Skip to comments.Why Teenagers Today May Grow Up Conservative
Posted on 07/08/2014 5:24:57 AM PDT by Theoria
There was a time not so long ago when the young seemed destined to be liberal forever. Americans in their teens and 20s were to the left of their elders on social issues. They worried more about poverty. They voted strongly Democratic.
In retrospect, we refer to this period as the 1960s, and it didnt last long, let alone forever. Less than a generation after young people were marching for civil rights and against the Vietnam War, they voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan.
Today, of course, the young are liberal again, and it seems as if they will be forever. They favor same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, stricter gun laws, citizenship for illegal immigrants and an activist government that fights climate change and inequality. The Republican Party, as you have probably noticed, does not.
But the temporary nature of the 1960s should serve as a reminder that politics change. What seems permanent can become fleeting. And the Democratic Party, for all its strengths among Americans under 40, has some serious vulnerabilities, too.
In the simplest terms, the Democrats control the White House (and, for now, the Senate) at a time when the country is struggling. Economic growth has been disappointing for almost 15 years now. Most Americans think this country is on the wrong track. Our foreign policy often seems messy and complex, at best.
To Americans in their 20s and early 30s the so-called millennials many of these problems have their roots in George W. Bushs presidency. But think about people who were born in 1998, the youngest eligible voters in the next presidential election. They are too young to remember much about the Bush years or the excitement surrounding the first Obama presidential campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A Majority of young people are non-white and a huge majority are going to vote democrat for life just like their parents.
Well good luck on financing their “dreams”. With no jobs, and a 75% tax rate, unemployment and poverty will become the new norm. Oh yeah, and those One Percenters? They will be in daily danger of their lives as bands of the young unemployed become total savages when the money runs out for those EBT cards.
I am skeptical of his prediction (for a longer term) however Romney and McCain were pretty crappy candidates, McCain was a guaranteed losing pick in 2008 and Romney wasn’t all that much better four years later.
We definitely need better than them.
People FIRST have to know how to read in order to vote Conservative.
The NEA is making sure THAT will not happen. The deck is certainly stacked.
Keep giving out all the odumbo “free stuff” and there is NO WAY these young will vote conservative..........Until they get a job and start paying taxes and realize where all their tax money is going. I have a son who was VERY liberal until he experienced exactly that.
Alinsky tactics begin to fail when the response to the one demonized becomes "Who?". Politics moves away from personality and back to issues. And the Democrats find themselves in trouble...
The rallies at Nuremberg!!!
Well, a dose of reality doesnt hurt once in a while
such as when a far left liberal guvmint spends money like drunken sailors causing deficits and accumulated debts to balloon and finally the credit rating agencies downgrade them so that their interest rates go up several notches. Then when it all crashes, the cycle can start over again from a basis of no guvmint programs and no money to spend on anything.
Any young person who opens his or her eyes and sees the path we are on has to be conservative. They will be able to see that when they are in their 50s and 60s, or even their 40s, that our country’s Welfare State Ponzi scheme will be falling apart and that they will be the ones getting screwed even worse than today’s middle-aged people. Then they will look around for a “rich” person to tax and none will be around. They either have to change that system now or live in a country that is much poorer and much less safe.
That that is one pillar of Obama's fundamental transformation. keep people out of the workforce.
Worked for me.
Having to slog my way through high-school as my family struggled with all the indignities of the Carter Administration turned me to the right and kept me there.
I considered myself fairly liberal until I went to college. There I saw what liberals (Northeastern, Radical Liberals....the worst flavor!) were really like. I quickly figured out that I had little in common with them.
That is the norm in Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc.
and guess what, they still vote 95%+ Democrat
In 1968 the Democrats won 47% of the (21) to 29 year old vote, in 1972, they won 46% of the 18 to 29 age group, in 1976, after Watergate, and with the weak, moderate (and under suspicion) Ford, against what appeared to be a social conservative Democrat with a strong military back ground, the Democrats picked up 51% of the 18 to 29 year old vote.
In 1980 Democrats got 44% of that age group, 1984-40%, 1988-47%.
It wasn’t until 1992 that the under 30 age group became a Democrat voter group, George W. did get 46% and 45% though.
The 66% that Obama won, is unprecedented and doesn’t bode well for the future.
This myth making by the left never ends, we conservatives wish the under 30 vote was what it used to be.
Not to mention their teachers.
“Youth” has very little to do with this voting pattern.
Race is the key issue.
In 2014, almost half of all 18 year olds will be non-white.
