Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Good Anaylsis: "Baby Gap: How birthrates color the electoral map"
The American Conservative ^

Posted on 12/04/2004 6:03:48 AM PST by Uncledave

December 20, 2004 issue Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative

Baby Gap

How birthrates color the electoral map

By Steve Sailer

Despite the endless verbiage expended trying to explain America’s remarkably stable division into Republican and Democratic regions, almost no one has mentioned the obscure demographic factor that correlated uncannily with states’ partisan splits in both 2000 and 2004.

Clearly, the issues that so excite political journalists had but a meager impact on most voters. For example, the press spent the last week of the 2004 campaign in a tizzy over the looting of explosives at Iraq’s al-Qaqaa munitions dump, but, if voters even noticed al-Qaqaa, their reactions were predetermined by their party loyalty.

The 2000 presidential election, held during peace and prosperity, became instantly famous for illuminating a land culturally divided into a sprawling but thinly populated “red” expanse of Republicans broken up by small but densely peopled “blue” archipelagos of Democrats.

Four years of staggering events ensued, during which President Bush discarded his old “humble” foreign policy for a new one of nearly Alexandrine ambitions. Yet the geographic and demographic profiles of Bush voters in 2004 turned out almost identical to 2000, with the country as a whole simply nudged three points to the right.

Only a few groups appeared to have moved more than the average. The counties within commuting distance of New York’s World Trade Center became noticeably less anti-Bush. Yet even the one purported sizable demographic change—the claim by the troubled exit poll that Bush picked up nine points among Hispanics—appears to be an exaggeration caused by small sample sizes and poor survey techniques. In the real world, Hispanic counties swung toward Bush only about as much as everybody else did.

That the president launched a war under false pretenses no doubt caused a few highly-informed constituencies, such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the subscribers to this magazine, to shift many of their votes, but almost every group large enough to be measurable by exit polling was relatively stable. If they supported Bush’s foreign policy in 2000, they supported his contrary stance in 2004 and vice versa.

Still, this doesn’t mean voters are choosing red or blue frivolously. Indeed, voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies. The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.

I’ll focus primarily on Caucasians, who overall voted for Bush 58-41, in part because they are doing most of the arguing over the meaning of the red-blue division. The reasons blacks vote Democratic are obvious, and other racial blocs are smaller. Whites remain the 800-pound gorilla of ethnic electoral groups, accounting for over three out of every four votes.

The single most useful and understandable birthrate measure is the “total fertility rate.” This estimates, based on recent births, how many children the average woman currently in her childbearing years will have. The National Center for Health Statistics reported that in 2002 the average white woman was giving birth at a pace consistent with having 1.83 babies during her lifetime, or 13 percent below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman. This below-replacement level has not changed dramatically in three decades.

States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington, D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent—Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island—are three of the four states with the lowest white birthrates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.

Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule. (The least prolific red states are West Virginia, North Dakota, and Florida.)

In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats’ anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.

Among the 50 states plus Washington, D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush’s percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85.) In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is considered “low,” 0.4 “medium,” and 0.6 “high.”

You could predict 74 percent of the variation in Bush’s shares just from knowing each state’s white fertility rate. When the average fertility goes up by a tenth of a child, Bush’s share normally goes up by 4.5 points.

In a year of predictably partisan books, one lively surprise has been What’s the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank, a left-wing journalist from Kansas who, after a sojourn in Chicago, now lives with his wife and single child in the Democratic stronghold of Washington, D.C. Frank is puzzled by why conservative Republicans in his home state are obsessed with cultural issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and teaching evolution in the schools instead of the leftist economic populism that Frank admires in Kansas’s past.

While the Christian Right in Kansas doesn’t much hold with Darwin, they are doing well at the basic Darwinian task of reproducing themselves: pro-life Kansas has the fourth-highest white fertility in the country at 2.06 babies per woman, and the birthrate of the conservative Republicans that Frank finds so baffling is likely to be even higher. On the crucial question of whether a group can be bothered not to die out, “What’s the Matter with Massachusetts?” would be a more pertinent question. Massachusetts’s whites are failing to replace themselves, averaging only 1.6 babies per woman, and the state’s liberal Democrats are probably reproducing even less than that.

