Political realignment.

[Androidpk]

I know there are quite a few political buffs on board here so I was wondering what people's opinions were of the statement that technological change plus generational change equals political realignment.

If anyone has any thoughts on this or sources on the subject I would greatly appreciate it :)

[Androidpk]

Where are you Clyde??

[Kembal]

I know there are quite a few political buffs on board here so I was wondering what people's opinions were of the statement that technological change plus generational change equals political realignment.

If anyone has any thoughts on this or sources on the subject I would greatly appreciate it :)

It's quite possible. Certainly liberals are counting on it.

[Androidpk]

Counting on it? Obama already proved it.

[Kembal]

Counting on it? Obama already proved it.

The real truth will be in 2010. If Democrats can hold on to their sizable majorities in Congress, then I'll believe serious generational change has occurred that has caused realignment.

Obama, currently, is a blip on the political alignment scale. It'll take another election to determine whether it's a trend.

[Androidpk]

You think so? I'm thinking the current realignment started when the democrats took back congress in 2006, Obama and the 2008 election was just the final nail in the coffin. Look at Obama's unprecedented use of the internet as means of communicating, as well as the number of people from the millennial generation that voted for him.

[Reawing]

In my opinion, the real realignment has everything to do with demographics. Older voters tend to trend towards being Republicans while new voters register as Democrats by a ratio of 2:1. To put this morbidly, the old folks are dying and the new folks are replacing them causing the ratio of Democrats to Republicans to shift in favor of the Democratic Party.

This is my opinion, but if the Republicans are going to have a platform that can defeat the Democrats' current demographic advantage, they are going to need to appeal to all those people who now consider themselves independents. Republicans will always be able to move to the right and secure their base, but it is increasingly alienating the moderates, or registered independants, who don't really care about values voting as long as they have a job and a chance at social mobility.

Its an uphill climb for the Republicans, but I expect they will exceed expectations in 2010, simply because the President campaigned as if he was going to, in Secretary Clinton's words, "the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect." Since of course, that is not the case, nor was it ever a possibility, some voters will become disenchanted with the Democrats, although I think its Congress people are more disappointed in than the President. We shall see.

[Androidpk]

It definitely has something to do with demographics though I don't think age is as important. There have been generations that leaned towards the republican side when they were young. The current youngest voting eligible generation, Y/millennials, do seem to favor the democrats by a huge amount. Supposedly by 2012 there will be over 40 million millennials able to vote. Now if Obama drops the ball, which I think will happen, you may see a switch back to the republicans in 2012. Though it would be much better if they all switched to Ron Paul. :)

[Tisket]

The political landscape has shifted back and forth forever and will continue to do so forever. But I guess we could try to blame past shifts on previous technologies. Someone make a flowchart of how the telegraph and other technologies like the invention of the telephone changed past politics...

And really, most myspace and facebook users are a vapid bunch (present company excluded of course) and I'd hate to think they were calling the political shots.

[Androidpk]

The political landscape has shifted back and forth forever and will continue to do so forever. But I guess we could try to blame past shifts on previous technologies. Someone make a flowchart of how the telegraph and other technologies like the invention of the telephone changed past politics...

And really, most myspace and facebook users are a vapid bunch (present company excluded of course) and I'd hate to think they were calling the political shots.

Those technologies absolutely helped out in politics. The first practical use for the telegraph was actually for political purposes. As far as facebook goes, with over 300 million users worldwide, that is a huge audience to tap into. Obama used that to great extent during the 2008 campaign. I think the only republican to do that to any degree was Ron Paul, who was pretty successful with raising money online.

[Kuyuk]

I also think aging people shift from democrat to republican views. Younger generations are more outspoken etc, and as they age, they become a bit more conservative as they then have families/children etc that effect their views, that they didnt have as the younger generations.

I'm no political buff, nor do I ever want to be. The best government is one that governs least right? or something similar to that

[Androidpk]

So basically,

http://www.apileofdogbones.com/images/uploads/free_candy_van.jpg


A democrat would take a ride in that van while a republican wouldn't?

[Reawing]

As for technology...without Obama's clever use of it during his campaign, there is almost no chance he could have won the nomination, much less the Presidency. That said, Secretary Clinton would have won both if he hadn't.