Fact is, young people vote very much like their parents, and non-white parents vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Republicans have only themselves to blame for this political catastrophe.
Since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986, the GOP has agreed to 3 more smaller Amnesties, and we agreed to massive increases in work visas, Green Cards, and new naturalized citizens.
The political bill for those reckless decisions has now come due.
2012 - Obama’s youth vote came down to 60%.
The 4 million white voters who “stayed home” in 2012 are most likely young whites who voted for Obama in 2008.
But, as you say, long term, the political future for Conservatives looks very grim.
It isn’t purely a matter of race, the white percentages used to be a little higher, and Romney’s turnout was slightly higher than McCains’s, not 4 million lower.
I’m not aware of anything showing that the white youth stayed home in 2012.
I hope this is true, but I’m dubious.
Remember that a huge percentage have been given a progressive education by teachers who got a progressive education themselves.
My perception is that the typical millennial knows more about “climate change” than the US Constitution.
I said that wrong, the turnout WAS lower for 2012, but Romney did increase his share by less than a million over McCain in 2008.
As far as how it broke down I don’t know, Romney did easily win the Independents, yet still lost, it might have been conservatives who stayed home, possibly because of Romney coming out as pro-choice, and running pro-choice ads in battleground states.
I know two conservatives 21 & 17....not Zero fans.
Like my M-I-L used to say about an adult female child that was still living with and off of them...
"Someday ____ will discover that toilet paper costs money."
And probably received 100% of the deceived MORMON vote...
Romney was the designated loser. McCain was so proud to lose that he suspended his campaign when it got too much momentum and then pretty much endorsed Obama a week before the election.
Romney did better with Evangelicals than with Mormons, he won 79% of the Evangelical vote.
I use the age and racial data provided by NEP, which is used by all major news networks, AP, and the NY Times.
You may be using some parts of the Census Bureau election data, which can be substantially different.
According to my math:
2012 - Obama’s white vote went down 5.5 million.
2012 - Romney's white vote went up 1.4 million compared to McCain.
2012 - Total white voters went down 4.2 million.
Many folks at Free Republic insist that 4 million Conservatives stayed home in 2012.
I don't think the data supports that conclusion.
I think it is much more likely that 4 million white Obama supporters stayed home in 2012.
A definitive answer to this question can actually be found in the raw NEP data.
But that's behind a pay wall.
Romney got fewer than a million more votes than McCain, although he was running against Jimmy Carter’s second term, in an election that republicans couldn’t lose, and on the verge of a depression.
Mitt did that while easily winning Independents yet losing the election, which is almost unheard of, Romney depressed the republican vote is what it seems.
Although Romney got 59% of the white vote, that was close to the 58% in 2004, and much less than numbers like 67% and 64% and white turn out was low.
If his white numbers went up greatly as you say, and he did great with non-republican (the independents), then someone stayed home among the base.
You mean 20% of the Mormons voted for OBAMA???
Namely, Republicans do not have a “youth” problem.
We have a "race" problem.
2012 - All White Voters - Age 18-29
2012 - White Women Voters - Age 18-29
I think 2008 was an historical outlier for 5 reasons:
(1) The MSM created an Obama that did not exist.
(2) White guilt.
(3) The worst recession since 1931.
(4) President Bush - the lowest approval since Hoover.
(5) John McCain - the most demoralizing GOP candidate since Hoover.
Conservatives already outnumber liberals by a large margin. The problem is both political parties and most of the media despise conservative values.
Nixon did better than that with the under 30s during the draft and the Vietnam war and with a hateful media, and all the other things people think of during the time.
We have all kinds of problems, youth, race, and Romney driving down turnout.
In 1968, Nixon got 43.4% of the popular vote compared to Romney’s 47.2%, so I doubt Nixon got a higher percentage of the white youth vote than Romney.
In the 1972 election, we had no combat troops in Vietnam, and the Draft ended 3 months later.
When I say we have a “race” problem, I mean we have a LEGAL immigration problem.
Since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986, we have naturalized 20 million new Socialist voters.
We have ONE problem...
In 1972 we still had the draft and were still in Vietnam, and I was in the army and the democrats got 46% of the youth vote and Nixon got 52%, and in 1968 53% of the youth voted against the democrats since George Wallace was running and won almost 14% of the vote, and was seen as to the right of Nixon, with Veep candidate Curtis LeMay.
Yes legal immigration is the main problem, but not the only one, the white under 30 vote is far more liberal than it used to be.