So white birthrates and Republican voting are closely correlated, but what causes what? The arrow of causality seems to flow in both directions.

To understand what’s driving this huge political phenomenon, you have to think like a real-estate shopper, not like an intellectual. Everybody loves to talk real estate, but the sharp insights into how the world works that you hear while shooting the breeze about houses and neighborhoods seldom work their way into prestigious discourse about public affairs.

As you’ve seen on all those red-blue maps, most of America’s land is red, even though Kerry won 48 percent of the vote. Even excluding vast Alaska, Bush’s counties are only one-fourth as densely populated on average as Kerry’s counties. Lower density helps explain why red regions both attract the baby-oriented and encourage larger families among those already there.

A dozen years ago, University of Chicago sociologist Edward O. Laumann and others wrote a tome with the soporific postmodern title The Social Organization of Sexuality. I wrote to them and suggested a follow-up called The Sexual Organization of Society because, in my experience with Chicago, where people lived coincided with their sexual status. In 1982, when I moved to Chicago as a young single man, I sought out detailed advice on where the greatest density of pretty girls lived and there rented a 21st-floor apartment with a stunning view of Lake Michigan. I became engaged three years later, and so, mission accomplished, I moved to a less chic neighborhood with more affordable rents. Two years later, when my bride became pregnant, we relocated to an even more unfashionable spot where we could buy ample square footage. (To my satisfaction, Laumann’s team just this year published a categorization of Chicago’s neighborhoods entitled The Sexual Organization of the City.)

My experience is hardly unusual. Singles often move to cities because the density of other singles makes them good places to become unsingle. But singles, especially women, generally vote Democratic. For example, in the 2002 midterm elections, only 39 percent of unmarried women and 44 percent of unmarried men voted for a GOP candidate for the House of Representatives. In contrast, 56 percent of married women voted for the GOP, similar to their husbands’ 58 percent. The celebrated gender gap is, in truth, largely a marriage gap among women.

When city couples marry, they face major decisions: do they enjoy the adult-oriented cultural amenities of the city so much that they will stick it out, or do they head for the suburbs, exurbs, or even the country to afford more space for a growing family?

Couples attempting to raise children in a big blue city quickly learn the truth of what bond trader Sherman McCoy’s father told him in Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities: “If you want to live in New York, you’ve got to insulate, insulate, insulate.” Manhattan liberals all believe in celebrating diversity in theory but typically draw the line at subjecting their own offspring to it in the public schools. With Manhattan private K-12 school tuitions now approaching $25,000, insulating multiple children rapidly becomes too expensive for all but the filthy rich.

In tempting contrast, the cost-of-living calculator provided by Realtor.com says that a $100,000 salary in liberal Manhattan buys only as much as a $38,000 salary in conservative Pinehurst, North Carolina. Likewise, a San Francisco couple earning $100,000 between them can afford just as much in Cedar City, Utah if the husband can find a $44,000-a-year job—and then the wife can stay home with their children. Moreover, the culture of Cedar City is more conducive to child rearing than San Francisco. Having insulated themselves through distance rather than money, they can now send their kids to public schools. (Among red states, the South has lower white fertility than the northern Great Plains and Great Basin, perhaps because many Southern conservatives, like many Manhattan liberals, prefer private schools, which makes children more expensive than out in Lewis & Clark Country, where the public schools are popular because they aren’t terribly diverse.) In Cedar City, the wife won’t feel as unprestigious for being a stay-at-home mom as she would in San Francisco. And mom won’t have to chauffeur the kids everywhere because traffic and crime are light enough that they can ride their bikes.