Obama went crazy on facebook, did grassroots organizing through the internet...it went on and on more so than any candidate in history as far as I can tell. His use of technology was so groundbreaking for American politics that now the opposition will often deliver their rebuttals and put them on youtube. It always makes me laugh when I see a politician who clearly knows very little about technology, looking very out of place delivering some sort of internet address. I think those who aren't comfortable on camera are going to increasingly weeded out of politics. This is not neccesarily a good thing...but that is tangential.

[Back]

I dunno...

The party of conservatism (read not likely to accept change) wants the status quo? Right? Keep things the way they are.

The liberal party is all about change. Lets change things and make them better. Lets not hold on to old failed systems.

[Kuyuk]

lol.

Perhaps.

But if you look at a few of the basics, Republicans dont want change, they want to know what the future holds for them and their kids. Dems want change, even it it could possibly mean making things worse - but hey, at least they tried right?

I dont really know. As I said before, I know shit about politics, and should just shut up while I'm behind.

I could share my views and desires of our government, but no one agrees with them usually, so it's safer to save my thoughts.

[Back]

lol.

Perhaps.

But if you look at a few of the basics, Republicans dont want change, they want to know what the future holds for them and their kids. Dems want change, even it it could possibly mean making things worse - but hey, at least they tried right?

I dont really know. As I said before, I know shit about politics, and should just shut up while I'm behind.

I could share my views and desires of our government, but no one agrees with them usually, so it's safer to save my thoughts.

These kinds of discussions are usually baited. So I don’t blame you.

But in all honesty... they are challenges by the weak-minded.

[Tisket]

Those technologies absolutely helped out in politics. The first practical use for the telegraph was actually for political purposes.

It helped out one party more than another?

[Androidpk]

Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to bait anyone. I've got a 4 part, 3000 word report I have to write concerning political realignments, generational change, and new technological tools. So any input I get is helpful. :)

[Androidpk]

It helped out one party more than another?

Possibly, whoever had the foresight to utilize it for what it was worth.

[Tisket]

I guess I am confused about what you are trying to imply then. We've had a shift to the left in politics and you are saying it's because of social networking sites like facebook and myspace. So in a few years when it swings back (which it will) it will be social networking then too that accomplishes this?

[Tisket]

Change happens and political evolution will continue to happen whether or not existing technology crashes tomorrow. But saying that this or that technology was some kind of revolutionary basis for that change is just ignorant (I mean that in general, not you in particular). Just my opinion. Not trying to be argumentative about it but I really think change is too complex to attribute to one thing. Even though Obama would have had us believe otherwise...

[Androidpk]

Yes and no. A political realignment usually means that many years of dominant rule by one party is disrupted by a weaker political party. It is usually a major economic or social crisis that kickstarts this. The underlying reason though is typically the coming of age of the new generation and the advancements in communications that generation grew up with. Baby boomers growing up with TV, or this current generation growing up with internet and cell phones.

[Daniel]

I'd also chalk it up to the Republican party's affinity for going rogue over completely dumb shit.

[Androidpk]

I'd also chalk it up to the Republican parties affinity for going rogue over completely dumb shit.


:lol:

[Androidpk]

Just my opinion. Not trying to be argumentative about it but I really think change is too complex to attribute to one thing. Even though Obama would have had us believe otherwise...

It isn't just one thing, it's a combination of 3 things I believe.

1. Crisis.
2. New generation with strong believes that wants to participate in politics.
3. A new means of communication that lets politicians get their message out to new people.

[Daniel]

Lol. I was being half serious with that. I'd attribute the Democrats success in the last two terms because of their ability to recognize and tap into a shifting political current which can be characterized by two failing wars and a complete clusterfuck of an economy.

The Republicans on the other hand have refused to re-evaluate their tactics and instead insist on simply talking louder when people don't want to listen to them, literally.

Also, keep in mind, the democratic party is taking a lot of heavy gambles, Healthcare, Energy, etc which make them vulnerable come election time. I'd be careful in trying to make the link that ths is a profound ideological shift in America because it's way too early to tell. All it takes is one rational Republican combined with increasing hubris on the democratic side (Pelosi et. al) to equalize the national debate.

