Posted on 08/07/2005 12:32:20 PM PDT by Alexander Rubin
As I said, I am looking for statistics on how Generation X and Y votes, whom it supports and critical political issues for them. If you know of any, please post them here.
Google "voting statistics by age"
http://www.google.com/search?q=generation+x+political+affiliation
http://www.google.com/search?q=generation+y+political+affiliation
Thanks. Hrmmm. We need some work with my generation, but the situation doesn't look too bad.
I would have to agree. I'm a Baby-Boomer manly man married to a Gen-X girly girl. :o)
Thanks! We just had our 4-year anniversary last month. :o)
I think perhaps my expectations (coupled with demographics) work against me. I should move back to Texas; I had better luck down there!
Never underestimate the power of high circulation among like-minded friends. I met my wife during a pre-Christmas weekend getaway with friends. She was a friend of a friend who had just finished her finals and wanted a break, so she came along. Stole my heart away, she did. :o)
Gen Y. I'm 21 (or will be soon). My parents are pretty liberal, but my dad has a few conservative strong points. Though in outlook, I like to think I take after my grandfather, who was quite conservative.
I'm doing a double major in history and poli sci, and I'm an A student. My experience is that the best marks go to papers that have positions that the professors resent, but they can't argue with. For example, if you are in a class with a liberal professor, and you put forth a conservative paper, you are probably going to get a bad mark if you don't back it up. But if you write a watertight case, you'll get a better mark than liberals who write watertight cases (my theory is that it's tolerance backfiring on the professors: they can get away with giving bad marks to poorly written papers that they hate, but if its a good paper and the student complains, they get in trouble: so they overcompensate by giving better than expected marks to conservative students.)
I write argument papers the same way I used to debate (and still do) for the team: start with a virtually undeniable premise, then extrapolate from there with reasonable points, forestall any criticism by mentioning them yourself and then shutting them down, and control your language. Works pretty well on the whole. The only people it doesn't work on are people who are so extreme that they will deny the undeniable premises, in which case they look foolish anyways and all you need to do is poke fun at them, and run rings around them by using ad absurdum arguments.
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.