Posted on 01/20/2004 8:28:45 AM PST by 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
-PJ
It's very important for us to treat elections seriously and to realize that small events can change the future. In the 1948 election, the Congress was conservative but was fighting Truman. The GOP nominated a moderate type who assumed he was a shoo-in and so didnt try to run. Dewey. He lost.
We were one bad candidate and one bad campaign away from re-aligning away from the new deal ... by the time Eisenhower came in, we lost the 'mo'. In fact, Reagan was the only conservative President since the time of Coolidge on tax and spend issues.
40-50 years was an anomaly because we didnt have conservative ideas winning elections. That can change, if we make it change.
This paragraph bears repeating....since it is still the answer to your question. I forgot to repeat the part about the documented illegals being sent back to their own country in three years. Now we don't know who or where they are, so they are here for generations getting free schooling, food and hospitalization. Is the current situation for illegals more effective in your opinion? Do you have an opinion, other than to ask more inane questions?
Am I to understand that I am to take my reality check from ABC News and the Washington Post
Not only a terrible return, but it's not your money to pass on to your heirs. When my wife's mother died (she outlived her husband), her SS payments ended. Nothing to leave behind, like it would be if it truly belong to the individual.
Thanks a bunch, FDR and his worshipers. /sarcasm
The bureaucracies of the Executive and other Branches are dominated by Liberals and they were re-seeded with Liberals by the Clintons. The GOP controls the front offices, at best. When the Dems are in charge, they control the whole thing....big difference. I don't think that the GOP controls the Judiciary, either. Their degree of influence on the SCOTUS is not clear cut. Same thing with academia, labor, the legal profession, etc.
That might be an initial interpretation of the responses, but I think it is in the end a bit shallow. I know my problem with the "I won't vote for Bush because he isn't conservative enough for me" crowd is that they never produce any viable options.
Utopia might be fun to postulate on messege boards, but when we log off reality is there waiting for us. As much as it might be nice to ignore reality on certain issues, it just won't go away.
The reality of the situation is that the next President of the United States will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The Republican candidate is established and the Democrats are running about trying to find one.
What that means, and you are free to make your voting choices, is that you can make a statement or make a difference. If you choose to write in Pat Buchanan that is your choice, but do so knowing very well that either President Bush or some Democrat will be in office after the election.
And at least ask yourself this question - would we have been better off with AlGore? It came down to a handful of votes...
I personally appreciate different views so stick around and express them. But don't expect people to just agree with you because you express a position fairly similar to the lefts - vote with us because we don't like Bush. There are many people here who understand reality.
I'd wager that us "youngins" understand where Social Security might be when we retire. I'm not sure about others here, but my wife and I are planning our retirement without it included. If it is there it's a bonus, if not, well, I've planned ahead.
It would be interesting to know how retirement saving / investing has changed through the generations. I would bet (and I don't know anything...) that the younger portions of the work force are putting more away in retirement investments than ever before. Keep in mind, I don't mean savings versus credit (that's probably an all time low).
But looking at where I am at personally I have managable debt, minimal savings (cash on hand), but substantial amounts of paper value growing with the markets. I do know there is something to be said about keeping 3 months of cash on hand just in case, but what good is that doing me when I can leave it in the markets to grow (more quickly) and only have to wait 3 days to access the cash?
It this what you are saying?
They consume Y tax dollars right now.
They put in 0 tax dollars right now.
They put in X tax dollars under the new system.
Simple math tells me that:
Y - X < Y - 0
Certainly it might now meet a break even point, but it is an improvement over doing nothing, isn't it?
My wife would argue with you about the reasonable part, but that's off topic...
I am a young voter (well I'm under 30 anyway). I have voted my entire life for Republicans. I even contributed money to them got the Christmas cards and everything to prove it.
No proof needed, I am also a young voter, I don't fit in the under 30 category anymore, but about as close as you can get.
I was disappointed in the last presidential cycle that it was between Bush and Gore - can't we do better? But I supported and voted for Bush.
In my opinion it depends on how you define better. Are there more conservative candidates out there? Yes. Are they electable? No.
Making fun of of the lefts extreme candidates has become much of a past time, take Nadar. He never stood a chance but the far left wing voted for him. The Democrats knew the threat but were unable to stop it. Their best effort was to set up trading boards where they could "trade votes" essentially promising to vote for Nadar in a known Gore state so the Nadarers would vote for Gore in a contested state.
I guess what I am trying to get at is that better has to be checked with reality. Yes, there are things I want from the Rebulicans that they are not delivering on (I personally blame the wimps in Congress). But what are the real options at the end of the day. The majority of the voters sit and vote in the middle. Drift too far off to one side or the other and they'll cast their vote for your opponent.
We both know that conservative ideals will produce a better nation, unfortunately too many don't. The only way to shift the political spectrum right is to shift the definition of center to the right because the centrists reactive negatively to change.
Abortion is a perfect example. You have a group on the right and group on the left - in stalemate. Unfortunately on this issue (and many others) the stalemate serves the interests of the left. They no longer have to gain ground, they just don't have to lose any. That is a much tougher fight for the right and it exists in many areas. The more polarized issues become the better chance that the status quo will be maintained. Are you happy with the status quo?
Now, I am asking myself, if I and others, who are for legit reasons disenchanged with this 2 party system that cannot seem to produce a solid all around candidate, if we all voted for a 3rd option, eventually it would not be a 2 party system anymore. Because if I continue to vote for anything with a R in hopes of getting a smaller more constitution govt. it is not going to happen. That is reality.
I guess the question you have yourself is whether you are willing to accept the real damage to your core beliefs that will result from damaging the only current option you have enroute to your goal.
I think it is simply a difference in approach - go for it now, no matter what the consequences, or look for to the long term where the more ideal situation can be realized.
To choose the second you have to concede ground and that is tough. But wouldn't it be great to be shaping national policy between to ends of the Republican spectrum?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.