That could be sufficient to stem the tide until Republicans as a group become more mainstream with the technological generation or otherwise find ways to mobilize that demographic (Bobby Jindal or any other politician from Louisiana is not going to do that btw).

I too think the 2010 elections will be a critical test and will go a long way in telling us where we may be headed. It wil be interesting to see how Republicans position themselves and how much Obama gets involved (which hes shown an inclination to do) to ensure Democrats don't fuck some thing sup.

[Gan]

So basically,

http://www.apileofdogbones.com/images/uploads/free_candy_van.jpg


A democrat would take a ride in that van while a republican wouldn't?

A republican is most likely driving it...

[Androidpk]

I think there is a HUGE difference in idealogical realignment and political. Political realignments are short lived and then things usually swing back to how they were.

[Back]

Its time for SNL.

Get back to you on this whole “alignment” thing.

[Daniel]

True. However, I think by neccessity you will see an ideological re-alignment over the economy within the next 20 years.

The question becoming what causes it.

[Androidpk]

True. However, I think by neccessity you will see an ideological re-alignment over the economy within the next 20 years.

The question becoming what causes it.


WW3 with China.

[Androidpk]

Neg rep - Political realignment. 10-03-2009 11:19 PM And a moderate would do this: rep you down. Idiot.

I love how some people have no sense of humor :)

[Rocktar]

The liberal party is all about change. Lets change things and make them better. Lets not hold on to old failed systems.

Noooooooo, they don't want to hold on to what has worked for 200 years, they want to adopt new failed systems proven to fail in 60 years or less. Socialism for example.

As to the question in this thread, I think that technology had a great deal to do with it. I also think that as you mention a whole generation of touchy feely whiny kids got old enough to vote and went out and did so. This is a generation of people who didn't learn in school that life takes work, that the government isn't there to give you everything and that there is a huge civic duty to voting. In short, they want their government dole and can't see past their cell phone as to the damage it is causing to take it. They have little or no time perspective because they weren't taught it and they can't see or plan past the end of the week.

I also think the Republicans need to tell the fundamental right to shut the fuck up and deal. After all who else are the fundies going to back? Abortion isn't going away, neither are homosexual relationships, organized prayer isn't coming back to schools and lastly, you they need to recognize that abstinence only teaching isn't going to work. Republicans could come nearly all the way back in the polls if they came to a more ideologically middle ground and a sound financial conservative base. Add a decent looking and well trained public speaker to the mix and Obama would not have a chance in hell of reelection. If you take out the religiously based, more extreme ideas, and go on ideology alone, Republican positions win pretty regularly, add a fiscal responsibility to it and you can really show some good poll numbers.

Now, if only someone came along in the Republican party that looked like the average kind of guy, had a good speaking voice and spoke with confidence and conviction without sounding like he was on the defensive all the time or being whiny.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. I was being half serious with that. I'd attribute the Democrats success in the last two terms because of their ability to recognize and tap into a shifting political current which can be characterized by two failing wars and a complete clusterfuck of an economy.

I wouldn't. I would attribute the Democrats taking Republican points and making them their own... ie-Economy, taxes, etc. What is it that Obama promised before he was elected.. that he would turn this economy around and that 95% of all Americans would get a tax cut. Those are Republican talking points, certainly not Democrat... and Obama had higher marks in both cases than McCain. Add to the mix the general distaste for the outgoing Republican administration and you have the recipe for a Democratic win.



The Republicans on the other hand have refused to re-evaluate their tactics and instead insist on simply talking louder when people don't want to listen to them, literally.

Not really. The Republicans nominated a weak Republican.. in essence, a "blue dog" Democrat to run for President. The Conservatives were displeased with him from the get go.. and that is a huge voting block. There was absolutely no excitement in the party to have McCain as the nominee.



Also, keep in mind, the democratic party is taking a lot of heavy gambles, Healthcare, Energy, etc which make them vulnerable come election time. I'd be careful in trying to make the link that ths is a profound ideological shift in America because it's way too early to tell. All it takes is one rational Republican combined with increasing hubris on the democratic side (Pelosi et. al) to equalize the national debate.

