cash from the middle class and the working class while they gutted manufacturing.  I look at the Boomer Right and I see a dream of a return, if not to the plantation Tara, then to an aristocratic order in all but name in which most people exist solely to enrich and pamper elites -- something like pre-1917 Russia, only with more religious fervor as an anodyne and a control.

Calm down. We're not even close to being 19th century Russia.

[CJK]

I guess what really gets to me is that people were discussing about how Obama had some sort of "special appeal" toward youths. Not me. I absolutely despised him during the campaign. Now I don't hate him like I used to but I feel no special connection to the man.

[CJK]

As a member of the 18-30 aged group, I have to say that many members of my generation call themselves liberals even if they aren't. Many hold fairly conservative views but don't call themselves Republicans due to the tarnished name the party carries. I would say that my group is moderate on economics, 50-50 split on abortion, but very pro-gay rights.

One of the things I can't stand is this idea that Republicans need to moderate their position on the so called "gay rights" to appeal to young voters. There is absolutely no evidenced that many people voted for Obama because McCain opposed gay marriage. The problem is that most of our "opinion making class" (and I daresay a dispoportionate amount of political activists on the internet) come from liberal enclaves that do not share the rest of the nation's values. The ral problem is the failure of Republican governance the last eight years.

[CJK]

As a member of the 18-30 aged group, I have to say that many members of my generation call themselves liberals even if they aren't. Many hold fairly conservative views but don't call themselves Republicans due to the tarnished name the party carries. I would say that my group is moderate on economics, 50-50 split on abortion, but very pro-gay rights.

One of the things I can't stand is this idea that Republicans need to moderate their position on the so called "gay rights" to appeal to young voters. There is absolutely no evidenced that many people voted for Obama because McCain opposed gay marriage. The problem is that most of our "opinion making class" (and I daresay a dispoportionate amount of political activists on the internet) come from liberal enclaves that do not share the rest of the nation's values. The ral problem is the failure of Republican governance the last eight years.

(facepalm)
Moderates are the key to victory numnuts. If you don't moderate on anything how the hell do you expect to win or even come close to winning?

I didn't say not to moderate anything. I said that it was unnecessary to moderate on gay marriage because it is not a priority issue to the voting public, except for religious conservatives that the Republicans need.

[CJK]

As a member of the 18-30 aged group, I have to say that many members of my generation call themselves liberals even if they aren't. Many hold fairly conservative views but don't call themselves Republicans due to the tarnished name the party carries. I would say that my group is moderate on economics, 50-50 split on abortion, but very pro-gay rights.

One of the things I can't stand is this idea that Republicans need to moderate their position on the so called "gay rights" to appeal to young voters. There is absolutely no evidenced that many people voted for Obama because McCain opposed gay marriage. The problem is that most of our "opinion making class" (and I daresay a dispoportionate amount of political activists on the internet) come from liberal enclaves that do not share the rest of the nation's values. The ral problem is the failure of Republican governance the last eight years.

(facepalm)
Moderates are the key to victory numnuts. If you don't moderate on anything how the hell do you expect to win or even come close to winning?

I didn't say not to moderate anything. I said that it was unnecessary to moderate on gay marriage because it is not a priority issue to the voting public, except for religious conservatives that the Republicans need.

My advice? At least adopt a semi-civil union stance.
So the only people that gay marriage is a priority are religious people? LMAO
So gay people don't consider the right to be legally equal to straight people a 'priority'?

An anti-gay civil unions/marriage platform didn't help the GOP score undecided voters at the last minute, the gun issue did:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80825

Right, but there aren't as many gays as there are evangelical protestants.

My point is not that gay marriage is a means to swing an election, its that flip-flopping would alienate too much of the base and would not ultimately alter voting intentions of moderates.

[CJK]

Well I have proof that embracing gay marriage won't help much in my state, Ohio, at least. 60% oppose a law allowing same sex couples to marry (civil unions are evenly divided). Among those who know someone who is gay, 53% still oppose. Moreover, even among those 18-34 52% would oppose such a law.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1346