Young Voters Said To Be Trending Toward Bush

DrudgeReport.com ^ | Tue Jan 20 2004 10:42:11 ET | Matt Drudge

[SunStar]

Young Voters Said To Be Trending Toward Bush
Tue Jan 20 2004 10:42:11 ET

Morton Kondracke in fresh ROLL CALL:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating. Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a fairly good chance that we'll have your support."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

END

[Consort]

And that bothers you.

Whiners bother me, particular dangerous ones who don't mind enabling the bad guys at our expense because they don't get their way.

[PersonalLiberties]

I think when people don't like your opinion and/or your reasoning, or are scared that you would dare have a problem with Bush they attack you. I've only been here about a week. Seen it a lot though.

[KantianBurke]

What's the point of getting a tax cut if a few years down the road, long after Dubya has left office, your tax bill skyrockets due to his "compassion?" It makes so much more sense if he privatize certain systems so that getting a tax cut today doesn't become a redundancy later.

[PersonalLiberties]

See Consorts replies for case in point

[PersonalLiberties]

Who are the bad guys? To me they are the ones that spend this country into oblivion, support social programs that keep people from taking responsiblity for themselves, and disregard the Constitution

[ScreamingFist]

Whiners bother me, particular dangerous ones who don't mind enabling the bad guys at our expense because they don't get their way. ....or don't agree with you. Sheesh.

[Prodigal Son]

Either that, or they were awoken with a fright when Howard "Chucky" Dean yelled. "YAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH".

LOL, that's a strong possibility.

I think Republicans ought to donate to Dean's campaign now. Conservative writers need to stop attacking him and start piling on Clark, Edwards and Kerry.

We need Dean to get that nomination or at least run as a third party candidate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

With, for example, 50 million retirees and an average of 47,200 per yr per retiree that would equal 360 Billion per yr. This number does not come close to your claim.

[Warren_Piece]

The second is the corresponding DECREASE in working taxpayers. Right now there are roughly 4 workers for every retiree. Once the boomers jump onto the system it'll go to a 1 to 1 ratio. So cutting taxes won't help.

This is a good reason for bringing in more newly documented, TAXPAYING workers.

[MattinNJ]

People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan.

Bingo. I remember being a young lad and havingno idea what a liberal or a conservative was. My first political thought was this "Carter's a wuss. Why isn't he kicking the crap out of the Iranians?" My second political thought was "Look at the Iranians handing out moist towlettes to the hostages and wishing them a safe trip back home because Reagan is the President. He's a Republican, I'm a Republican." That will not change-ever.

[Consort]

If you encourage that stuff, it will go on and on and accomplish nothing except to cause arguments....just like this one.

[DrDeb]

"He better get the youth, because he has a good chance of losing the support of us working people between the age of 40-60. With all apologies to Mr. Reagan."


REALITY CHECK:
ABCNews/WashingtonPost Poll
1/15-18/04

Age Group Crosstabs:
31-44 61% approve
45-60 60% approve
(add 15-20 points for those 31-60 from the RED states)

BTW: President Reagan was CONSTANTLY assailed by his RIGHT flank both as governor of California and as president. In fact, William Buckley actually referred to President Reagan as nothing more than a "speech-reader-in-chief." Additionally, members of the ACU/conservative congressional groups regularly referred to him as an "useful idiot"! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[KantianBurke]

The problem in THAT case is all those illegals won't be taxed enough to make a difference. Remember most if not all are low skilled and therefore will not pay much amount into FICA ect ect. In fact their presense will make the situation worse as they WILL qualify for plenty of govt "freebies."

[luckystarmom]

My 9 year old son is working on a biography of a black American. I bought him a book on Colin Powell (it is now one of his favorite books).

Anyway, for the report he has to pretend to be Colin Powell and write 3 diary entries. One of his diary entries is from a few days after 911. It is the most pro-American entry. He talks about how we'll have to go to war in Afghanistan and then probably with Saddam Hussein. He says that we should easily beat Saddam Hussein because we already beat him once.

I didn't help him write any of it, but I was very proud that my son already understands that sometimes you got to go to war.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Your analysis is incorrect for two related reasons. The first is the massive increase in dependants onto the S.S.-Medicare ect. systems i.e. the baby boomers. There have been projections estimating the cost of S.S. ALONE taking upwards of 70% of this nation's funds unless benefits are cut (which they won't be as the boomers aren't known for making sacrifices) or raising taxes. Guess what the solution will be

When baby boomers tap into their IRAs and pensions, the social security payments will be cut 1:1 as needed.

The choice between raising taxes and reducing benefits will be hard to swallow, but the medicine will be taken.

Long before then, privatization of social security will be well on its way to completion.

When given the choice between dog food dinners and sirloin on the grill, today's youth will heartliy vote for an overhaul of the Social Security system.

There is no other way to avoid the inevitable, so get used to the idea now.

[headsonpikes]

3.6 trillion, actually.

That's a whack of cash. ;^)

[KantianBurke]

You are of course assuming that the boomers will have such savings. The CLINTON recession of 2000 made short work of that not to mention the lack of savings that this country historically has had and due to Fed policies. Also in terms of numbers, the elederly will outnumber and outvote those younger. Thus they'll be able to vote themselves whatever they want.

[KantianBurke]

I'll hunt around for the figures. Trust me, I WISH you were right.

[k2blader]

Wait 'til the youth get a little older and realize how badly the Dems and GOP have screwed them over SS and Medicare.

[DMCA]

Most, if not all, of those new tax paying workes will qualify to EITC so they will be getting much more back from the tax system than they pay in.