Slashdot Mirror
The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties
HughPickens.com writes: Daniel McGraw writes that based on their demographic characteristics the Democratic and Republican parties face two very different futures. There's been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there's been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older and far more Republicans than Democrats have died since the 2012 elections. By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, McGraw calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. About 2.3 million of President Barack Obama's voters have died too but that leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats. "I've never seen anyone doing any studies on how many dead people can't vote," laughs William Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in demographic studies. "I've seen studies on how many dead people do vote. The old Daley Administration in Chicago was very good at that."
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
It boggles my mind, the extent to which U.S. culture only sees two different possibilities. It makes me want to take up smoking and jogging just to see if anyone's ears start bleeding.
One assumption that this summary makes is that people do not switch party affiliations throughout their life. I used to be Republican, but have wised up as I've gotten older. However, I understand that typically as folks get older they tend to do the opposite of what I did (though I have no source to cite for this). Nonetheless, if true, it would mean that Republicans have nothing to fear from the changing demographics. Unless the article addresses this, the information presented is meaningless.
These trends are not new. The sole reason there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the massive gerrymandering that took place in the last decades. Democrats have consistently won the "popular" vote for the house, but districts are tactically set to favor Republicans almost across the board.
The districts are this way because while Millennials do indeed skew heavily liberal/Democrat/progressive, they tend to NOT get involved in state and local politics. Republican governors and state legislatures used the last gasps of the dying generation to secure powerful gerrymandered districts ensuring the GOP holds onto the house, at least until the next census.
An interesting side effect, however, is that these artificial superdistricts are such that the Republican is practically guaranteed to win it in the general election. Thus, far-right tea party nonsense candidates can appeal to their local base without much fear of throwing the actual election over to the Democrats. The safer these districts are for Republicans, the further right, racist, sexist, and old they'll skew for the foreseeable future.
Until young people get active in local and state politics, then it literally is a game of just waiting for the current old set in those places to die of old age.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Just because dead people are registered to vote doesn't make it voter fraud (it makes it registration fraud, but that's completely different). Now, if you had dead people actually voting (setting IL aside), then you might have a problem. However, the linked article says:
There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.
Using this as a basis for demanding IDs to vote is completely dishonest and disenfranchises far more people from voting than you'd catch or prevent at voter fraud. My town sends out a yearly census that you fill out and send back in. Verify your registration details, sign, and send back in (you can probably also deposit it by hand at town hall or fill out the forms there). Not filling it out implies they'll take you off the voter rolls, and seems to be a good compromise if there's no reply after a few years.
So long America, we hardly knew ye. Just wait until these self-entitled fuckers vote themselves into retirement poverty, then complain about how life isn't fair.
Im pretty sure millennials dont watch the 700 club.
How stupid does the OP think Slashdot readers are? The text says "how many dead people vote", but the link goes to an article about how many dead people are still *registered*.
In many of those cases, their drivers licenses are still valid; shall we have a good scare about dead people driving? FEAR THE ZOMBIE TRAFFIC JAM!
It's been pretty much normal since FDR's day for young people to (tend to) vote Democrat and older people to (tend to) vote Republican.
And yet the Republican Party hasn't disappeared. Probably because some of those young D's eventually grow up to be old R's.
Note that the reasons for that transition are manifold, but I suspect largely a matter of the definition of "conservative" and "liberal" (which definitions have been shifting as time passes - what is "liberal" today will be "normal" tomorrow and "conservative" the day after).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I tend to think that's a bigger factor. I don't like EITHER of those parties; they are both Orwellian assholes, but there's a strong component of the tragedy of the commons in election systems. It's human nature to want to benefit the most personally, even if that is at the expense oft he whole. So we are running hundreds of billions of dollars of budget deficit, while transferring ever larger amounts of money around from here to there, with all the overhead and waste and corruption that goes along. The party that promises the most "free" stuff will tend on average to get more votes. Because free stuff!
So we have real problems with poverty and people trapped in bad life conditions, and we spent HUGE amounts of money but somehow never really make a dent in the problem. We don't make fixes, we just put band-aids over the cuts and pretend things are okay, all while bankrupting ourselves.
Fox News, perhaps the greatest grassroots triumph of the Republican Party since Reagan left office, is starting to become a liability for the party. Sure, it's evening newscasts still trounce CNN and the others in the ratings, but everyone (including Republicans themselves) views Fox News as the voice of the GOP. And it's a dogmatic, right wing voice down the line on economic and domestic issues, the voice the helped destroy the Republican Party in the northeast (practically all of the party's leading politicians there have been derided as RINOs by the rest of the party). It appeals most directly to older white voters, as TFS points out; these are the people who tune in night after night to watch Bill O'Reilly.
Personally, as a former independent who now votes consistently Democratic, I'd love to see the revival of the northeast Republican wing of the party. It was the POV of pragmatic businessmen, not conservative ideologues who wanted to enforce the teachings of the Bible while ensuring that America "stood tall" militarily in the Middle East, and against Russia.
is that the party that moves to the center and focuses on issues that face most voters, such as the economy, financial security, etc. and doesn't let their lunatic fringe who focus on one issue, that the majority of voters either don't care about or don't agree with, decide what the party stands for will gain support. However, as long as candidates are decided by primaries and millennials don't vote in them the parties will not change. The one thing politicians fear more than lack of money is lack of voter support, and the first time a politician loses a primary because he or she pandered to the fringe of their party in order to win but winds up losing to a more mainstream candidate they will take notice. There is no wake up call like getting your butt whipped in a fight.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
So, what you're saying is that America is doomed. It will belong to the Gimmees.