Remember that Romney was too far left to have run for either party in the 60s or 70s, too far left to get out his base, and you are comparing pure white under 30s with the total under 30 voting of the past, yet the radical left, and dismal failure Obama still did great with the white under 30s in 2012.
You seem determined to make immigration the sole problem for some reason, and seem to be agreeing with the writer’s mistaken history of the under 30 vote.
USA offensive combat action in Vietnam ended 9 weeks after the 1972 election, not before the election.
Re: “George Wallace was seen as to the Right of Nixon.”
Only on two issues: States Rights and Desegregation.
Wallace was to the Left of Nixon on Vietnam - he pledged to unconditionally bring home the troops in 90 days if the War could not be won with non-nuclear weapons.
Re: “The white under 30 vote is far more liberal than it used to be.”
In 1980, Ronald Reagan received just 44% of the youth vote, which was at least 85% white.
Reagan's opponents - the liberal Jimmy Carter and the RINO John Anderson - received 56%.
Re: “You are comparing pure white under 30s with the total under 30 voting of the past.”
In 1968, more than 90% of ALL voters were white.
Re: “Obama still did great with the white under 30s in 2012.”
Romney beat Obama by 7% with white youth.
Re: “You seem to be agreeing with the writers mistaken history of the under 30 vote.”
The writer claims that non-white teenagers may become Conservatives.
I say that's total bunk!
Re: “You seem determined to make immigration the sole problem for some reason.”
Just one reason:
20 million imported Socialist voters since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986.
I don’t know if you remember the election of 1968, Wallace was seen as to the right of Nixon.
The democrats received 44% of the under 30 vote of all races in 1980 for someone far to the right of Obama, the same percentage that Obama got of the pure white, under 30 vote in 2012 that you are so proud of, after they voted for him in 2008 by an incredible margin of 54%.
You seem obsessed with immigration being the only problem we have with the under thirty vote, why is that? Are you a young guy too young to remember the past you keep writing about?
Have you noticed my tag line? Do you think that I am not aware of immigration and voting as well, while you are determined to make it the SOLE problem with the under 30 voters.
The PURE WHITE, under 30 vote, went 54% for full term pro-abortion, liberal deity Obama, in 2008, we’ve never seen anything like it.
And, remarkably, I was staying at my Aunt's apartment in Chicago during the 1968 Democrat Convention riots.
I know the politics and the period very well.
Earlier, I did neglect to say that Wallace was indeed seen as to the Right of Nixon on the Culture Wars and Hippies.
However, Wallace was also a traditional Southern Populist Democrat, and he competed dollar for dollar with Humphrey on issues like Social Security and Medicare.
And, Wallace gave every appearance of being a dove on Vietnam, in spite of LeMay.
I do not share your obsession with the outlier election in 2008.
White voters returned to the mean in 2012.
Romney did not depress turnout.
Turnout in 2012 is ranked sixth highest in the last 14 elections.
Romney's share of the white vote - 59% - is number one in the last six elections.
Conservatives have one, and only one, existential threat, and it is the same threat for every age group:
600,000 new Socialist voters are being naturalized every year.
I’m “obsessed” with 2008? The election that you are obsessed with pretending didn’t happen?
At least you corrected yourself on Vietnam and Wallace being seen by the public as the right winger in the 68 race.
Romney evidently did depress turnout, it is why he did so poorly against Jimmy carter’s second term and managed to lose an election that republicans couldn’t lose.
The democrats received 44% of the under 30 vote of ALL races in 1980 for someone far to the right of Obama, the same percentage that Obama got of the pure white, under 30 vote in 2012 that you are so proud of, after they voted for him in 2008 by an incredible margin of 54%, 47% of ALL races of the under thirty vote in 1968, 46% of ALL races of under 30s in 1972, 40% of ALL races in 1984.
You keep repeating what I say in my tag line, but you are shutting out everything else, in other words, “obsessed”.
The PURE WHITE, under 30 vote, went 54% for full term pro-abortion, liberal deity Obama, in 2008, weve never seen anything like it.
That’s the dirty little secret that no voting pattern study will explore and no analyst/commentator will acknowlege.
The destiny of the US is no longer controlled by reason or logic or rational thought. It’s controlled by identity politics, where voting based on what demographic category you happen to fall into is more important than voting based on ideological belief.
“Thats the dirty little secret that no voting pattern study will explore and no analyst/commentator will acknowlege.
The destiny of the US is no longer controlled by reason or logic or rational thought. Its controlled by identity politics, where voting based on what demographic category you happen to fall into is more important than voting based on ideological belief.”