With more children, the couple will have less money per child to buy insulation from America’s corrosive media culture, so they are likely to look to the government for help. Typically, red-region parents don’t ask for much, often just for quasi-symbolic endorsements of family values, the non-economic gestures that drive Thomas Frank crazy. But there’s nothing irrational about trying to protect and guide your children. As the socially conservative black comedian Chris Rock advises fathers, “Your main job is to keep your daughter off The Pole” (i.e., to keep her from becoming a stripper).

That red-region parents want their politicians to endorse morality does not necessarily mean that red staters always behave more morally than blue staters. While there are well-behaved red states such as Utah and Colorado, hell-raising white Texans are 3.4 times more likely than white New Yorkers to be behind bars. Similarly, whites in conservative Mississippi and South Carolina are one-sixth as likely as blacks in those states to be imprisoned, compared to the national average of one-ninth. By contrast, in ultra-liberal Washington D.C., whites are only one-fifty-sixth as likely to be in the slammer as blacks.

The late socialist historian Jim Chapin pointed out that it was perfectly rational for parents with more children than money to ask their political and cultural leaders to help them insulate their kids from bad examples, even, or perhaps especially, if the parents themselves are not perfect role models.

Focusing on children, insulation, and population density reveals that blue-region white Democrats’ positions on vouchers, gun control, and environmentalism are motivated partly by fear of urban minorities.

In 2001, the Wall Street Journal’s favorite mayor, Brett Schundler, ran for governor of New Jersey on a platform of vouchers to help inner-city children attend better schools in the suburbs. The now notorious Democrat Jim McGreevey beat him badly because white suburban moderates shunned this Republican who put the welfare of urban minority children ahead of their own. These homeowners were scraping together big mortgage payments precisely to get their kids into exclusive suburban school districts insulated from what they saw as the ghetto hellions that Schundler hoped to unleash on their children. They had much of their net worths tied up in their homes, and their property values depended on the local public schools’ high test scores, which they feared wouldn’t survive an onslaught of slum children. So they voted Democratic to keep minorities in their place.

The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.

White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.

Likewise, liberals in blue areas such as Northern California pioneer environmental restrictions on development in part to keep out illegal immigrants and other poor minorities. Thinly populated Republican areas are pro-development because increasing density raises property values as once remote regions obtain roads, sewer hookups, cable television, local shopping, and nice restaurants. If poorly planned, however, overcrowding causes property values to lag, allowing poor people to move in.

Conservative Southern California, home to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, was traditionally more laissez faire than liberal Northern California, ultimately allowing itself to be inundated by poorly educated illegal aliens, wrecking the public schools. In contrast, environmentalist—and thus expensive—Northern California attracted a variety of skilled immigrants. Eventually, many Los Angeles Republicans either fled inland or decided that those San Francisco Democrats had the right idea all along.

Now illegal immigrants are flocking to other pro-growth red states, such as North Carolina and Georgia, and may eventually turn those states Democratic due both to the Democratic-voting immigrants’ very high birthrates and to a California-style drift toward environmentalism among its white voters as laissez faire proves inadequate to keep out illegal aliens.

Nobody noticed that the famous blue-red gap was a white baby gap because the subject of white fertility is considered disreputable. But I believe the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. At least, it’s certainly more interesting. _________________________________________________________

Steve Sailer is TAC’s film critic. He also writes for VDARE.com and iSteve.com.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Connecticut; US: District of Columbia; US: Georgia; US: Kansas; US: Massachusetts; US: Michigan; US: New Jersey; US: New York; US: North Carolina; US: Rhode Island; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: aliens; bang; banglist; birthrate; bushvictory; environmental; environmentalist; illegalimmigration; immigration; immigrationlist; mcgreevey; napalminthemorning; partyofthehindparts; prolife; religionofpeace; schoolchoice; schools; schundler; stevesailer; voucherprogram; vouchers; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

1 posted on 12/04/2004 6:03:48 AM PST by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

The reps can be glad for abortion and birth control. It just may put them in power for decades.


2 posted on 12/04/2004 6:10:01 AM PST by tkathy (There will be no world peace until all thuggocracies are gone from the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Do they have a map. Sometimes graphics are more influential than words.