The reason the Democrats are taking on such "gambles" is because they can essentially push through whatever they want in order to solidify their power because they have the votes. If Democrats didn't have a huge majority in both houses, we wouldn't hear a thing about Healthcare or Cap and Trade or Card Check.



That could be sufficient to stem the tide until Republicans as a group become more mainstream with the technological generation or otherwise find ways to mobilize that demographic (Bobby Jindal or any other politician from Louisiana is not going to do that btw).

I disagree. The Republicans need to distance themselves from the Blue Blood Republicans and go more conservative. Most Americans view themselves as Conservative when polled.. now we just need a candidate that walks the talk.



I too think the 2010 elections will be a critical test and will go a long way in telling us where we may be headed. It wil be interesting to see how Republicans position themselves and how much Obama gets involved (which hes shown an inclination to do) to ensure Democrats don't fuck some thing sup.

My concerns have always been the extreme swings of the political pendulum. Obama is by far the most left leaning President we have ever had... and when the tide turns, I certainly hope the country doesn't choose the most right leaning President we have ever had. We need to slow the pendulum down and catch our collective breaths... and find someone in the right-middle to steer this country back on track.

[Deathravin]

Republicans could come nearly all the way back in the polls if they came to a more ideologically middle ground and a sound financial conservative base.

As long as they stick to their financially conservative guns. Rolling out law after law without paying for it isn't very conservative.

It was a combination of a lot of factors but one was the fact that republicans said one thing and did another for the last 8 years, and people got fed up with it. The modern Republican party just aren't republicans anymore. In speech after speech they're conservative, and in practice they're very fiscally liberal. The problem is people are sheep to the media, and don't look at facts.

The 2010 election is going to be very red. I think the religious/extreme right and even moderate rights are riled up enough at the moment to gain a lot of ground in the house & senate. And a lot of the Dems out there I've spoken with have lost faith in their own party.

I really hope we're headed for a political shift in this country away from the standard 2 party system. Since neither party has been very good.

And Ron Paul needs to form a new party, because modern republicans don't believe what he does. I've said this before, but we either need a Ron Paul-esque government, or a lot more taxes and more democratic ("socialist") policies. Shit or get off the pot.

[Jarvan]

My two silver Pieces...

My political science professor always told us that you can't run a government long term on an extreme. You have to find the middle ground, cause that is the only thing likely to be accepted by both sides, and stay after one party is gone. We have had, as the poster above me put it, to many pendulum swings recently.


On another note, the reason young people tend to register Democrat 2:1 are a number of reasons. And anyone that says the only reason is that democratic values is better should make sure they arn't the living dead in a movie. Allot of it has to do with trends in teaching, media, and rebelion against their parents. Also, non-partisan voter registration groups that seem to ONLY. or I should rephrase that, generally register one party 95%+ may skew those figures as well. ( When I was in college I was registered by a group that told me I could register however I wanted, so i put down independant, I later got my card saying I was a democrat) Now, I agree, some of them may truly believe being a Liberal is better then being anything else. And while I do not say there is anything wrong with being a liberal, there is also nothing wrong with NOT being a liberal.

IF, and thats a BIG IF, there is a generational realignment in political ideology, then it will be short lived. people will realize fairly fast that no one side of a two sided power structure should ever be the sole power. ( and a two sided power structure SUCKS ) Sadly, we are already on our way to "Bread and Circuses".

Just remember these simple facts... You are not paranoid if the Black helicopters are really following you, You can get a BJ from an employee and it isn't cheating on your wife, Starting a war and winning it for the wrong reasons is just as stupid as starting a war and losing for the right ones, And only in America can you have people with a job doing on average 27% quality and still keep it.

[Parkbandit]

As long as they stick to their financially conservative guns. Rolling out law after law without paying for it isn't very conservative.

It was a combination of a lot of factors but one was the fact that republicans said one thing and did another for the last 8 years, and people got fed up with it. The modern Republican party just aren't republicans anymore. In speech after speech they're conservative, and in practice they're very fiscally liberal. The problem is people are sheep to the media, and don't look at facts.

I read today that McCan't is trying to reshape the Republican Party... why doesn't he just join the Democrats already!?



