Posted on 07/08/2014 5:24:57 AM PDT by Theoria
There was a time not so long ago when the young seemed destined to be liberal forever. Americans in their teens and 20s were to the left of their elders on social issues. They worried more about poverty. They voted strongly Democratic.
In retrospect, we refer to this period as the 1960s, and it didn’t last long, let alone forever. Less than a generation after young people were marching for civil rights and against the Vietnam War, they voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan.
Today, of course, the young are liberal again, and it seems as if they will be forever. They favor same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, stricter gun laws, citizenship for illegal immigrants and an activist government that fights climate change and inequality. The Republican Party, as you have probably noticed, does not.
But the temporary nature of the 1960s should serve as a reminder that politics change. What seems permanent can become fleeting. And the Democratic Party, for all its strengths among Americans under 40, has some serious vulnerabilities, too.
In the simplest terms, the Democrats control the White House (and, for now, the Senate) at a time when the country is struggling. Economic growth has been disappointing for almost 15 years now. Most Americans think this country is on the wrong track. Our foreign policy often seems messy and complex, at best.
To Americans in their 20s and early 30s — the so-called millennials — many of these problems have their roots in George W. Bush’s presidency. But think about people who were born in 1998, the youngest eligible voters in the next presidential election. They are too young to remember much about the Bush years or the excitement surrounding the first Obama presidential campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
In 1972 we still had the draft and were still in Vietnam, and I was in the army and the democrats got 46% of the youth vote and Nixon got 52%, and in 1968 53% of the youth voted against the democrats since George Wallace was running and won almost 14% of the vote, and was seen as to the right of Nixon, with Veep candidate Curtis LeMay.
Yes legal immigration is the main problem, but not the only one, the white under 30 vote is far more liberal than it used to be.
Remember that Romney was too far left to have run for either party in the 60s or 70s, too far left to get out his base, and you are comparing pure white under 30s with the total under 30 voting of the past, yet the radical left, and dismal failure Obama still did great with the white under 30s in 2012.
You seem determined to make immigration the sole problem for some reason, and seem to be agreeing with the writer’s mistaken history of the under 30 vote.
USA offensive combat action in Vietnam ended 9 weeks after the 1972 election, not before the election.
Re: “George Wallace was seen as to the Right of Nixon.”
Only on two issues: States Rights and Desegregation.
Wallace was to the Left of Nixon on Vietnam - he pledged to unconditionally bring home the troops in 90 days if the War could not be won with non-nuclear weapons.
Re: “The white under 30 vote is far more liberal than it used to be.”
In 1980, Ronald Reagan received just 44% of the youth vote, which was at least 85% white.
Reagan's opponents - the liberal Jimmy Carter and the RINO John Anderson - received 56%.
Re: “You are comparing pure white under 30s with the total under 30 voting of the past.”
In 1968, more than 90% of ALL voters were white.
Re: “Obama still did great with the white under 30s in 2012.”
What!
Romney beat Obama by 7% with white youth.
Romney: 51%
Obama: 44%
Re: “You seem to be agreeing with the writer’s mistaken history of the under 30 vote.”
The writer claims that non-white teenagers may become Conservatives.
I say that's total bunk!
Re: “You seem determined to make immigration the sole problem for some reason.”
Just one reason:
20 million imported Socialist voters since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986.
I don’t know if you remember the election of 1968, Wallace was seen as to the right of Nixon.
The democrats received 44% of the under 30 vote of all races in 1980 for someone far to the right of Obama, the same percentage that Obama got of the pure white, under 30 vote in 2012 that you are so proud of, after they voted for him in 2008 by an incredible margin of 54%.
You seem obsessed with immigration being the only problem we have with the under thirty vote, why is that? Are you a young guy too young to remember the past you keep writing about?
Have you noticed my tag line? Do you think that I am not aware of immigration and voting as well, while you are determined to make it the SOLE problem with the under 30 voters.
The PURE WHITE, under 30 vote, went 54% for full term pro-abortion, liberal deity Obama, in 2008, we’ve never seen anything like it.
And, remarkably, I was staying at my Aunt's apartment in Chicago during the 1968 Democrat Convention riots.
I know the politics and the period very well.
Earlier, I did neglect to say that Wallace was indeed seen as to the Right of Nixon on the Culture Wars and Hippies.
However, Wallace was also a traditional Southern Populist Democrat, and he competed dollar for dollar with Humphrey on issues like Social Security and Medicare.
And, Wallace gave every appearance of being a dove on Vietnam, in spite of LeMay.
I do not share your obsession with the outlier election in 2008.
White voters returned to the mean in 2012.
Romney did not depress turnout.
Turnout in 2012 is ranked sixth highest in the last 14 elections.
Romney's share of the white vote - 59% - is number one in the last six elections.
Conservatives have one, and only one, existential threat, and it is the same threat for every age group:
600,000 new Socialist voters are being naturalized every year.
I’m “obsessed” with 2008? The election that you are obsessed with pretending didn’t happen?
At least you corrected yourself on Vietnam and Wallace being seen by the public as the right winger in the 68 race.
Romney evidently did depress turnout, it is why he did so poorly against Jimmy carter’s second term and managed to lose an election that republicans couldn’t lose.
The democrats received 44% of the under 30 vote of ALL races in 1980 for someone far to the right of Obama, the same percentage that Obama got of the pure white, under 30 vote in 2012 that you are so proud of, after they voted for him in 2008 by an incredible margin of 54%, 47% of ALL races of the under thirty vote in 1968, 46% of ALL races of under 30s in 1972, 40% of ALL races in 1984.
You keep repeating what I say in my tag line, but you are shutting out everything else, in other words, “obsessed”.
The PURE WHITE, under 30 vote, went 54% for full term pro-abortion, liberal deity Obama, in 2008, we’ve never seen anything like it.
That’s the dirty little secret that no voting pattern study will explore and no analyst/commentator will acknowlege.
The destiny of the US is no longer controlled by reason or logic or rational thought. It’s controlled by identity politics, where voting based on what demographic category you happen to fall into is more important than voting based on ideological belief.
“That’s the dirty little secret that no voting pattern study will explore and no analyst/commentator will acknowlege.
The destiny of the US is no longer controlled by reason or logic or rational thought. It’s controlled by identity politics, where voting based on what demographic category you happen to fall into is more important than voting based on ideological belief.”
Totally correct.
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.