The fact is there is one government and two major marketing organizations, Democrats and Republicans. As long as these two groups hold power the government will just continue on its current course. People are so gullible that they buy hook line and sinker what is feed to them by their designated marketing arm, which is mostly fear that the other side will do something bad. History in my lifetime has proven that once elected Democrats or Republicans govern in exactly the same way. The talking points on each side are just lip service to make sure they keep their designated demographics in line.
The only way to have a meaningful vote is to vote 3rd party. Voting D or R is a thrown away vote unless you love the status quo.
As millenials and other young Democrats age and get more wealth and power, they will turn into Republicans.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Both parties would do a lot better if they stayed the fuck out of people's personal business, stopped over-regulating businesses and.. *everything*... stopped with the excessive social programs, and were more fiscally responsible.
Unfortunately, both are difference sides of the same coin. There is very little difference. Fuck, they're practically the *same* sides of the same coin.
So really . . . who gives a shit?
Last year, the Republicans came out in droves based on their platform of "voting for a Democrat is voting for Obama's policies." - that's it. The Republicans had nothing else to offer and they won. As a the result of the low Democrat turnout, Georgia sent another Teabagger nut to the Senate (Perdue).
Although, both parties put up candidates that were from political dynasties (Perdue(R) and Nunn(D)), Perdue was a CEO who had a direct hand in offshoring jobs and helped with the non-existent recovery from '08 we are having. The excuse I heard from Democrats was that Nunn wasn't didn't inspire. She is a moderate Dem - she'd probably be a Republican in California or Mass.
Anyway, my point is the Republicans know how to use their base and scare them into thinking that a democrat lead socialist takeover is just around the corner and they need to get out the vote.
The democrats sit home, sip coffee, and bitch and moan on Reddit - at least I voted before I bitched and moaned on Reddit.
. . . people tend to become more conservative once they start paying taxes and have personal responsibilities like families and a mortgage.
viewpoints in order to get new voters? Great, sign me up for a slice of "no thanks!" I'll go back to the OTHER party also controlled by the plutocrats. That'll, uh, show em...?
I don't think this is really news, every generation has started out liberal and grown conservative as they age. In fact there is a quote that is attributed to many different people that goes something like this. "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no head."
Did the study factor in the known phenomenon of dead Democrats voting in Chicago?
All those dead people voting = more democrat votes cast.
Welcome to the nation of Chicago.
...decide to back legalizing pot and abandon their sex war against abortion, contraception and gays and probably pick up a lot of voters who might otherwise go Democratic.
Backing pot legalization would probably be popular with white collar swing voters who probably like the Republicans on taxes and ultimately take a lot of the harassment heat off blacks by stripping the police of one of their major repression avenues. They might even temper it by announcing that they're going to repurpose those resources being even more law and order on other criminal justice issues to mollify the cops and the law-and-order segment of the electorate.
Ending the anti-sex campaign against women may be even more beneficial. I've read that a lot of middle class women tend towards a certain conservatism and if you stop acting completely anti-woman this could be a major source of support.
Both parties are so close for the most part that it seems like only semi-radical changes on a handful of small issues is necessary to move swing voters. And both of these issues are big from a publicity perspective but probably less meaningful to the corporate guys who fund them.
Republicans could still be the anti-tax/pro-corporate party, pro-military and keep most of their base intact. They may alienate born agains and some law and order cranks with those changes, but who are those people going to vote for anyway? They're not going to vote for tax-hiking, gun-grabbing, affirmative action Democrats (intentional facetious remarks) no matter what.
It's harder to see the issues on which Democrats could being "radical" on. About the only one I can think of is giving up on their general penchant for gun control. They might consider bring more pro-labor when it comes to issues of immigration/H1-Bs but this runs counter to their larger embrace of multiculturalism and also gets them in trouble with Silicon Valley money that wants more tech immigrants.
Look no further than California, Maryland, and Illinois. The 3rd District of MD is an absolute abomination. Hell, the term "gerrymandering" itself is named after Governor Gerry of Massachusetts who was lampooned for signing odd-shaped state senate districts into law. But yeah, fuck all of the Republicans in those deep blue states -- as long as your team wins, right?
