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.

Comments

Only Two Futures?

[Aaron_Pike]

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.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[gfxguy]

Agreed... I was born and raised republican, but left the party a long time ago. I'd have become a democrat if the democratic party were anything like it was during the JFK years. Glad there's more choices, and no, I don't feel like I'm throwing my vote away.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[conquistadorst]

I'd be curious to see if the population of disillusioned independents is growing faster as well. I'd speculate most of them would be categorized as "moderates" which is a species rapidly disappearing, sadly from both political factions. I for one count myself among them, both parties have developed fundamental show stoppers that make it impossible for me to vote for either candidate in presidential elections. I don't at all consider my vote "thrown away". A vote for a 3rd party is a vote against both, it still counts and enough of them should garner attention for more moderates eventually.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[RabidReindeer]

I'd become a REPUBLICAN if the Republican party were anything like it was in the JFK years. There were Hawks and there were Doves, but they weren't exclusively in one party or the other, and outside of their opposing views on war and expansionism, they could be civil to each other. It was only the Cold War and Nuclear Armageddon, not like the very foundations of the Universe were at stake.

Now everything's a pledge and a "litmus test" and the loonies run the asylum.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[gfxguy]

A modern JFK would be labeled pro-war; the party would complain about wasteful spending trying to outdo Russians; JFK was more conservative than most conservatives are today - and yet not ultra religious, racist, and bigoted the way most republicans come off (whether they are or not). JFK was for a stronger economy and realized that you needed successful businesses to do it.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[gfxguy]

Yes - the problem with ubiquitous media and the ability for parties and pundits to use social networking is that they concentrate on dividing us when, in fact, the parties are more alike than not. They pick their single issues they can use to "motivate their bases," things that really have had no consequence in the last forty years (like the abortion "debate").

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you think that the abortion issue hasn't changed in the last 40 years. You must not be female and must not be paying any attention. Many states have made changes that have made abortion difficult to get. For example there have been laws that closed all but ONE clinic in one state, others that required "vaginal probing" with some sort of ultra sound stick along with requiring the Dr. to lie to patients, and several that have banned abortion after 20 weeks. There has been a lot of change in the last 40 years in this area - most of it driven by the religious zealot arm of the Republican party and of course mostly in the south.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Welcome to the US where everything is given as two artificial choices. Seriously... I was approached a couple of days ago and asked if I believe laws should be based on the Bible? When I said no the person quickly accused me of wanting a "muslim theocracy (his words)". I guess the current constitutional republic wasn't one of the two choices he considered for his argument.

I'm not big supporter of either party. I'm like most of the US and just vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon was for an ACA-style healthcare system. It was rejected by the Democrats at the time, since it didn't go far enough, and the Dems thought they could get single-payer instead.

Nixon is too liberal for the modern conservative party.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Raul654]

> "JFK was more conservative than most conservatives are today"

BULLSHIT!

Keith T. Poole at the University of Georgia has built his career on quanitfying the liberality/conservativeness of politics.

I couldn't find his numbers for John Kennedy, but he gave John Kennedy a -.318 during the 83rd Congress, making him the 15th most liberal member of that body. By comparison, in today's Senate, he'd rank as the 31st most liberal senator, between Senators Wyden and Murphy, and more liberal than EVERY SINGLE Republican in Congress.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Megane]

One big reason for this is the Electoral College system for electing the US President. If, say, one party had 40%, and there were two parties with a similar platform splitting the remaining 60%, the minority platform will win.

In the 1912 election, Teddy Roosevelt running as the Bull Moose party candidate managed to beat the Republican candidate Taft, and Woodrow Wilson won with 42% of the popular vote. He also got 88 electoral votes to Taft's 8.

In the 1992 election, H. Ross Perot took 18.9% of the popular vote, but failed to get a single electoral vote, and probably didn't affect the election enough to be responsible for the loss by GHW Bush.

At least it isn't as bad as the recent UK election, where UKIP had significant support in terms of individual voters, yet only ended up with two seats. In the US, senate and congressional elections require a 50% majority for a candidate to win. If the majority is not met, a run-off election with the two leading candidates determines the winner.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[Anne Thwacks]

No matter who you vote for, a politician always gets elected!

Re:Only Two Futures?

[dave420]

Capital-L Libertarians or lower-case-L libertarians? The two are not even remotely comparable.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[dave420]

One could, in the precise same way one could argue 1 + 2 = 17 by throwing themselves down the stairs.

Re:Only Two Futures?

[tehcyder]

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 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.

And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice, other than for those with the most money and power who would be free to shit over everyone else without any checks or balances?

Don't forget, "most people" aren't going to be in the top 1% (or 0.1%).

Re:Only Two Futures?

[meta-monkey]

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

Re:Only Two Futures?

[HornWumpus]

Have you seen the small parties in Europe that become king makers in coalitions? Have you seen the bullshit the greens push through when they become the swing block? How about the commies? How about the crazy nationalists?

The USA's politics are fucked, but not as fucked as Italy's (picking just one particularly egregious example).

Re:Only Two Futures?

[whitroth]

Not surprised. I've met other former Republicans who say the GOP has moved so far to the right it's left them behind.* Meanwhile, I'm *really* tired that the last two Dems I voted for President who won are both Eisenhower Republicans.

At least for now, I have someone to vote for who's not "the least worst".

                        mark

---
Bernie Sanders for President!

Re:Only Two Futures?

[WrongMonkey]

Only three out of the ten commandments are codified into US law: thou shalt not kill (murder), thou shalt not steal(theft), thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury). Adultery laws might still be on the books in some states, but I doubt they'd hold up in court. Otherwise you are perfectly free to dishonor your parents, worship graven images, work on Sunday, take the Lord's name in vain, and covet your neighbor's wife. As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.

One Assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:One Assumption

[MightyMartian]

Exactly. The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars that the majority of American society has already moved past. That may win Republicans votes in Congressional and state level races, but in the long term it is unsustainable. Just look at a map of Obama's 2012 victory. The Democrats are making inroads in conservative states.

The problem for.Republicans is that their own political machine is strangling them, forcing candidates on voters that voters are far less likely to vote for, or even if they do, are so noxious to voters elsewhere that it has the same effect.

If the Republicans can't figure out a way to marganilize people like Ted Cruz and prevent them from grabbing the microphonez they're doomed.

Re:One Assumption

[fahrbot-bot]

That the Citizens United ruling did not say that corporations are people (but instead that tightly-held corporations are effectively partnerships)?

Irrelevant pedantry, the two sentiments you expressed are effectively equivalent. Mitt Romney himself said, "Corporations are people, my friend."

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Mr. Romney responded, as the hecklers shouted back, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Mr. Romney said, chuckling slightly. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

Of course, what he forgot to mention is the people everything ultimately goes to is the shareholders (and management) not the workers - who *actually* provide the labor and value of a corporation. In the mind of Republicans like Romney, the workers are replaceable cogs in the money machine who are ultimately only of value if they're inexpensive (as illustrated in recent news)...

Re:One Assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

> People believe the Tea Party was all white, because the media edited out the black people from the pictures

Oh puhlease. So it isn't 100% white, just 89%. Big deal. Just 1% of tea party supporters are black.

> People believe the elderly fools in the GOP represent the mainstream (every party has its embarrassments), because that's the only view the media will give.

Like Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry? Or maybe Huckabee and Cruz? They aren't podunk polliticians from some backwater with backwater ideas - all republican nominees for president serious enough to be invited to the debates by the party itself.

> Did you know that the average GOP congresscritter is actually a few years younger than the average Democrat?

Don't make mountains out of molehills. Republicans in congress average 55 years versus democrats at 60 years. They are both still old. What matters is the age of the voters and there is a big age gap there and it started in 2004.

> That the Citizens United ruling did not say that corporations are people (but instead that tightly-held corporations are effectively partnerships)?

That is like complaining Palin didn't actually say she can see russia from her house. Literalism isn't necessarily the best way to communicate truth.

> Indiana's recent Religious Freedom Restoration Act was effectively the same as the one Clinton signed into law in the 90s amid no controversy?

Times change. Are you trying to argue that times shouldn't change? I guess that would be a conservative viewpoint.

> That the frequency of rape on college campus is actually lower than in America as a whole?

That is probably true, I couldn't find confirmation. I am pretty sure that practically all violent crime is less on college campuses than it is in America as a whole. You know, because colleges don't matriculate many violent criminals. It is weird you think that is meaningful.

> That polls of right-wings voters show the leading issues right now are economic, foreign policy, and immigration, and that social issues like gay marriage and abortion aren't important enough to make the short-list?

And yet prominent republican politicians put that stuff on their short list. For example, all the GOP contenders for president this year defended that Indiana law you mentioned. The 'media' didn't make them do that.

But you keep right one believing the problem is the media misrepresenting the republicans, it is a conspiracy!

Re:One Assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/tea-party-leader-we-ll-take-the-debt-ceiling-hike-if-you-put-gay-troops-back-in-the-closet

Gerrymandering

[Schezar]

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.

Registered to vote != Voted

[Enry]

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, when has this not been true?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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).

Fox News

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Republicans could...

[swb]

...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.

Re:Republicans could...

[pezpunk]

eh, maybe. but if they got rid of all those social wedge issues, what's left? tax breaks for the rich? subsidies for fossil fuels? dirtier air and water? meh.

honestly, those social wedge issues that, while keeping young people, gays, and minorities away, are EXACTLY what keeps the GOP so staunchly in power in the deep south and amongst old people. Those folks march to the polls and vote in every little primary and off-year election and are driven by pure white hot fear and hatred. it's a hell of a motivator, and i assume the GOP believes it can't afford to take the risk of abandoning those troops.

Term limits. New faces mean new possibilities

[schwit1]

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office ...
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

Re:In other news . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Right.. and people become Democrats once there are no jobs (a BA is the new HS diploma, fetch my coffee senior barista), and they become Democrats once their kids can't afford education and healthcare in unattainable.

It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got a net worth in seven digit territory, and even I vote Dem because even with a mill or two stashed away, these days you can still find yourself easily fucked and depending on social safety nets. In addition, you disenfranchise everybody else long enough, and they're going to look at what YOU have.

This guy gets it.

Re:Another Assumption

[damn_registrars]

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.

Two kinds of Republicans

[ColonelPanic]

1) Hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.

2) People who are willing to be associated with hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.

Re:Don't worry

[GameboyRMH]

Came here to say this, and you said it quite well. Millennials will never have the money to make voting Republican look like anything approaching a decent idea, so most are going to be Leftists 4 Lyfe. There's a downside to impoverishing a whole generation that the conservatives didn't see coming.

Libertarians

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.'