The 2010 election is going to be very red. I think the religious/extreme right and even moderate rights are riled up enough at the moment to gain a lot of ground in the house & senate. And a lot of the Dems out there I've spoken with have lost faith in their own party.

The Pendulum is swinging.. and "God" help us if we don't slow it down. A radical Conservative is just as bad as a radical Liberal.



I really hope we're headed for a political shift in this country away from the standard 2 party system. Since neither party has been very good.

And Ron Paul needs to form a new party, because modern republicans don't believe what he does. I've said this before, but we either need a Ron Paul-esque government, or a lot more taxes and more democratic ("socialist") policies. Shit or get off the pot.

The problem with Ron Paul is he's a radical Conservative. Doing away with the IRS, FBI, etc.. isn't the way to win elections or even be taken seriously. While I could get on board with his tax reform and his smaller government, he takes it to the extreme.

[Deathravin]

The problem with Ron Paul is he's a radical Conservative.

and much closer to what the founding fathers envisioned for this country.

[Kuyuk]

and much closer to what the founding fathers envisioned for this country.

While I agree that small government is what was envisioned etc. and I am most likely to agree - in the 200 years since our inception, a lot has changed in the world. Unfortunately, all of the technological advances and global threats have created the need for large government bodies for protection, surveillance, etc.

As far as other government bodies, IRS, SS, Healthcare, et. I wouldnt mind seeing them dissolve somewhat to become state ran organizations. It would give each state something to differentiate itself from another, and perhaps would be a drawing factor in where to live, instead of everyone flocking to florida/california.

[Kembal]

II disagree. The Republicans need to distance themselves from the Blue Blood Republicans and go more conservative. Most Americans view themselves as Conservative when polled.. now we just need a candidate that walks the talk.

Key point to remember about that polling (assuming it wasn't done by Strategic Vision, since it appears they made up their polling numbers): Many older-generation minorities in the U.S. are socially conservative (African-Americans, Hispanics, even Indian-Americans). However, they still vote largely for Democrats because the Republican party has not figured out how to reach out to minorities. (To George W. Bush's credit, he had figured that out pretty well! His party just rejected it.)

[Kembal]

While I agree that small government is what was envisioned etc. and I am most likely to agree - in the 200 years since our inception, a lot has changed in the world. Unfortunately, all of the technological advances and global threats have created the need for large government bodies for protection, surveillance, etc.

As far as other government bodies, IRS, SS, Healthcare, et. I wouldnt mind seeing them dissolve somewhat to become state ran organizations. It would give each state something to differentiate itself from another, and perhaps would be a drawing factor in where to live, instead of everyone flocking to florida/california.

Health insurance is state-regulated right now. That's one of the reasons it's a mess.

[Jarvan]

Health insurance is one of those Loaded questions.

Should everyone have access to quality healthcare? - Yes.

Should healthcare be easy to access and affordable? - Yes

Should I have to pay 15% or more of my salary for everyone to have healthcare? ... that seems to depend. if you don't make much if any money (or are rich to the point you know you can get out of paying it anyway - cough- politicians -cough-) then the answer is yes. if you are a hard working person that is doing decent for themself, generally, no.

There are so many problems in the healthcare industry it's sad. Dr's practice defensive medicine due to so many different factors that you can't name one.
Point in fact, my mother was in a bad car accident last year. 11 broken ribs and a head wound. she is 57 years old at the time. She had her tubes tied about 28 years ago. They gave her a pregnancy test and charged her 200 bucks for it. Why, cause if they hadn't and it turned out she was pregnant, and something happened to the baby, they could have been sued. Some Hospitals have a standing policy, that any female over the age of 12 must have one to be admitted to the hospital.

In other cases it's just as stupid for different reasons. here is a little known fact, there are more MRI machines in Pittsburg then in Canada. Why? Cause anytime anything happens they have to send you for an MRI to make sure there isn't something else wrong. A decent amount of the time, the DR sending you for one, has a stake in the MRI place you are going, or gets a referral fee. That part is just good old Universal greed. Course.. you know what the problem with defensive medicine is, sometimes you DO catch things you would have missed.

