(04-10-2015 10:11 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:10 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:06 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:05 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You are the one who brought up the Johnsons.

Here you go.

OMG

That explains alot. Not very refined are you?

Obviously you're not a golfer.

Are you kidding? I have a 12 handicap

Cool. I'm a 2-time defending US Open Champion!!

(04-10-2015 09:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:49 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the atheist leftists aren't holding the Democrats back. They welcome them with open arms and even let them lead in many cases.

Atheist don't belive in anything.

They believe in cutting off people's johnsons.

Damn. Litereally one post later someone goes full out Lebowski! I was gonna respond to "No Donnie, these men are cowards!"

Fit, go watch The Big Lebowski. Don't worry, nobody gets their johnson cut off.

Nope. We kicked ass and took names in the mid-terms.

(04-10-2015 10:02 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:56 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:49 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the atheist leftists aren't holding the Democrats back. They welcome them with open arms and even let them lead in many cases.

Atheist don't belive in anything.

They believe in cutting off people's johnsons.

WTF?

Where do you guys get this stuff?

I'm not even going to dignify myself with a comment on this.

Someone save this fool.

lmao

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:49 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  One thing is for sure, the atheist leftists aren't holding the Democrats back. They welcome them with open arms and even let them lead in many cases.

Atheist don't belive in anything.

Not true, many of them are anti religious, and that is a core issue to them.


Now in its 51st year, American Atheists is dedicated to working for the civil rights of atheists, promoting separation of state and church, and providing information about atheism. Over the last fifty years, American Atheists has:

Fought fervently to defend the separation of religion from government
Appeared in all forms of media to defend our positions and criticisms of religion and mythology
Held atheist conventions and gatherings throughout the United States, including "Atheist Pride" marches in state capitals
Demonstrated and picketed throughout the country on behalf of atheist rights and state/church separation
Published hundreds of books about atheism, criticism of religion, and state/church separation
Published newsletters, magazines, and member alerts
Built a robust and diverse community of local affiliates, partners, and activists
Fostered a growing network of representatives throughout the nation who monitor important First Amendment issues and work on behalf of the organization in their areas
Grown a network of volunteers who perform a variety of important tasks in their community, from placing American Atheist books in libraries to writing letters and publicizing the atheist perspective
Preserved atheist literature and history in the nation's largest archive of its kind. The library's holdings span over three hundred years of atheist thought.
Provided speakers for colleges, universities, clubs, and the news media
Granted college scholarships to young atheist activists
http://atheists.org/about-us

This group seems less anti religious



Atheist Alliance of America is a national 501©(3) not-for-profit, tax deductible educational organization. We are a democratically run organization with a board that is elected by our Affiliate Council during our annual convention.
Our Vision

AAA’s vision is to transform society into one that supports and respects a worldview based on the values of reason, empiricism and naturalism, and respects and protects the separation of religion and government.
Our Mission

To develop and provide educational, advocacy, and community-building programs for the atheist community that assist towards fulfilling the above vision.
Our Values

Reason — Reason and cooperation are essential to meeting the challenges that confront humankind.
Compassion — Human compassion and empathy are crucial to improving the human condition.
Purpose — The life that all creatures have is precious and has value, as this life is the only life we know we will have.
Empiricism — Our ethics and values are evidence-based. We rely on what we can sense and measure in the natural world. We make our conclusions based on the best evidence, and change our conclusions accordingly as new evidence becomes known.
Science — Science is the best tool we have for seeking truth and understanding our world.
Knowledge — We value knowledge and hold the endeavor to increase it as best we can in order to pursue the truths about our world to be one of the noblest efforts one can make; and any and all efforts to stifle or denigrate knowledge and learning to be immoral.
Progress — We believe in modernity and progress and the ability of humankind to develop a better world based on reason.
Freedom — We hold that all people have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that all people are entitled to freedom of conscience. We support the values outlined in the International Convention of Human Rights as inalienable human rights.
Ethics — We believe that ethics and morality evolve over time as we better understand our world and the consequences we cause in it.
Responsibility — We are responsible for humane interaction with other people, other animals and for the preservation of our habitable planet.