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah-Jan. 4, 1977 Thad Cochran, Miss.-Dec. 27, 1978 Charles E. Grassley, Iowa-Jan. 5, 1981 Mitch McConnell, Ky.-Jan. 3, 1985 Richard C. Shelby, Ala.-Jan. 6, 1987 John McCain, Ariz.-Jan. 6, 1987 James M. Inhofe, Okla.-Nov. 30, 1994
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
Patrick J. Leahy, Vt.-Jan. 14, 1975 Barbara A. Mikulski, Md.-Jan. 6, 1987 Harry Reid, Nev.-Jan. 6, 1987 Dianne Feinstein, Calif.-Nov. 4, 1992 Barbara Boxer, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Patty Murray, Wash.-Jan. 5, 1993
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
Don Young, Alaska-March 6, 1973 Jim Sensenbrenner, Wis.-Jan. 15, 1979 Harold Rogers, Ky.-Jan. 5, 1981 Christopher H. Smith, N.J.-Jan. 5, 1981 Joe L. Barton, Texas Jan. 3, 1985 Lamar Smith, Texas Jan. 6, 1987 Fred Upton, Mich.-Jan. 6, 1987 John J. Duncan Jr., Tenn.-Nov. 8, 1988 Dana Rohrabacher, Calif.-Jan. 3, 1989 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.-Aug. 29, 1989 John A. Boehner, Ohio-Jan. 3, 1991 Sam Johnson, Texas-May 18, 1991 Ken Calvert, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Robert W. Goodlatte, Va.-Jan. 5, 1993 Peter T. King, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 John L. Mica, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 Ed Royce, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Frank D. Lucas, Okla.-May 10, 1994 Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J.-Jan. 4, 1995 Walter B. Jones, N.C.-Jan. 4, 1995 Frank A. LoBiondo, N.J.-Jan. 4, 1995 Mac Thornberry, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Edward Whitfield, Ky.-Jan. 4, 1995
The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
John Conyers Jr., Mich.-Jan. 4, 1965 Charles B. Rangel, N.Y.-Jan. 21, 1971 Steny H. Hoyer, Md.-May 19, 1981 Marcy Kaptur, Ohio-Jan. 3, 1983 Sander M. Levin, Mich.-Jan. 3, 1983 Peter J. Visclosky, Ind.-Jan. 3, 1985 Peter A. DeFazio, Ore.-Jan. 6, 1987 John Lewis, Ga.-Jan. 6, 1987 Louise M. Slaughter, N.Y.-Jan. 6, 1987 Nancy Pelosi, Calif.-June 2, 1987 Frank Pallone Jr., N.J.-Nov. 8, 1988 Eliot L. Engel, N.Y.-Jan. 3, 1989 Nita M. Lowey, N.Y.-Jan. 3, 1989 Jim McDermott, Wash.-Jan. 3, 1989 Richard E. Neal, Mass.-Jan. 3, 1989 José E. Serrano, N.Y.-March 20, 1990 David E. Price, N.C.-Jan. 7, 1997 Also served 1987-95 Rosa DeLauro, Conn.-Jan. 3, 1991 Collin C. Peterson, Minn.-Jan. 3, 1991 Maxine Waters, Calif.-Jan. 3, 1991 Jerrold Nadler, N.Y.-Nov. 3, 1992 Jim Cooper, Tenn.-Jan. 7, 2003 Also served 1983-95 Xavier Becerra, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Ga.-Jan. 5, 1993 Corrine Brown, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 James E. Clyburn, S.C.-Jan. 5, 1993 Anna G. Eshoo, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Gene Green, Texas-Jan. 5, 1993 Luis V. Gutierrez, Ill.-Jan. 5, 1993 Alcee L. Hastings, Fla.-Jan. 5, 1993 Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas-Jan. 5, 1993 Carolyn B. Maloney, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 Lucille Roybal-Allard, Calif.-Jan. 5, 1993 Bobby L. Rush, Ill.-Jan. 5, 1993 Robert C. Scott, Va.-Jan. 5, 1993 Nydia M. Velázquez, N.Y.-Jan. 5, 1993 Bennie Thompson, Miss.-April 13, 1993 Sam Farr, Calif.-June 8, 1993 Lloyd Doggett, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Mike Doyle, Pa.-Jan. 4, 1995 Chaka Fattah, Pa.-Jan. 4, 1995 Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas-Jan. 4, 1995 Zoe Lofgren, Calif.-Jan. 4, 1995
And yet Americans still fail to understand that presidential elections are not so important in the grand scheme of things.
What really counts are local elections, and most importantly who you send to Congress (both chambers).
From this perspective I have to wonder if the analysis of Mr McGraw is correct. How can democrats be leading when the majority of Americans continue to vote for stupid antiscience, anti-civilization moronic republicans in congress ? A democrat president will not change that.
for American politics is by now entirely lobbyist-driven, and they drive both parties the same way.
This is what passes for News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters nowadays?
Man, has this site hit the skids.
Okay, I'm from Chicago. And I can ASSURE you, that the Democrats have been making dead people vote for almost a century now!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
but cool I guess.
Hitler's greatest crime was the destruction of the Eugenics movement.
Or check out Massachusetts of today: Around 40% Republican leaning, 60% Democrat leaning, which is close enough that we could elect a Republican governor last year when the Democrats nominated an idiot. We're gerrymandered enough that all 9 of the reps are democrats.
And yet, all of the local democrats still whine that only the evil Republicans do that Gerrymandering thing; Democrats do a virtuous public service of shaping districts solely for the purpose of ensuring that everyone gets a fair vote which will coincidentally go to a democrat, in districts shaped like this one: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Yep, there's no way that those borders were arranged by the democrats in the state legislature so that a democrat could win, nope, not at all.