3 posted on 12/04/2004 6:11:03 AM PST by NeoCaveman (http://route-82.blogspot.com (Now with 20% more stuned beebers))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
President Bush discarded his old “humble” foreign policy for a new one of nearly Alexandrine ambitions.

Road apples!

4 posted on 12/04/2004 6:13:29 AM PST by BenLurkin (Big government is still a big problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

Yes, how many potential democratic voters have been aborted over the past 20-30 years? That might explain the big shift.


5 posted on 12/04/2004 6:18:37 AM PST by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

ping to finish later


6 posted on 12/04/2004 6:25:20 AM PST by Mercat (Thank you freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Fascinating

This article will require further thought
The Fecundity vs Voting ratio scatter gram however
is an unmistakable statistic
7 posted on 12/04/2004 6:48:28 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Abortion on demand: Social Darwinism at its finest. One full generation, and a part of a second, are now missing in those families whose culture was permissive about abortion.

The part of the society that was permissive about abortion was also strongly inclined to be "progressive" (read liberal) in many other facets of life as well. This includes, but is not limited to, "environmentalism" with its emphasis on keeping the Earth as some pristine, pure Paradise it never was, "anti-war" when the war was being waged against socialism or socialistic ideologies (how this came to include militant Islamists I cannot determine), and entitlements for whole segments of the population, regardless of the resources or perceived need.

Chickens have come home to roost, in a most ruthless and unforgiving manner.


8 posted on 12/04/2004 6:51:58 AM PST by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Yep it's all right in front of you...in BLACK and WHITE...or should I say Caucasian?


9 posted on 12/04/2004 6:57:15 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
I've been saying for ages that Liberals were aborting themselves out of existence.
10 posted on 12/04/2004 6:57:44 AM PST by Nyboe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Lord save us all from ruthless,unforgiving chickens.


11 posted on 12/04/2004 7:00:30 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jb6; TexasGreg
Yes, how many potential democratic voters have been aborted over the past 20-30 years? That might explain the big shift.

The last I heard the figure was 42 million, and that was a couple of years ago. I suspect it's 44 million now. Has anyone considered that is 44 million who would normally be paying into the Social Security coffers? The liberals shoot themselves in the foot with every action they take.
12 posted on 12/04/2004 7:02:06 AM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CBart95

No Aunt Jemimah jokes at this point. My sides can't take it.


13 posted on 12/04/2004 7:03:47 AM PST by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Do they have a map. Sometimes graphics are more influential than words.

He probably doesn't have his broken down by congressional district, but I believe the correlation would be stronger if he did. I guess nobody can get birth rates for anything smaller than a State.

14 posted on 12/04/2004 7:08:26 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
"Blue" whites are disappearing fast, between sodomy and abortion.

Buh-bye!

15 posted on 12/04/2004 7:09:52 AM PST by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...

Ping for life! Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD. Babies are GOOD.


16 posted on 12/04/2004 7:14:26 AM PST by narses (Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family + Vivo Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Am I the only one a bit disturbed that this article starts out as an interesting statistical analysis of birthrates by state and then seems to turn into a xenophobic, race-obsessed doomsday prediction? Consider the source here, people; the American Conservative is not what it seems, nor what it once was. If memory serves, they endorsed Kerry.


17 posted on 12/04/2004 7:17:36 AM PST by xjcsa (Everything matters if anything matters at all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks

Bing-bing-bing-bing!

We have a winner!

18 posted on 12/04/2004 7:20:31 AM PST by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

http://www.isteve.com/04NovB.htm#babygaptac
scatter gram half way down page
http://www.herdrick.com/coloredmaps/bushVoteAndTotalFertilityRateForWhites--1.4to2.2And0.32177to0.685.html
Geographic map of fertility and voting


19 posted on 12/04/2004 7:20:32 AM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

From the American Conservative website ("about us"):

"And we will discuss, frequently, America’s role in the world, turning a critical eye on those who want to cast aside every relevant American foreign policy tradition—from Robert Taft-style isolationism to prudent Dwight Eisenhower-style internationalism, in favor of go it alone militarism, where America threatens and bombs one nation after another, while the world looks on in increasing horror."