It's funny really, Both parties sprout the same words, lower costs, lower costs, cover more people. Here is the problem, unless the government is going to put a price fix, or price freeze on medical services, you can't lower costs. Dr's charge what people will pay. Or what insurance companies give them. ( and btw, insurance companies pay them a sizeable chunk more then Uncle Sam wants to) Even if you do Tort reform, and eliminate the administrative costs for Dr's, do you really think they will lower their prices out of the kindness of their hearts? It's like most things, once Prices go up on something, they tend to never really go back down.

Best thing I ever saw from a universal healthcare system is France.
they have it.

they also recommend you buy Additional coverage. ( yay universal ) And their version of covering illegal immigrants, or just about anyone not native to france... if you are going to be there living or working for an extended period of time, you have to show PROOF of medical coverage to a certain point, which I believe is 35k$ to be eligable for a work Visa.

Course.. we can't require our Illegals to get Work Visa's.. cause that would mean tracking them.. and that just isn't fair.

[Paradii]

if you don't make much if any money (or are rich to the point you know you can get out of paying it anyway - cough- politicians -cough-) then the answer is yes. if you are a hard working person that is doing decent for themself, generally, no.




Why did you make the assumption that people that don't make a decent amount of money aren't hard working?

[Daniel]

I wouldn't. I would attribute the Democrats taking Republican points and making them their own... ie-Economy, taxes, etc. What is it that Obama promised before he was elected.. that he would turn this economy around and that 95% of all Americans would get a tax cut. Those are Republican talking points, certainly not Democrat... and Obama had higher marks in both cases than McCain. Add to the mix the general distaste for the outgoing Republican administration and you have the recipe for a Democratic win.



Not really. The Republicans nominated a weak Republican.. in essence, a "blue dog" Democrat to run for President. The Conservatives were displeased with him from the get go.. and that is a huge voting block. There was absolutely no excitement in the party to have McCain as the nominee.



The reason the Democrats are taking on such "gambles" is because they can essentially push through whatever they want in order to solidify their power because they have the votes. If Democrats didn't have a huge majority in both houses, we wouldn't hear a thing about Healthcare or Cap and Trade or Card Check.



I disagree. The Republicans need to distance themselves from the Blue Blood Republicans and go more conservative. Most Americans view themselves as Conservative when polled.. now we just need a candidate that walks the talk.



My concerns have always been the extreme swings of the political pendulum. Obama is by far the most left leaning President we have ever had... and when the tide turns, I certainly hope the country doesn't choose the most right leaning President we have ever had. We need to slow the pendulum down and catch our collective breaths... and find someone in the right-middle to steer this country back on track.



Okay. Well, see you 2010.

[Androidpk]

Rocktar, I think you are being way too harsh on the current generation. If anything, they're showing that they have a LOT in common with the GI generation.

[Latrinsorm]

The Democrat party is not the liberal party, it is the Democrat party.

The Republican party is not the conservative party, it is the Republican party.

Like every other political group since the dawn of history, there are no (actual) immutable mandates describing their platforms. Conservatism (or liberalism) is not a life form capable of acting in furtherance of its desires, it's a theory that politicians will borrow from as it suits their needs.

.


Not really. The Republicans nominated a weak Republican.. in essence, a "blue dog" Democrat to run for President. The Conservatives were displeased with him from the get go.. and that is a huge voting block. There was absolutely no excitement in the party to have McCain as the nominee."Conservative" isn't a voting bloc, and Senator McCain's problem was that he wasn't party-transcendent enough, not that he was party-transcendent at all.
Obama is by far the most left leaning President we have ever hadReally, more leftist than President F. Roosevelt?

[Methais]

You think so? I'm thinking the current realignment started when the democrats took back congress in 2006, Obama and the 2008 election was just the final nail in the coffin. Look at Obama's unprecedented use of the internet as means of communicating, as well as the number of people from the millennial generation that voted for him.

Don't forget about the number of people that voted for him, and then realized what they got instead despite the media's best attempts to hide it from them.

[Methais]

I dunno...

The party of conservatism (read not likely to accept change) wants the status quo? Right? Keep things the way they are.

The liberal party is all about change. Lets change things and make them better. Lets not hold on to old failed systems.

Yeah. Instead, let's adopt new systems that fail even more.