If we must have districts, then we need a neutral law like "districts will be designated by strict east-west lines across the state, at a latitude determined by the census so that each district gets an equal number of people in it". No screwing around, just divide the state equally... Or use one of the proportional voting systems (whereby a state like MA that is 60/40 split democrat/republican would likely end up with 5 or 6 democrats and 3 or 4 republicans, and maybe with the occasional green party member) -- we even use IRV here for some city council elections, and it works fine.
... you buy a gun, and you become a republican. That's been the cycle for a long time. Yeah, lots of republicans have croaked lately but they're being replaced by democrats shifting over.
Besides, as we've seen the last 6 years there isn't much difference between the two. One party is right-wing, and the other is 1 order of magnitude further to the right. Either way the republicans and their supporters win.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yes, I can see why hard work, self-determination, military strength and general prosperity have little appeal in the Star Wars bar scene that our society is becoming.
After the 2008 elections everyone realized the Democrats under Pelosi and Obama were too far left
Really? Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of. Under Obama - regardless of who controlled either chamber of congress - we saw huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and continued marginalization of the middle and lower classes.
Essentially, while the GOP was marching further to the right, the democrats decided it would be a good idea to follow.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't expect the Republicans to quiver. They're masterful at spreading a simple message to the stupid and easily fooled.
When the GOP eventually become irrelevant the Democratic party itself will likely split into two parties that can more narrowly focus their politics.
The environmentalist and libertarians inside the democratic party aren't going to go along with the socialist and marxist. The environmentalist are very much opposed to immigration because it is not sustainable for the local biospheres. The libertarians will be unhappy with the social programs and taxes.
The social issues of today, such as gay marriage and abortion, will be just the ways things are and we will have new social issues to divide ourselves with.
The GOP will never win another Presidential election. Ever. The population of the United States simply will no longer support it. There have been 51 million immigrants to the US in 8 years - and immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat (and yes, we all know they are voting even if they are not citizens, contrary to the insistence of their lobbyists).
So, there it is. It's done.
I't doesn't matter what the popular vote is. It all depends on the electoral votes.
In the US, one of the problems with the system is that there really are only two choices. Even if independents don't feel like they're throwing their votes away, realistically, they are. One of the things I like about European parliamentary systems is that minority parties do have a voice in the system, and the ruling parties have to play nice with them to get anything done. Congress since 2012 has been a mess with both parties digging their heels in, to the point where even the simplest routine business can't get done. And with the unlimited spending by businesses and wealthy individuals now part of the mix, there's no way anyone who doesn't align with one of the 2 parties can ever hope to get anything done.
One of the things I've noticed about the Republican side this election cycle is the effort to replace that older, whiter group of voters mentioned in the summary with Hispanics. It will be very interesting to see what happens. It makes sense; Hispanics are typically very religious and socially conservative, so Republicans probably see that as a way to offset the loss of religious whites. But, how do they square that with their economic policies, which basically boil down to giving business whatever they ask for, and the anti-immigration policies championed by the remaining older whiter crowd? We'll see...
Another demographic that Republicans may be losing is rural working class voters. Whatever political side you end up on, the fact is that available employment for middle/working class people is drying up due to automation and the downward pressure on wages. We in IT see this all the time with the H-1B program and offshoring. Lots of working class Republicans seem to think that if they just work harder, they can become successful, and they don't see that some policies actually hinder their progress, nor do they see that there really is no path to riches when you start at a certain level in society. If enough working class people finally realize this, they might tend to align with Democrats as a lever against the rich/business owners. This, plus the fact that religion is becoming less and less of a draw to people and social issues aren't as big a deal anymore, is the demographic shift they need to worry about.
The thing that does worry me is that younger people will continue to see politics as something they can't influence or participate in, and let the rich in both parties just use the system for their own gain. I tend to be a very left wing, big government type, but I think it would be interesting to see a _credible_ independent third party challenge the system, just to see what a difference it could make. The problem is that political minorities don't have the credibility among most voters. I'm certainly not a Libertarian, nor would i ever vote for a TEA party candidate...but I wouldn't vote for a Communist either. The problem is that in our system, any non-mainstream political view is treated as completely irrelevant. Look at how many times the president has been called a "socialist." If he were a true socialist, we wouldn't have the Affordable Care Act in its current form or the income inequality we have...yet the right wing guys are convinced of this.
vote Cthulhu for president
1) Hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
2) People who are willing to be associated with hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
The democrats will never win another majority in congress because the district boundaries are too favorable for the GOP. He who draws the lines wins the election!
Do you know the key strategic weakness of the human race?
The dead outnumber the living.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
As a small-government fiscal conservative who doesn't give a rat's ass about social conservative issues (e.g. a libertarian), I know I, and many like me, are waiting for the old/religious right/social conservatives to die off. I think that when that happens, there will be a big influx of non-socialist Democrat voters to our side.
The 3rd District of MD [washingtonpost.com] is an absolute abomination
That is an awesome border right there.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I clicked on that link and it gave a pop-up:
Take Action
Abortion at 20 Weeks
The Senate may vote on a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks and later, except to save the life of the mother, in the case of rape, and in the case of incest against a minor.
Use if.then.fund to make a campaign contribution to representatives that vote the way you want them to! Your contribution — for or against — will help shape the future of Congress.
We won’t tell Congress why you are making the contribution (legal background), but every contribution from a regular American shifts power away from the rich and powerful.
if.then.fund is a new website that can help you shape the future of Congress from the creators of GovTrack and Democracy Engine.