20 posted on 12/04/2004 7:21:44 AM PST by xjcsa (Everything matters if anything matters at all...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Uncledave
... Manhattan liberals all believe in celebrating diversity in theory but typically draw the line at subjecting their own offspring to it in the public schools...

Very interesting points. And the Republicans are called the racists and bigots.
22 posted on 12/04/2004 7:22:23 AM PST by baseballmom (You Know Where I Stand - GW Bush - 9/2/04 We're standing with you, Mr. President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
President Bush discarded his old “humble” foreign policy for a new one of nearly Alexandrine ambitions.

Road apples!

Not to mention this unbiased little blurb:

That the president launched a war under false pretenses no doubt caused a few highly-informed constituencies.

No lib agenda from this writer ... nope, not even a little bit of one.

23 posted on 12/04/2004 7:23:58 AM PST by tx_eggman ("All I need to know about Islam I learned on 09/11/01" - Crawdad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

President Bush discarded his old “humble” foreign policy for a new one of nearly Alexandrine ambitions.

"Road apples!"

Indeed, but what can we expect from a film critic?


24 posted on 12/04/2004 7:27:24 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

aborted democrats should be factored into the equation:

The Empty Cradle Will Rock
How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

More than 40 million legal abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:

• There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.

• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.

• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.

These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?

The number of abortions accumulate in size and political impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277


25 posted on 12/04/2004 7:37:28 AM PST by Archytekt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Missing voters and also missing contributors to the socialist's beloved entitlement programs.


26 posted on 12/04/2004 7:38:50 AM PST by P.O.E. (Thank you, Vets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: tkathy
The reps can be glad for abortion and birth control. It just may put them in power for decades.

Please, don't give the Left any ammo. While they may hope for the worst in order to gain power, I would hope most of us on the Right (what an apropos term!) would not "be grateful" for atrocities.

28 posted on 12/04/2004 7:41:30 AM PST by trebb (Ain't God good . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
I’ll focus primarily on Caucasians.....

-----------------------

Thereby rendering this anaslysis useless, no Latinos, no Black, no Asian, no South Asians included. Who do they think is having the babies in the Urban states?

29 posted on 12/04/2004 7:44:04 AM PST by wtc911 ("I would like at least to know his name.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
pro-life Kansas has the fourth-highest white fertility in the country at 2.06 babies per woman, and the birthrate of the conservative Republicans that Frank finds so baffling is likely to be even higher. On the crucial question of whether a group can be bothered not to die out, “What’s the Matter with Massachusetts?” would be a more pertinent question. Massachusetts’s whites are failing to replace themselves, averaging only 1.6 babies per woman, and the state’s liberal Democrats are probably reproducing even less than that.

It's a a tad hard to reproduce children when in a Gay Marriage

30 posted on 12/04/2004 8:28:55 AM PST by Mo1 (Should be called Oil for Fraud and not Oil for Food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joonbug
Yes, how many potential democratic voters have been aborted over the past 20-30 years?

As Carl Sagan might say "billions and billions".

31 posted on 12/04/2004 8:35:20 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HangnJudge

super map! the colors hardly change when you go from fertility to voting, except that the fertile states become even brighter red for voting.

Yes, this confirms what many of us have been thinking for years. A number of families in my daughter's school and in our parish and home-schoolers we know have a lot more than 2.2 kids: 7, 8 are not unheard of. Just like the good old days! ;)


32 posted on 12/04/2004 8:59:50 AM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Archytekt

Bump! aborted voter statistics

If I had gone to a Kerry FReep, I wanted a sign that said "Kerry, some of your voters are missing! 1973-1982 ROE V WADE" or "some of your voters were aborted" or something even cleverer. Glad to know someone has compiled the statistics, so we can use them in the next election cycle!