They're not about change, not the Obama slogan change anyway. They're about seizing control of your life in the name of change.


After all who else are the fundies going to back?

Fundies?
http://hight3ch.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Fundies.jpg

[Androidpk]

Don't forget about the number of people that voted for him, and then realized what they got instead despite what the media's best attempts to hide it from them.


Which is why most realignments, including this one, are short lived.

[Parkbandit]

"Conservative" isn't a voting bloc, and Senator McCain's problem was that he wasn't party-transcendent enough, not that he was party-transcendent at all.

That's your narrow-minded opinion... nothing more.



Really, more leftist than President F. Roosevelt?

Yes.

[Ker_Thwap]

The young tend to have an overinflated sense of their political might given the current technological ease with which they can interact with each other. They confuse their slacktivism for actual change, they think that because a certain party is elected that there will be actual change.

They grow old, accumulate wealth, finally realize that one party is no better than the other. I felt kind of bad for all of my young "anti-war" friends who expected the new president and congress to get us out of Iraq, end corporate welfare, etc. Instead it's just been more business as usual in Washington. The business of running the country marches on.

It's really kind of like having your team win the Superbowl, you still have to get up and go to work the next morning, nothing really changes. The political pendulum swings back and forth slowly, Democrats and Republicans steal each others platforms over the years. Extremists on both sides continue to spout nonsense, and the moderates continue to quietly run the country fairly efficiently.

I like this country.

[Mabus]

The young tend to have an overinflated sense of their political might given the current technological ease with which they can interact with each other. They confuse their slacktivism for actual change, they think that because a certain party is elected that there will be actual change.
We have to also factor in that the unemployment rate for the 16-24 age group is hovering around 50%.

When you are overly idealistic, want to party, and don't have a job you want entitlements (parental or governmental). When you get a bit more cynical, settle down, and work for a living your attitude can change.

[Androidpk]

We have to also factor in that the unemployment rate for the 16-24 age group is hovering around 50%.

When you are overly idealistic, want to party, and don't have a job you want entitlements (parental or governmental). When you get a bit more cynical, settle down, and work for a living your attitude can change.

Way to generalize an entire generation.

[Reawing]

I think the wildcard in the entire situation is the news media. On both sides, the 24/7 news cycle has made people give a crap about things nobody used to give a crap about. I mean, FOX actually CREATED Tea Parties. MSNBC spends their day justifying everything the Democrats do, FOX spends the whole day criticizing them and CNN, almost worst of all, just keeps asking its viewers what they think... I don't turn on the TV to see what my damn neighbor things about healthcare reform. Most people are so easily herded by whatever they watch.

That said, I see your point Ker_Thwap about the pendulum. It does seem that way. However, I think that the inevitable globilization that we are going through makes everything we do now that much more important for long term viability as an economic empire. This seems like an important time in what will one day be American History. People who are passionate about that, show their opinions loudly, just as they did in previous generations. I think that the world was very different when the baby boomers grew up from when their parents were young, and things will no doubt be different when GEN-Y is finished making their mark as well.

Reawing

[Parkbandit]

I think the wildcard in the entire situation is the news media. On both sides, the 24/7 news cycle has made people give a crap about things nobody used to give a crap about. I mean, FOX actually CREATED Tea Parties.

Incorrect. It was actually a reporter for CNBC that first suggested it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

[Mabus]

Way to generalize an entire generation.
Of course it is generalization, even an over-generalization.

Are you stating that none of your statements in this thread are generalizations? That would be preposterous.

Not all the youth are unemployed party-monkeys with a zeal for liberal political discourse.

Employment:
About half are unemployed. Last statistic I saw was 52.2% of non-school goers aged 16-24 were unemployed. How do they live? They are given their food, shelter, clothing and other items by someone, whether family or through governmental programs. I am sure some subset also works "under the table", not paying into the very taxes they call to be redistributed.

Drugs and Alcohol:
Considering that around 200,000 drug arrests per year are juveniles, and that a substantial portion of drug and alcohol arrests (and commitment into care for these issues) are prevalent in those from 18-24 there are many that do "party".

Liberal Ages:
During working years people are more apt to be considered more "conservative". Most do not want their own money taken from them to be spent on governmental programs (though they may not mind seeing others money spent on the programs, and if affected positively by the programs do not usually want the programs to disappear).