Wow, trying to scare up funding using the abortion bogeyman. I find that disgusting from either of the aisle. (Oh noes, they're going to vote on a bill that has no chance of passing! It's the end of the world!)
Anyhow, I particularly love how they managed to put so many vertices out in the hahbah.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of
I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?
Democrats used to be the party of the South... democrats used to love nothing more than segregation and related issues.
That didn't change until the civil rights movement where in the whole race issue stopped being a viable way to get votes.
Suddenly the democratic party became the party of diversity. Pretty much overnight. You can look at the regional voting maps and in the span of about two election cycles the democrat party completely flipped with the republicans.
Look at it:
http://www.270towin.com/histor...
So... if some demographic is dying off for the republicans, you can expect that they'll just find someone else and adjust the platform as required.
I think part of the reason you're seeing more of a libertarian bent to the party is because that is the future. The older generations weren't so keen on that stuff.
You could well see the republicans slow identify less with the title "conservative" as well as attracting the generation that found that comforting becomes less profitable.
The big fight looming for the republicans is between the evangelical religious right and the socially liberal libertarians.
We'll see what happens but that is going to be an ugly fight unless it is handled very carefully.
Both groups have gotten along under the conservative banner because they're both conservative in their own way. The religious right is socially conservative. Things they believe are largely similar to what most of America believed 100 years ago. And libertarians are fiscally conservative in that their notion of economic policy is generally more acceptable from a traditional american perspective.
But... if the conservatives go away... the religious right and the libertarians likely can't coexist under the same tent.
This will drive portions of both as well as anything remaining to jump to the democrats if that is more agreeable. Also there are portions of the democrat party that might easily jump to the republicans if the republicans change what they are to any extent. A lot of democrats only stay away from the republicans because of the religious right or because the libertarians. If either of those factions is ejected, suppressed, or switches sides, then there is a good chance that some portion of the democrat party might switch in sympathy.
What you can expect in the end is that both parties should represent a credible half of the political power.
Notions of either party annihilating the other are ignorant. That is not how these systems work. Either party can get annihilated for a few elections at most. Eventually what happens is that the party down in support will horse trade until it gets enough votes that it feels it is credible.
Both parties are doing this against each other all the time. Which is why support wobbles around.
The other thing you have to appreciate is that politics often change as people grow older. People that vote one way or say they vote one way at point X in their lives might vote another at point Y.
In the end, a good thing about first past the post is that it does tend to encourage all political energies to polarize and thus you rarely get one party that dominates uncontested especially on the national level.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... of giving free Alzheimer's tests at Tea Party conventions?
Here is an article from The Society Pages about dead people who won't vote:
These articles are interesting, but the conclusions are too simple: It is too simple to say that if things were different then people would act as if things were the same.
Regarding the 'dead people voting problem', when I moved out of Pennsylvania, I actually did remember to update my voter registration. What I discovered though, is that there is no 'unregister to vote' form. The only way to be removed from the voter registration list is to register somewhere else, and have them tell Pennsylvania your new address. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. In my case, I'm not sure if they did, or if the info didn't match exactly, but apparently I'm still registered to vote at my old address in PA, where I haven't lived for years. Since voter registration never expires in PA, I'll probably still be registered after I die.
A two party system is bad enough. I would imagine what would effectively be a one party system would be even worse.
But people get older all the time.Years ago, you could remain Democrat until you died at 50-60 of a heart attack.
Now medicine has evolved and more and more people get to the age where you become Republican naturally.
Obama has signed into law - including during the time when Pelosi was leading the house - bills that Reagan and both Presidents Bush could have only dreamed of
I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?
What they advocated for, and what they actually did, were two very different things. I'm talking about the budget proposals that they actually signed into law (in the case of Obama) or voted for (in the case of Pelosi). These were really not even close to reflections of what they said they were campaigning for. Even more so, they resulted in higher government handouts to wall street and the military-industrial complex than the GOP presidents had ever dared dream for, and larger tax cuts to the wealthy as well. The cherry on the sundae comes in the continued dismantling of workers' rights.
Another way to put it in perspective is to look for any bill that Obama signed that Reagan, Bush, or Bush Jr. would not have signed. I can't find a single one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
if they live long enough They will become Republican.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Now according to the summary millenials started being born in 1981. In a few more articles, millenials will start encompassing those who were born in 1975 or later...
US has only two political parties and using football (America's sport) there can only be two teams. And like football, there are only a few who make all the moves (NFL and spectators). Like the political parties, football teams huddle to discuss the next play. Spectators have no idea what they are talking about and they have very little influence on the outcome of the play, all they can do is cheer or boo. Concept of additional political parties whether they be the Libertarians or the Greens is too mysterious for this country to comprehend.
mfwright@batnet.com
I was wondering that too.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you reduce the left-right dichotomy to taxes, then yes.
But the truth is that Obama is pretty hard left on social and some foreign policy issues. He simply allies with some left-wing oligarchs to get his goals accomplished.
