Young voters, 18-29, make up approximately 17% of the voters in a presidential election. They tend to support the third party candidate at a rate of 2:1 and they favor the Democratic candidate over any other demographic.
In other words, we should put Ron Paul in the VP slot because he'll appeal to the dumbest segment of voters in the entire electorate.
Actually, wouldn't putting Paul as the VP make him not a third party candidate but part of a major party ticket, therefore, the appeal to these voters is a moot point?
Boomers are always the pig in the python demographically and we do vote in very high percentages. We are now (having been born between 1946 and 1964) ranging in age from 43 to 61. Until Slick Willie ran in 1992 and 1996 and thereafter, we have always cast a majority of our votes for the GOP, MSM propaganda notwithstanding.
Let us suppose that an expanse of 11 years, 18-29, might even be a slice equaling 17% of the electorate. If so, you could extrapolate to 17% for each age group (ignoring the boomers' still vibrant numerical advantage). Then 30-41, 42-53, 54-65, 66-77 would be four other age groups with 17% each (not really but this would be the theory). That would make 5 age groupings times 17% or 85% of the electorate. Does this mean that those 78 and older make up the remaining 15%??? Not very likely.
Isn't a third party preference also a demographic??? How can the 18-29s be both Democrat and 2-1 for third party candidates???? Furthermore, the history of most age groups is that they move sharply rightward as they marry and have kids. That does not mean paleocheapskatism posing as conservatism or paleopantywaistism posing as conservative foreign policy in spite of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It means SOCIAL ISSUE conservatism.
What is a conservative??? A liberal with a daughter in junior high school. A liberal who has been mugged. A liberal whose son Jeffrey has "married" Bruce or Lance. Each such group has and will join those who had the common sense to be social conservatives in the first place and to be supportive of our military at war whether paleopipsqueaks like it or not.
We are not selling our party birthright on social and military issues to recruit airheads who don't know any better. There are plenty of young people who believe in our principles. THEY are the ones we want along with every other voter who shares our principles. We shall not betray them by conniving to use paleoPaulie to attract the votes of their generational enemies and our nation's enemies. It makes no more sense to appeal to antiwar jerks than it does to appeal to abortion enthusiasts, homosexual "rights" enthusiasts or other libertoonians. Many more votes are available by keeping the base intact (crushing paleoPaulie memorably) and reaching out to social conservatives among Democrat and unaffliated voters who are not going to ever be represented by the Demonratic party's elitist leftist and reflexively pro-criminal, antiAmerican, antimilitary, antibaby, antimarriage and antigun leadership.
If we need more social conservatives and military conservatives and gun conservatives to win, we should begin to recruit, educate and get them committed to our cause. To the extent that money issues or "smaller government" issues (quite often in league with the AntiChristian Criminal Liberties Union) can help, tolerate them within limits and even pursue lower taxes with a vengeance after the big issues are resolved, but they are not priorities to approach the significance of guns, babies, marriage, military, crime.