Pre-work and post-work (retirement), people develop more "liberal" attitudes towards entitlements. I place this at the feet of human rationalization. When someone "needs" a handout (or is used to a sense of entitlement) they are more likely to believe that there is nothing wrong with handouts.

This is of course all just opinion, but I hope it explains my line of thought a bit more then the short sentences I posted previously.

[Androidpk]

I'm pretty sure the unemployment numbers don't take into account people that do volunteer services like Peace Corps and Americorps. Compared to previous generations the current generation does an extreme amount of voluntary civic work.

Reawing, media has always been politically biased, nothing new there.

[Valthissa]

Compared to previous generations the current generation does an extreme amount of voluntary civic work.



I suggest that we wait and see how the current generation volunteers over the next 40 years before we conclude that the rate is extreme by comparison.

I think the average volunteer rates are about:

25% for those born between 1910 and 1945 and 30% for those born between '46 and '64.

Youth rates are up from 22% 30 years ago to 28% in '06, but these rates rise and fall over time. (28% is significantly higher than the 1910-1930 crowd at the same point, but it's still early to be reaching conclusions)

C/Valth

[Latrinsorm]

About half are unemployed. Last statistic I saw was 52.2% of non-school goers aged 16-24 were unemployed. How do they live? They are given their food, shelter, clothing and other items by someone, whether family or through governmental programs. I am sure some subset also works "under the table", not paying into the very taxes they call to be redistributed.Why did you chose the demographic 16-24, as opposed to 18-24?

[Reawing]

I'm pretty sure the unemployment numbers don't take into account people that do volunteer services like Peace Corps and Americorps. Compared to previous generations the current generation does an extreme amount of voluntary civic work.

Reawing, media has always been politically biased, nothing new there.

I'm not saying its new. I am saying it holds more sway. Before the advent of television, politics was a much different animal. After TV, you had the Nixon-Kennedy debates in which Nixon's body language on TV made him less likable. Now with cable, we have everything that happens in Washington disected and spoonfed to us like babies by the 24 hour news network who often have their own point of view. (Except for CNN which apparently has no point of view because they keep asking for ours, which drives me nuts...I'd rather them report the news instead of asking my opinion.)

I agree with you, its not new (Politics in the media). But it is certainly more concentrated and intense...which definately has an impact on the zeal of people who might otherwise have not botered.

-Reawing

[Drew]

Do keep in mind that the rate of young people voting has stayed static for 50 years (all the young people in the late 60s really thought they were changing the world too). As someone mentioned before the very young (and also very old) tend to trend Democrat. Those in between vote Republican. America has a historically low birth rate so there won't be proportionally as many young people, but their should be a greater proportion of elderly. My guess, it probably balances out.

[Reawing]

Incorrect. It was actually a reporter for CNBC that first suggested it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

My mistake. That said, while this reporter from CNBC suggested it, FOX certainly has put some effort into making the idea viable.

-Reawing

[Androidpk]

Do keep in mind that the rate of young people voting has stayed static for 50 years (all the young people in the late 60s really thought they were changing the world too).

Not true. Young voter turnout increased for the first time in 20 years in the 2006 elections.

[Drew]

Fair enough. However young people always vote in lower numbers than any other eligible age group and voter turnout increases almost always mirror overall increases in voter turnout. For instance there was higher turnout this last election amongst youths but their was also higher general turnout.

[Androidpk]

Voting turnout in general does increase during civic type realignments. By the way, in the 2020 presidential elections all of the millennial generation will be of voting age with around 90 million eligible voters.

[Mabus]

Why did you chose the demographic 16-24, as opposed to 18-24?
That was the Bureau of Labor provided range for the unemployment rate. You would have to ask them why it was compiled that way. I then kept it for the secondary usage (alcohol and drug use), but without any other reason then it was the range previously used.

[Latrinsorm]

That was the Bureau of Labor provided range for the unemployment rate. You would have to ask them why it was compiled that way. I then kept it for the secondary usage (alcohol and drug use), but without any other reason then it was the range previously used.I see.
Fair enough.No, YOU'RE like an asshole! :)