Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (26959)	8/22/2006 11:19:35 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541941

A question off the top of my head - why didn't landslide Republican victories in 1972 and 1984 lead to permanent conservative majorities, if this causal relationship holds up over time? Why were liberals elected in 1976 and 1992? Why is there no conservative majority voting bloc today? Perhaps it doesn't.

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (26959)	8/22/2006 11:34:07 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541941

80% surprises me a bit. If that's true and it holds, and the "fertility gap" also holds, eventually it could be a big issue. Not necessarily a decisive issue, if other trends go against conservatives it might be more a factor that saves conservatives than one that allows them to dominate. Also if the electorate does become more conservative you probably will have both parties move to the right and still have some balance between the parties. Any way you slice it there is a lot of "ifs", but it could be an important factor at some point. I wonder how long their has been a wide fertility gap. I notice the article says "Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today." If so you would think that Republicans would be doing better. OTOH Republican isn't synonymous with conservative, and actual conservatives where in a week position 30 or 40 years ago, and they have indeed gotten a lot stronger, while the Republican party has gotten moderately stronger. The Republicans might not do well in 2008, but that could be blamed on Iraq or on other aspects of the Bush presidency. It would seem the conservatives that would be helped the most are the "cultural/religious conservatives. There might be some correlation between that group and support of other aspects of conservatism or other ideas supported by the Republican party, but I'm sure its not 80%. If we assume that the claims of the article are both true and durable, and that there is no major factor or group of factors to counteract the predicted effect, than the Republican party might become "the religious right party" (I know some will claim it already is, but it really isn't). Other Republicans might leave the party. Which again might keep balance between the parties. In that moves the Democrats to the right I might wind up actually voting for a Democrat at some point in the future, but if the Democratic party does move so much to the right, there will (despite any fertility gap) be a lot of people on the left of American politics without a party to call home. They might form a socialist/green/pacifist party, more likely they will stay and there will be a lot of battles within the Democratic party (if the non-religious right Republicans start moving to the Democrats), or within the Republican party (if they stay in the party and fight). Tim

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (26959)	8/22/2006 12:20:39 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541941

Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Glenn, if you can find some research that supports the 80% claim, I would be grateful. It just doesn't sound right, given the kind of cyclical nature of American politics in the last 50 or so years. In addition, there is more than a little anecdotal evidence that the opposite dynamic plays a role, rebellion against parents leads t different political allegiances. If politics was important to the parents.