Secular Nation Magazine

http://atheistallianceamerica.org/about/

(04-10-2015 11:28 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Nope. We kicked ass and took names in the mid-terms.

An unpopular president combined with an uninspired democratic affiliated voting block tipped the scale to the GOP side. The exact same thing happened to the GOP when Bush was unpopular in 2006 - 2008 and the Dems gained seats plus a presidency. Just a cycle. Also, the representatives map showing an overwhelmingly red country is misleading. Most GOP districts have smaller population densities, so the districts are larger as a result.

While pendulum swings are common and can be predicted in many cases, there is an issue that's going to shift this paradigm over the medium to long term. If the GOP cannot make inroads into the youth and minorities to replace traditional voting blocks, it will whither on the vine. The religious right message turns off a lot of the younger generation.

(04-10-2015 12:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  An unpopular president combined with an uninspired democratic affiliated voting block tipped the scale to the GOP side. The exact same thing happened to the GOP when Bush was unpopular in 2006 - 2008 and the Dems gained seats plus a presidency. Just a cycle.

The unpopularity of a President isn't a cycle. It's a reaction. Plenty of Presidents have left office very popular... usually replaced by their VP.

Quote:Also, the representatives map showing an overwhelmingly red country is misleading. Most GOP districts have smaller population densities, so the districts are larger as a result.

Did someone try and compare 'area'? The quoted posts certainly don't. Otherwise, this just seems to be an attempt to detract from the fact that there were substantially more red districts in 2014 than in 2018. Whether it is 20% by population or 40% by area really doesn't matter. More is more. It's only misleading if someone tried to make a case based on area.

Quote:While pendulum swings are common and can be predicted in many cases, there is an issue that's going to shift this paradigm over the medium to long term. If the GOP cannot make inroads into the youth and minorities to replace traditional voting blocks, it will whither on the vine. The religious right message turns off a lot of the younger generation.

The younger generation also ages... and statistics overwhelmingly show that people tend to be more liberal when younger and more conservative as they age. If by Minorities you mean Hispanics, I'd agree... because they are a fast growing minority... but by and large the other's haven't supported republicans anyway even with different policies. Why piss off your base if you don't really have much of a shot of converting anyone else? The best you can hope for is to not alienate them/motivate them to vote AGAINST you.

The fact is that the current 'young' generation is smaller than the one that is aging.... so the average voter eligible age is actually getting older, not younger. I don't know which is greater... the percentage of young people who MIGHT have voted Republican but for the message of the religious right... or the percentage of older people who are growing more conservative as they get older.

If you take our the liberal youth who are going to vote liberal no matter what, and the conservative youth who are going to vote conservative no matter what... and then you take out those who don't judge their political leanings based on what OTHER people think or to whom religion isn't an important issue, That's not a particularly big cohort remaining. I think the number of youth who would vote for 'the first' of some sort of candidate, whether it be a woman or openly gay or atheist or red haired or whatever else is probably larger, but I wouldn't suggest that either side pick a candidate just for that.

I think like you somewhat alluded to, the ability to motivate your own constituency to vote (or not) is probably a bigger determinant than ANY of those other factors. Of course, if you can motivate your constituency AND address one or more of those cohorts, so much the better.

If Hillary can motivate her constituents, I think she has a shot because she will also carry some independent women and young people who wouldn't support a white man with the identical policies. I just don't think she's that popular with the left anymore, and the right would be out in droves to vote for a lawn chair to defeat her.

I'm going to throw another thought out there on why the GOP will have issues over the long term due to it's close affiliation to the religious right - morality.

It goes without saying, of course, that the religious right and the most conservative of the GOP destroys lefties on the morality front - correct? Or DOES it???

Consider this example that I'll throw out - charitable giving.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/...s-20140331

Quote:The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

I quoted a portion of the article to get to the crux of the point. Conservatives give more than their liberal counterparts based on the MIT study. However, digging into the numbers shows that most of the conservative giving goes into supporting a church as opposed to going to more tangible endeavors like homeless shelters, clothing drives, etc. I don't mean to take away from many religious institutions giving money to the needy. What I take away from the study is that there is a significant chunk of the religious right who THINK they are giving to charity and doing good. But...if most of that money is going to the day to day ops of their church, paying salaries for those to keep the church running and utilities to keep the church building habitable, then this large gap in charitable giving basically shrinks.

Food for thought. Also, I've seen other stories and studies that the next generations that are becoming adults and are currently younger adults view charity differently than their parents and grandparents. Kids today seem to put more onus on charitable giving specifically to causes for the poor and needy. Older Americans add a component to charitable giving that is basically "spiritual" - like sending bibles to the troops, buying and distributing bible tracts to "save people", and other endeavors of the sort.

In the mind of a person who views charity as a way to help the disadvantaged in life, does a guy who 1) gives 10% to his church, 2) volunteers at the church service in some capacity and 3) goes door to door to convince others to join his church look moral? I would argue no, he is not particularly generous or moral at all. Especially if said man periodically cheats on his wife but feels both remorse and comfort knowing that Jesus died for his sins and that nothing he can do will cause him to lose salvation after accepting Jesus into his heart. When you get down to the crux of it, religious people are no more or less moral than an atheist or tepid member of a church.

The only people who argue that the religious right/moral majority isn't hurting republicans are members of the religious right/moral majority.

(04-10-2015 01:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm going to throw another thought out there on why the GOP will have issues over the long term due to it's close affiliation to the religious right - morality.

It goes without saying, of course, that the religious right and the most conservative of the GOP destroys lefties on the morality front - correct? Or DOES it???

Consider this example that I'll throw out - charitable giving.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/...s-20140331

Quote:The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.

I quoted a portion of the article to get to the crux of the point. Conservatives give more than their liberal counterparts based on the MIT study. However, digging into the numbers shows that most of the conservative giving goes into supporting a church as opposed to going to more tangible endeavors like homeless shelters, clothing drives, etc. I don't mean to take away from many religious institutions giving money to the needy. What I take away from the study is that there is a significant chunk of the religious right who THINK they are giving to charity and doing good. But...if most of that money is going to the day to day ops of their church, paying salaries for those to keep the church running and utilities to keep the church building habitable, then this large gap in charitable giving basically shrinks.

Food for thought. Also, I've seen other stories and studies that the next generations that are becoming adults and are currently younger adults view charity differently than their parents and grandparents. Kids today seem to put more onus on charitable giving specifically to causes for the poor and needy. Older Americans add a component to charitable giving that is basically "spiritual" - like sending bibles to the troops, buying and distributing bible tracts to "save people", and other endeavors of the sort.

In the mind of a person who views charity as a way to help the disadvantaged in life, does a guy who 1) gives 10% to his church, 2) volunteers at the church service in some capacity and 3) goes door to door to convince others to join his church look moral? I would argue no, he is not particularly generous or moral at all. Especially if said man periodically cheats on his wife but feels both remorse and comfort knowing that Jesus died for his sins and that nothing he can do will cause him to lose salvation after accepting Jesus into his heart. When you get down to the crux of it, religious people are no more or less moral than an atheist or tepid member of a church.

I'm just going to point out, and I'm not religious at all, that churches do go out and do homeless shelters, soup kitchens, abuse centers, orphanages. The majority of charitable organizations in this country were founded by a church or people affiliated with a church in one way or another. I'm not criticizing you per se, but it sounds like you view people who give to the church as "buying their way into heaven" while people who give to different causes are more noble and doing it for purely altruistic reasons, which is debatable.

Before America became as secular as it is today, the church (whether it be catholic, baptists, lutheran, etc.) was generally a staple of the community that provided a myriad of goods and services to the needy and unlucky.

Personally, I'm surprised that people give their hard earned dollars to either church or charity. A little bit of research can show how overly bloated the administrative expenses of some of these "charities" and "research organizations" are and that you're lucky if 30 cents of every dollar you give even goes to actually helping those you wish to help.

(04-10-2015 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  An unpopular president combined with an uninspired democratic affiliated voting block tipped the scale to the GOP side. The exact same thing happened to the GOP when Bush was unpopular in 2006 - 2008 and the Dems gained seats plus a presidency. Just a cycle.

The unpopularity of a President isn't a cycle. It's a reaction. Plenty of Presidents have left office very popular... usually replaced by their VP.

Quote:Also, the representatives map showing an overwhelmingly red country is misleading. Most GOP districts have smaller population densities, so the districts are larger as a result.

Did someone try and compare 'area'? The quoted posts certainly don't. Otherwise, this just seems to be an attempt to detract from the fact that there were substantially more red districts in 2014 than in 2018. Whether it is 20% by population or 40% by area really doesn't matter. More is more. It's only misleading if someone tried to make a case based on area.

Quote:While pendulum swings are common and can be predicted in many cases, there is an issue that's going to shift this paradigm over the medium to long term. If the GOP cannot make inroads into the youth and minorities to replace traditional voting blocks, it will whither on the vine. The religious right message turns off a lot of the younger generation.

The younger generation also ages... and statistics overwhelmingly show that people tend to be more liberal when younger and more conservative as they age. If by Minorities you mean Hispanics, I'd agree... because they are a fast growing minority... but by and large the other's haven't supported republicans anyway even with different policies. Why piss off your base if you don't really have much of a shot of converting anyone else? The best you can hope for is to not alienate them/motivate them to vote AGAINST you.

The fact is that the current 'young' generation is smaller than the one that is aging.... so the average voter eligible age is actually getting older, not younger. I don't know which is greater... the percentage of young people who MIGHT have voted Republican but for the message of the religious right... or the percentage of older people who are growing more conservative as they get older.

If you take our the liberal youth who are going to vote liberal no matter what, and the conservative youth who are going to vote conservative no matter what... and then you take out those who don't judge their political leanings based on what OTHER people think or to whom religion isn't an important issue, That's not a particularly big cohort remaining. I think the number of youth who would vote for 'the first' of some sort of candidate, whether it be a woman or openly gay or atheist or red haired or whatever else is probably larger, but I wouldn't suggest that either side pick a candidate just for that.

I think like you somewhat alluded to, the ability to motivate your own constituency to vote (or not) is probably a bigger determinant than ANY of those other factors. Of course, if you can motivate your constituency AND address one or more of those cohorts, so much the better.

If Hillary can motivate her constituents, I think she has a shot because she will also carry some independent women and young people who wouldn't support a white man with the identical policies. I just don't think she's that popular with the left anymore, and the right would be out in droves to vote for a lawn chair to defeat her.

I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...y-boomers/

(04-10-2015 01:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The only people who argue that the religious right/moral majority isn't hurting republicans are members of the religious right/moral majority.

I think the issue is that in local and state elections, Christian Conservatives views can succeed. The problem is that this same cohort can't understand that on a national level, their ideology is DOA.

(04-10-2015 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 12:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  An unpopular president combined with an uninspired democratic affiliated voting block tipped the scale to the GOP side. The exact same thing happened to the GOP when Bush was unpopular in 2006 - 2008 and the Dems gained seats plus a presidency. Just a cycle.

The unpopularity of a President isn't a cycle. It's a reaction. Plenty of Presidents have left office very popular... usually replaced by their VP.

Quote:Also, the representatives map showing an overwhelmingly red country is misleading. Most GOP districts have smaller population densities, so the districts are larger as a result.

Did someone try and compare 'area'? The quoted posts certainly don't. Otherwise, this just seems to be an attempt to detract from the fact that there were substantially more red districts in 2014 than in 2018. Whether it is 20% by population or 40% by area really doesn't matter. More is more. It's only misleading if someone tried to make a case based on area.

Quote:While pendulum swings are common and can be predicted in many cases, there is an issue that's going to shift this paradigm over the medium to long term. If the GOP cannot make inroads into the youth and minorities to replace traditional voting blocks, it will whither on the vine. The religious right message turns off a lot of the younger generation.

The younger generation also ages... and statistics overwhelmingly show that people tend to be more liberal when younger and more conservative as they age. If by Minorities you mean Hispanics, I'd agree... because they are a fast growing minority... but by and large the other's haven't supported republicans anyway even with different policies. Why piss off your base if you don't really have much of a shot of converting anyone else? The best you can hope for is to not alienate them/motivate them to vote AGAINST you.

The fact is that the current 'young' generation is smaller than the one that is aging.... so the average voter eligible age is actually getting older, not younger. I don't know which is greater... the percentage of young people who MIGHT have voted Republican but for the message of the religious right... or the percentage of older people who are growing more conservative as they get older.

If you take our the liberal youth who are going to vote liberal no matter what, and the conservative youth who are going to vote conservative no matter what... and then you take out those who don't judge their political leanings based on what OTHER people think or to whom religion isn't an important issue, That's not a particularly big cohort remaining. I think the number of youth who would vote for 'the first' of some sort of candidate, whether it be a woman or openly gay or atheist or red haired or whatever else is probably larger, but I wouldn't suggest that either side pick a candidate just for that.

I think like you somewhat alluded to, the ability to motivate your own constituency to vote (or not) is probably a bigger determinant than ANY of those other factors. Of course, if you can motivate your constituency AND address one or more of those cohorts, so much the better.

If Hillary can motivate her constituents, I think she has a shot because she will also carry some independent women and young people who wouldn't support a white man with the identical policies. I just don't think she's that popular with the left anymore, and the right would be out in droves to vote for a lawn chair to defeat her.

I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Oh and just an FYI the millennials (1980-1999) are the largest generation beating out the baby boomers by 11 million. The most common age in the US right now is 22. Your "fact" is a complete lie.

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy...s-boomers/

You should try reading up on Frank the Tank, he has a very strong opinion on this.

(04-10-2015 01:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

My point is that these are as much driven by policy differences and not merely by people getting tired of the party in power. If it were, Obama wouldn't have lost so many seats in his first mid-term. There certainly wasn't fatigue over him yet. It was a reaction to the actions of the Democrats in Congress. Bush and Reagan and even Clinton generally saw their fatigue after their re-elections. Obama, Carter, Nixon and likely Ford were all policy driven. I'm not saying there isn't any pattern at all, I'm merely saying that you can't dismiss policy differences (are you better off today) and simply rely on patterns. There are plenty of exceptions to the pattern.

Quote:No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

I'm sure many do, but it can't possibly be the first. Representing the country graphically like that is what every election and every station has done since perhaps the color TV. Given that they started by showing the 2008 results which were overwhelmingly blue, I think the point being made is that there was a dramatic change.

Quote:Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

But libertarians at least at this point ARE Republicans. I agree that they shouldn't be, but they are... They certainly aren't Democrats. Certainly the GOP ticket can be split, but they also know that and try hard not to do that if they can help it. There wasn't a serious libertarian candidate for President in 2008 or 2012 and I doubt there will be (outside of the Republican party) in 2016. In 2020? Who knows.

Europe also overwhelmingly has a national sales tax as their primary funding source, which only Republicans have proposed and Democrats have fought HARD against. The religious right would be subject to the same declines as the rest of the population, so their influence and significance to the GOP will also decline.

I think far too many leftists overstate the significance of the religious right in the GOP. They've had anti-abortion comments as part of their platform for 30 or more years now, and still, even under Republican President's and Congresses, abortions have remained legal. Sarah Palin, often viewed as the poster child for the religious right VETOED a bill in far right leaning Alaska that would have denied spousal benefits to domestic partners. Best I know, she's no Constitutional Scholar so there is NO WAY that 'the courts wouldn't allow it' would be a reason for her to do that. I think it pretty clear that the GOP as a whole (and certainly most libertarians) pay a lot of lip service to the far right.... and in some house districts, ACTUAL service (just like the looney left) but when the rubber hits the road, it's far more practical.

Quote:Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

Millenials are described as 18-34, and Ibelieve that the switch between liberal and conservative happens closer to 28... further, gen x is also aging, so while they are smaller than either the boomers OR millenials, there are only generally 2 choices...

I think the larger reality is that the 18-25yr old millenials who swept Obama into office in 2008 will be 26-33 year olds in 2016. I don't know if the ones who were 10-17 in 2008 were larger or smaller than this group, but I think the proper math is to compare everyone between say 18-30 and everyone 30 or older. The group 30+ will almost always be larger and more conservative than the group 18-30.... even if the millenials are larger than the boomers.

Only saying that you've oversimplified the analysis. Conservatives don't need to reach young people if they can still get them as they age.

Personally, I think libertarians need to reach more liberals. I'm astounded at how few liberals believe in individual rights. European liberals ABSOLUTELY do. A European liberal is about as close to an American Libertarian as you can get... and not at ALL a US liberal.

(04-10-2015 01:20 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  I'm just going to point out, and I'm not religious at all, that churches do go out and do homeless shelters, soup kitchens, abuse centers, orphanages. The majority of charitable organizations in this country were founded by a church or people affiliated with a church in one way or another. I'm not criticizing you per se, but it sounds like you view people who give to the church as "buying their way into heaven" while people who give to different causes are more noble and doing it for purely altruistic reasons, which is debatable.

Before America became as secular as it is today, the church (whether it be catholic, baptists, lutheran, etc.) was generally a staple of the community that provided a myriad of goods and services to the needy and unlucky.

Personally, I'm surprised that people give their hard earned dollars to either church or charity. A little bit of research can show how overly bloated the administrative expenses of some of these "charities" and "research organizations" are and that you're lucky if 30 cents of every dollar you give even goes to actually helping those you wish to help.

I agree with you. I'm not trying to say that all giving to churches is bad or that zero churches do any good. Historically, the Catholic Church has always been and still is a significant player in charities that help the needy. My point about church giving is that it is not nearly as effective a vehicle as if you gave to a secular charity that has a top rating: https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities. Your typical church will take the majority of the donations and use for overhead, building maintenance, ministry outreach and a new jag for the minister...

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Do you not see a problem with what you said here? How would you know that since the time hasn't passed yet.

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Oh and just an FYI the millennials (1980-1999) are the largest generation beating out the baby boomers by 11 million. The most common age in the US right now is 22. Your "fact" is a complete lie.

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy...s-boomers/

You should try reading up on Frank the Tank, he has a very strong opinion on this.

You should slow down and read because he didn't say anything about Millenials or Baby boomers. What he said was this...

Quote:The fact is that the current 'young' generation is smaller than the one that is aging....

The youngest group that can vote are Millenials. Compared to the other (Gen X + Boomers + Elderly) combined groups, they're "smaller" by a long shot.

(04-10-2015 02:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the larger reality is that the 18-25yr old millenials who swept Obama into office in 2008 will be 26-33 year olds in 2016. I don't know if the ones who were 10-17 in 2008 were larger or smaller than this group, but I think the proper math is to compare everyone between say 18-30 and everyone 30 or older. The group 30+ will almost always be larger and more conservative than the group 18-30.... even if the millenials are larger than the boomers.

One group (18 to 25) group who still depends on mommy and daddy. The other group (26 to 33) have learned hard lessons on fending for themselves... hopefully.

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Since your generation is just now approaching the 'transitional window' I don't know if we can make that determination yet.

(04-10-2015 02:50 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I see so many inaccuracies with this post. For example the historical trend of younger people going from liberal to conservative as they age is not happening with the current generation as it has done so in the past.

Since your generation is just now approaching the 'transitional window' I don't know if we can make that determination yet.

People born after Windows 95 came out can now vote just an FYI. The oldest Millenials are now 35, not to mention that that tail end of Gen X would also allow us a better look at the going trend. Most would put the transitional window in the late 20s early 30s. I'd say we can make the determination.

(04-10-2015 01:24 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I disagree on your first point that there isn't a cycle. Presidents play a role in how the midterms go and a typical president will wear on the people over time - especially if we're talking about a 2 term president. From what I've read in history and seen in real life, it looks like FDR and Reagan are the only 2 that bucked that trend and FDR much more so than Reagan, because even Reagan observed a change in power in the legislature. You can argue that this is a more recent phenomenon, and I can absolutely agree with that since Clinton fatigue brought about the "contract with America", Bush fatigue saw the dems take over the legislature and then Obama fatigue saw that legislature flip back to the GOP hands.

No one tried to compare area, you are correct. However, if the OP of that graphic wasn't implying that the country is overwhelmingly conservative because of the large amount of red on the map then he would be the first.

Regarding the youth, yes I do see a "lifecycle" where young people become more conservative as they age. That's true. However, look at the statistics of church participation over time and you can see that the country is moving towards a more secular nation - just like Europe. My argument would be that as a younger person becomes more conservative, he/she will probably migrate from a liberal dem towards a libertarian as opposed to a GOP heavily influenced by the religious right. This is why Ron Paul was so popular with younger people overall plus GenX while Rand is one of the first candidates that I've ever seen where the word libertarian attached to his candidacy does not look like he has a case of AIDS.

Regarding the population of the U.S. by generation, what you are observing is the huge oscillation between the aging baby boomers being followed up by the unusually small GenX group. Following generations are larger than the GenX group so while your trend will hold for a period of time, it won't last and our population distribution will go back to something more realistic than what we see now (which was more skewed 10 years ago).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...y-boomers/

I've been saying what you've been stating in this thread for a long time.

The religious right is helpful in lower turnout mid-term elections where their solidarity is magnified.

However, when it comes to electoral college math for presidential elections, it's very clear that they're now a hindrance as opposed to any help at all. They're a recipe for the Republicans getting a passionate 49% of the vote and 260-ish electoral college votes, but that's the ceiling with them.

The thought that the Republicans should fear losing the Southern votes by rejecting the religious right is complete hogwash. They have such huge majorities in those states where some religious right voters staying home is irrelevant to the electoral college. Instead, the people that matter are the suburban swing voters (mostly women) in the swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia that are increasingly wary of the religious right. Without those 3 states specifically, the Republicans lose. Period.

People don't have to agree with me about gay marriage or other social issues. However, Republicans (and I consider myself one) need to look at political *strategy* much differently. I can hate the Green Bay Packers all that I want (and I very much do as a Bears fan), but I'd be nuts to sit here and argue that Jay Cutler is a better QB than Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is a better QB even though I personally want the Packers to lose every singe game. Whether I like the Packers or not, they have better personnel to win.

Likewise, the Democratic stance on social issues is better for winning swing state votes that matter. Period. There is no "Well, those voters will eventually see Benghazi/are sick of Clinton/hate Obama/figure out that the economy is terrible/don't want another Democrat!" argument with that segment of the population. They might be bothered with many of those items, but the disgust with the religious right stance on social issues trumps all of that. Conservatives may deny that to be the case because they so badly want their side to win and they live in echo chambers like the South where their positions might be popular (just like I want the Bears to win and saying that the "Packers s**k" is reflexive living in Chicago), but it's true. One anti-gay marriage statement right now can completely derail a Republican presidential campaign in those jurisdictions, so the party candidates need to adjust.

Republicans can definitely win the White House again, but it will take a wholesale retreat on social issues. They don't necessarily have to *support* gay marriage or abortion, but they simply need to ignore them. Get rid of all social issues from the platform and just focus on fiscal issues - that will get those swing voters that matter in Ohio, Virginia and Florida to pay attention, again. Otherwise, as I've said several times before here, we might as well start moving the Clintons' furniture back into the White House right now if they actually think that placating the religious right is a smart election strategy. The Republicans will just be relegated to being principled election losers for the next 8 years once again.