Here are some examples:
1.) Immigration - he's used executive orders to make illegals legal. He's also teamed up with FWD.US to push for immigration reform/amnesty (the tech giants want those precious H1-B visa workers). To be fair, the Republican establishment also wants amnesty (because their own right-wing oligarchs want cheap labor). It's their base which opposes it so fervently. (Y'know, after seeing what Disney did to those IT workers, maybe Left Labor and Right Populists could team up to stop this crap...).
2.) Race issues - he's full in on the blame Whitey party. This is odd considering he doesn't descend from slaves (descending from Kenyan non-slave population) and did not grow up in an inner-city ghetto (from Hawaii). Almost on queue, he inserts himself into any racial incident for score political points (the Beer Summit, Trayvon Martin, etc.). He doesn't try to fix racial issues, he exploits them.
3.) Women. He seems to willing to pass things like the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act (not that it necessarily helped).
4.) Favors an increase government benefits.
5.) Opposes school vouchers.
6.) Reformed healthcare. He probably wanted nationalized healthcare or something, but couldn't get it.
7.) Environmental issues - opposes the Keystone Pipeline as well as oil exploration. I think he opposed fracking, but couldn't do anything to stop it because it's occurring on land already slated for oil drilling (fracking helped lower oil prices for a time and is pissing off Russia and OPEC).
8.) Favors gun control. He was a member of some anti-gun organization (I don't know if he was just a member, a partner, or on its leadership council).
9.) Favors unions. During the auto industry bankruptcy proceedings, the Obama admission industry bypassed bankruptcy law to help auto unions.
10.) Foreign policy wise, he's trying to be the caring President who doesn't go in guns blazing. This can be seen in Iran where he's decided to negotiate a nuclear deal instead of complete prohibition. This can also be seen in Russia where he bent over backwards to appease Putin (the sanctions are probably a good idea, but aren't extreme enough; ban all Russian products/trade entirely). He's downplayed the U.S.'s traditional allies like Britain. He's moved away from Israel. He's pivoting to Asia because things haven't gone so well in the rest of the world.
This is what pisses me off when people say Obama is right-wing. They're clearly just posturing to score political points with some left-wing group. Sure, he may not endorse True Communism (eradication of churches, marriage, and industry), but he definitely falls under the whole Swedish free-everything concept.
I don't remember who it was, but I've heard American politics described as "Competitive Umbrage." Politicians today play the safe card that gets them reelected and have little cost. Gay marriage, no one cares about marriage anyway so give it freely. Make a mild effort to limit abortions, but you can claim it in your reelection campaign. My personal favorite is the law passed to ensure that you can use incandescent lights.
Think about it. WIth all the crap that went down in the last 20 years (the war and lost billions of dollars, the economy, etc), the only reason anyone came under any scrutiny was for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office or sexting. Pitiful.
The failure of this article is that it's simply focusing on the last two presidential elections. Why not look at a larger data set...all of the gubernatorial elections for example? Also, I'd argue that Obama's first election was a one-off. Many of those voting for him did so because of him potentially being the first "black" president. He was also able to stir up the youth vote with "Hope" and "Change". How many of those came back for the second? He was also advantaged in following the Bush years...it was his election to lose. I believe much of the 2012 vote went the way it did as more of an anti-Romney...he shot himself in the foot a couple times.
Just another day in Paradise
Libertarian is just short hand for 'Bring on the post-apocalyptic waste-land. I'm tired of paying taxes and I have enough weaponry to impose my will on others.'
When it comes to women's rights, the 'modern' Republican party is most closely aligned with extremist Muslims such as the Taliban. The saddest part is that both camps have brainwashed a good chunk of women in their sphere of influence to actually believe this subjugationist horseshit, mostly those raised by women-hating patriarchs.
It boggles my mind, the extent to which U.S. culture only sees two different possibilities
We can see more than two possibilities. The way to get it is to somehow convince the two ruling parties to allow some form of voting other than first past the post and to get rid of gerrymandering. Of course as long as those two things are in place a two party system is basically inevitable.
I'd have become a democrat if the democratic party were anything like it was during the JFK years.
Ummm, you are aware that the democratic party was filled with bigoted white southerners that left the party for the republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 during JFK's administration, right? Methinks your glasses may be a bit rose colored.
'Law and Order' isn't just a comforting phrase for all their terrified cracker constituents; it is justification for making piles of cash directly or indirectly from the Prison-Industrial sector and their allied corporations ranging from laundry services, the shittiest possible, Puritan-approved prison food, to usurious fees charged to inmates daring to call their families (and vice-versa).
Profit!
Most people I know (I'm in my early 30's) have grown utterly disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats and are now more-or-less libertarians.
I'm guessing you don't know many people then. I think most of us know some people who have a libertarian philosophy (fair number here on slashdot) though frequently they seem to be republicans or tea party supporters. But they definitely are a minority. Usually I see them in the Ayn Rand worshiping or Tea Party strains though there are others. Most people regardless of age group think libertarianism is a bit of a fringe philosophy including most independents.
I think it's a trend that will grow as more and more people realize that both Republicans and Democrats have utter contempt for civil rights and personal choice.
Unlikely. There is no evidence I can see of a trend away from the current two parties. As long as we have first past the post voting and gerrymandering I don't really see that changing even though I think it should.
Young people continue to get old, always becoming more conservative.
I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?
Politicians did things contrary to what they said they would do? Surely, you must be joking.
What's up with all the political articles? Starting flame wars? I come to /. for TECH discussions. I get my political news elsewhere.
Where's my pothead hippie atheist science enthusiast candidate? Preferably one that also likes the military.
And yes, one can be a pacifist *and* still carry a wicked weapon. Speak softly, and carry a big stick?
I am frustrated to no end with the current political climate, and by extension the slow steady decline of this nation (usa) in the past 30+ years.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Talk about blatant bigotry, but that didn't stop /. from reporting on it.
Stay classy /.
At every level of an election. There may be a hald dozen interesting positions in any election. Some are winowed out in the primary, the rest in the finals. Every few rounds a loud third voice makes it to the finals.
Look no further than California, Maryland, and Illinois.
California has an independent non-partisan redistricting commission, not to mention a rather unusual primary system that could have two members of a single party go into a single election against each other...and has. So, not the best example to choose when complaining about Gerrymandering.
If you want to complain about something, try Florida. They also passed some electoral reforms by popular ballot. Guess what the state governor did?
Challenged them in court. Refused to implement then.
Oh wait. You won't.
Maryland and Illinois are better examples, but what do you want them to do instead?
Hell, the term "gerrymandering" itself is named after Governor Gerry of Massachusetts who was lampooned for signing odd-shaped state senate districts into law
And he's been dead for over a century, and his politics were only tenuously related to those of today.
But yeah, fuck all of the Republicans in those deep blue states -- as long as your team wins, right?
You can also say " fuck all of the non-Republicans in those deep Red states" so what's your point?
You want genuine electoral reform? Partisan Proportional Representation? Expanding the House? Independent districting commissions? What?
The Constitution merely specifies the States should select Presidential Electors. Forty-eight states currently allocate all electors based on the popular vote winner. Two states by Congressional District winner. Congressional districts are currently draw to favor Republicans. If more states drop the winner-take-all method, that could strengthen republican presidency chances.
What about the grand children or family extended in to different races or colors?
I see the grand children becoming darker or 'cinnamon'. How will this evolve the the older white voter who sees their kin in the future?
LOL. Like Democrats stop voting when they are dead.
I don't care how well-behaved a crazy person has been so far. Don't give nuclear launch codes to crazy people. This includes people who believe the world is about 6019 years old because a bronze-age slavery manual tells them so. Crazy is crazy.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
If they do rule that gay marriage must be the law of the land, I can see a few states that will start with nullifying laws, there'll be a lot of noise about secession and BOOM, gay marriage becomes the hot-button issue of the Republican Primaries. (Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should be involved with marriage, period. It shouldn't make a difference to the government one way or the other whether I am married or single. Leave it to the religionists and their churches.) My point is that the republicans will have a tough time sticking to just jobs and the economy in the next Presidential election. They have this whole coalition of deeply conservative christians, big business, the wealthy, tea partiers and libertarians. I am continually amazed that the whole thing hasn't blown up yet.
5 out of 4 dead people vote democrat.
Hillary has the support of a SOME people that were relatively grown when Clinton was in office, but in general the millennials don't seem to care for her. She's so obviously a career politician and a relic at that. I can't imagine many modern women supporting her; she basically let her husband run around fucking the help. Has she accomplished anything really significant in her long political career, other than generally seeming disgruntled and confused? The millennials want some sort of champion, not more of the same old shit. That's why Obama won. We wanted something new, we didn't care what - and it looks like we still got more of the same. I imaging the hunger for some real change could even get liberal dems to vote for the absolute craziest right winger at this point - just put a [I] in front of their name.
X
The funny thing is that the groups that actually make up the democratic coalition are opposed to one another. Should the GOP go to demographic ill-relevance, the Democratic party will likely splinter.
For example:
Hispanics and blacks are at odds with one another for jobs and public resources. Hispanics have pushed blacks out of some of their historical neighborhoods.
Women's rights are at odds with muslim beliefs.
Asian's are at odds with other non-white demographics over AA admissions and democratic economic policies run counter to asian entrepreneurs.
Gay rights are at odds with hispanic and black religious beliefs.
The Republican party has the perception of being the party of white people, largely because they are indifferent to minorities, not because they advocate for whites. Its not like they are going to embrace being the white party because they are afraid of being called racists. A clever Republican politician could play those democratic groups against one another, but would probably take a lot of heat for doing so.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
What?!? You mean there are still old white fart conservatives still around? I thought they died off years ago.
The goal of the OPer is to discourage Republicans and fire-up the liberal base.
Looks like it's working...
Yes, Democrats do gerrymander too, but Republicans do so way more. Which is really obvious when you compare the popular vote by state, to the number of representatives in the House for each party elected from that state.
There are few things scarier than the naivety of democratic policies. There is a reason these policies appeal to the young and inexperienced.
How on earth could they possibly be getting any whiter?
Ahh, yes. Time for another round of bashing the GOP. This thread cracks me up. First, it's true that in 2012 younger voters trended to vote for Democrats. How'd that work out for them in 2014? The GOP took control of the Senate in a crushing defeat for Democrats. The donkeys would have to flip five seats back to blue to retake control, and that seems unlikely. At the state level it's even worse. Dems only have 18 of the 50 governor's mansions, and only control both houses of the legislature in 11 states. Hardly a dominant position. Look at the Presidential candidates for 2016. The GOP will likely have over a dozen competing, of which 4 or 5 have a reasonable shot at winning. The Democrats have Hillary (and all her baggage). No one else has a chance. This is not to say all is well with the GOP and gloom and doom for the Democrats. Both parties have issues, but overall I'd say the Republicans are in better shape.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to.