33 posted on 12/04/2004 9:03:16 AM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave; father_elijah; nickcarraway; SMEDLEYBUTLER; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; attagirl; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

34 posted on 12/04/2004 9:29:22 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

AAAAAHHHHHHH, it's all hopeless! :D


35 posted on 12/04/2004 9:31:13 AM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

My thoughts exactly. However, what about those lib voters who constantly reproduce to take advantage of those same entitlement programs? Now THAT'S scary. I will shortly have five children, but I don't expect the state to help me pay for their upbringing. Money is tight from time to time, but that's why Mr. Ex and I have priorities. We straightened them out as soon as we were "surprised" by the appearance of our oldest.

A lot of those entitlements (medicaid, food stamps, AFDC) are exploited by those who continue to have children they can't support. Those children will continue the cycle, thus creating more lib voters to keep saying "yea" to those programs.


36 posted on 12/04/2004 9:47:06 AM PST by exnavychick (Just my two cents, as usual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Families with a lot of children tend to be less self centered/selfish than familes with little or no children.


37 posted on 12/04/2004 9:49:51 AM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
Still, this doesn’t mean voters are choosing red or blue frivolously. Indeed, voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies. The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.
38 posted on 12/04/2004 10:03:57 AM PST by Coleus (I support ethical, effective and safe stem cell research and use: adult, umbilical cord, bone marrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

Likewise, liberals in blue areas such as Northern California pioneer environmental restrictions on development in part to keep out illegal immigrants and other poor minorities.....


39 posted on 12/04/2004 10:04:35 AM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born Conservative


40 posted on 12/04/2004 10:05:41 AM PST by Coleus (There is Plenty of Room For all of God's Creatures, Right Next to the mashed potatoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave

Recently I came upon research that pointed to a remarkable statistic regarding Black abortion rates. In the roughly 30 years since Roe, enough Black babies have been aborted so that had they lived, the number of Blacks in America would be 1/3 higher! Amazing! The rats are killing their own voters. If the kkk killed one one thousand of that number it would be the national scandal it deserves to be. rats are evil ain't they?


41 posted on 12/04/2004 10:09:30 AM PST by jmaroneps37 ( Frist/ Blackwell in 2008 for a landslide: you saw it here first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
This is quite an insightful article. When the dust clears, we may find that people are voting more for traditional reasons: self-interest, and group loyalty/identity/cohesion, and not so much out of a great clash of basic principles. Principles do clash and ideologies are in conflict, but there are large chunks of the population who voted for Bush or Kerry because they perceived that their candidate was more "like" them, or because the opposing candidate looked so different from themselves, or because they wanted to keep things more or less the same where they lived, or because they saw one side or the other as more congenial to their interests.

Likewise, liberals in blue areas such as Northern California pioneer environmental restrictions on development in part to keep out illegal immigrants and other poor minorities. Thinly populated Republican areas are pro-development because increasing density raises property values as once remote regions obtain roads, sewer hookups, cable television, local shopping, and nice restaurants. If poorly planned, however, overcrowding causes property values to lag, allowing poor people to move in.

Conservative Southern California, home to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, was traditionally more laissez faire than liberal Northern California, ultimately allowing itself to be inundated by poorly educated illegal aliens, wrecking the public schools. In contrast, environmentalist—and thus expensive—Northern California attracted a variety of skilled immigrants. Eventually, many Los Angeles Republicans either fled inland or decided that those San Francisco Democrats had the right idea all along.

That's worth thinking about. Sometimes areas develop such striking local problems that they feel they "have" to vote for a party that once seemed uncongenial to them. Even if they think their new choice doesn't have the right ideas with regard to economics or morals, they fear that their old party would ignore their own particular interests and "needs." People gravitate to the party whose leaders have the same background -- in this case White, urban or inner suburban, professional, non-evangelical -- as they do. And in some places, the Democrats look like the status quo, anti-growth, anti-change party to people, so they win votes even among those who don't share the more radical views of the party activists.