Millennials have been spoonfed by their parents since birth, so they would support the Democrats cradle to grave nanny state. But as someone once said, if you aren't a liberal at 20, you don't have a heart. If you aren't a conservative at 30, you don't have brain.
Fiscal conservatism is being explored again.
Bill Clinton supported workfare and PAYGO ("pay as you go") -- a balanced tax and spend government. Neither ended up happening in any significant way. It's doubtful that any democratic candidate will be mentioning these two topics again in the near future, even though they were prominent policy topics just 20 years ago.
Some fair tax advocates are supporting a return to origins, perhaps going as far as replacing the 4,000,000 words of legislated loopholes and giveaways (The IRS Tax Code) with something like a simple tiered formula, perhaps like the simple formula the agency began with in ~1913. If organizations really need financial help, perhaps they should lobby through appropriations and undergo oversight of funding. A lot of "wealth inequality" might begin with this "tax inequality".
It would be nice to perform a "Reverse BRAC" -- task the apolitical Joint Chiefs / DoD / NASA to run a team of tenured verification and validation specialists to run through all of the regulations, laws, and executive cabinets, identifying any fraud, waste, abuse or redundancy, and suggesting closure or reform of areas that lack a credible mission statement, milestones, or show a lack of progress.
The scientific method works when it is applied, we see success all the time in the organizational hierarchies below the DoD and NASA. Government and private sector contracting have made very concrete, measureable advances.
Getting the process expanded through the rest of the government -- federal, state, and local -- is a huge challenge.
Consider the following statement : Some european nations recommend that women test early, test often, and should they choose not to continue a pregnancy, make that decision within 8-10 weeks, so the safe, non-surgical option can be utilized. Just saying this in America results in howls of frustration from abortion advocates who demand an elective right to surgical abortion up to the 6th month of a pregnancy. Is women's health the real issue, or is it social engineering for votes?
Consider the following statement : The IPCC and the National Academy both agree that there are no economical, short term solutions to climate change. What can be done, is being done. It is funded. Note that the environmentalists declared victory in California when the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant was closed in 2013, even though California's CO2 emissions rose by ~12% in the aftermath. Again, just mentioning these things results in howls of frustration from the green hysteria industry. To this day, the greens claim that up to a million people died early due to Chernobyl, even though the actual count is holding at ~80 -- and around half of them died early due to improper treatment.
Consider the following statement : School vouchers increase competition. Howls from the public school unions.
Consider the following statement : 150 years ago 600,000 Americans, and a beloved President, died on US soil largely due to the legacy of the European and African slave trade. Shortly after the Civil War, the Democratic Party (the political arm of the KKK) spread into the northern cities and began exchanging benefits for votes. The Rise of the Democrats coincided with the expansion of tax loopholes, red ink, and the federal government. There are films in the national archives from the 1930's showing whites, blacks, and the remaining vets from the North and South, in their old uniforms, crying, hugging, and remembering the sacrifice. 52 years ago, MLK stated "free at last". This week another 22 black males will die fighting over their fair share of America's illicit drug trade. No white cop present, no national news. In a nation of 320 M. people, 1 M. of them cops, and an unknown number of armed felons walking the streets, why are so many people choosing to flee from, harass, or assault the police? Is zero tolerance for police errors -- if they are errors -- a reasonable mindset in this context?
Consider the following question : Hillary Clinton
If the fighting between the Republicans and Democrats continue to escalate, there there is only one future I see:
None.
The problem with Repubs vs Dems is that it's akin to choosing between Coke or Pepsi: one is slightly sweeter and the other is slightly more bitter, but they're both essentially fizzy sugar-water. That is to say, when it comes to how they actually vote on bills (as opposed to what they promise on the campaign trail), there's little substantive difference between most members of the two parties. Any time there is a little difference, it's due to outliers like Bernie Sanders, or political theatre (like how the Dems blocked debate on the TPP fast-track one day, and then voted in favour of it a couple of days later).
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
We should not vote in elections till the candidate is qualified in fMRI;
In democracy it's your vote in elections that counts; In FEUDALISM it's your count that votes;
Casteism
Another assumption it makes is that both parties are frozen in time. In fact, both parties shift left and right depending on what they think the voters want. After the 2008 elections everyone realized the Democrats under Pelosi and Obama were too far left and the balance shifted to the Republicans. Now the Democrats have moderated a bit; meanwhile the Republicans are marginalizing the Tea Party fringe element and trying to claim more of the center.
I'm sorry. That is not at all what happened. Republicans won a lot of state and governor positions in 2008. That allowed them to re-define (gerrymander) the voting districts because of the 2010 census. That gerrymandering is primary reason why, when polled, the US appears to lean far further left than the current congress.
Take a look at North Carolina for example. Over 50% of people voted democrat, yet their state congress ended up being something like 3/4 republican. There are a ton of examples like that.