Now illegal immigrants are flocking to other pro-growth red states, such as North Carolina and Georgia, and may eventually turn those states Democratic due both to the Democratic-voting immigrants’ very high birthrates and to a California-style drift toward environmentalism among its white voters as laissez faire proves inadequate to keep out illegal aliens.

You can already see this in once solidly Republican and now marginal states like Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. When you get a large non-White, non-Black vote in some Southern states, it may have the effect of pushing some of those states into the swing category as well.

42 posted on 12/04/2004 10:10:42 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
There is nothing more racist or intolerant than a liberal.
43 posted on 12/04/2004 10:11:30 AM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave; dd5339; cavtrooper21

The article's a good read, but it failed to touch on the abortion-as-Dems-killing-their-own aspect.


44 posted on 12/04/2004 10:14:59 AM PST by Vic3O3 (Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Blacks account for 12% of the population and 30% of the abortion rate, they are literally killing off their race and next generation in America. Margaret Sanger's plan is slowly working where a planned parenthood is in most urban areas in the country and now are in the schools.


45 posted on 12/04/2004 10:16:03 AM PST by Coleus (There is Plenty of Room For all of God's Creatures, Right Next to the mashed potatoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule.

Even here the red parts of the state are growing(Livingston, Ottawa, Kent, Lapeer Counties) while most (Ann Arbor area and Southfield is the exception) blue areas are shrinking (Detroit, Most of Detroit's inner burbs outside Southfield, Flint, Lansing, East Lansing, Saginaw, Bay City, Muskegon)

46 posted on 12/04/2004 10:21:36 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("BZZZZZT You are fined one credit for violation of the Verbal Morality Statute")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncledave
Yep....the left loves those abortions...

They've aborted their voters of today.

Did the left think about that when abortion became legal...I'd say YES...However, what they had counted on was dumbing down kids to such a degree when they began to vote; those kids would be liberal loons voting for the bad guys. Guess the left had not considered the continued influence their parents would have on them...raising right leaning adults. ;o)

47 posted on 12/04/2004 10:30:54 AM PST by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tkathy

=== The reps can be glad for abortion and birth control. It just may put them in power for decades.


It's very likely that's one reason it was Republicans who found it critical to implement both birth control and legal abortion as part of their comprehensive population control program.

While Pubbies were busy filling the Congressional Record with fear of over-population and "Down Breeding" and suggesting alternatives for population control and "moral" depopulation to counter misguided "moral" attempts to lengthen lives, reduce infant morality and encourage breeding, Democrats still were agitating against abortion as "targeted genocide."

(This is one reason why NOW was able to protest his former "pro-lifer" voting record during Gore's anti-campaign in 2000.)

It's no wonder the Dems changed their tune practically overnight once Kissinger & Co. were positioned to make abortion "vital to the solution" of population control at home and abroad given how critical it was that the party of Dysgenics consider it the Litmus Test zenith of empowerment and "rights" to OFF THEIR OWN.

Abortion has always been a GOP policy. They were first to lay the foundation back in 1970, citing the "economic discrimination" whereby poor women were impaired from destroying the progeny they felt was contributing to the Down Breeding of American society.

All in the Congressional Record, tkathy. You oughta take a look sometime and see how right you are.


48 posted on 12/04/2004 10:36:42 AM PST by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Abortion on demand: Social Darwinism at its finest. One full generation, and a part of a second, are now missing in those families whose culture was permissive about abortion.
I realize it's the preference of most RedStaters to focus exclusively on the blood and guts of abortion.

However, it's their penchant for birth control -- a "right" which necessitates and lays the foundation foir abortion in the first place -- which suggests they'll lose in the end.

Look to Europe where the Meek who yet refuse to bar the Creator fromi the marriage bed are changing the face of formerly Christian nations.

Same will apply here.

49 posted on 12/04/2004 10:39:17 AM PST by Askel5 († Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Thanks for the ping! BTTT for later


50 posted on 12/04/2004 10:41:20 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson