Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2006, 11:51 AM   #1
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Red face "The Fertility Gap" - liberals aren't having enough babies?

The Fertility Gap
Wall Street Journal
August 22, 2006

... On the political left, raising the youth vote is one of the most common goals. This implicitly plays to the tired old axiom that a person under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart (whereas one who is still a liberal after 30 has no head). The trouble is, while most "get out the vote" campaigns targeting young people are proxies for the Democratic Party, these efforts haven't apparently done much to win elections for the Democrats. The explanation we often hear from the left is that the new young Democrats are more than counterbalanced by voters scared up by the Republicans on "cultural issues" like abortion, gun rights and gay marriage.

But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated, politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given the fact that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20% -- explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today. ...

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 11:52 AM   #2
redbull
Immortal
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin'
Posts: 21,031
Default

lulz

 
redbull is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 11:57 AM   #3
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

http://www.babyrockapparel.com/siteb...LO-250x297.jpg

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 12:29 PM   #4
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,587
Default

wouldn't this make the Republicans support gay marriage then, in effect, even less liberal babies produced?

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 01:04 PM   #5
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

But, a lot of those gay couples want to adopt babies from foreign places. So, we would then have a lot of non-white liberals running around and that's no good.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 01:14 PM   #6
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

But, um, yeah, I think there is a little bit of truth to the idea of a "fertility gap". Mostly, though, of course, the whole notion seeks to find a concrete/statistical/scientific/logical reason for why more and more voters, particularly young voters are voting Republican. Next time the DNC or DCCC wants to know why none of my campaign field plans include anything about trying to turn out young people on Election Day or registering young people to vote, I'm going to tell them it is because of the "fertility gap".

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 03:11 PM   #7
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar
But, a lot of those gay couples want to adopt babies from foreign places. So, we would then have a lot of non-white liberals running around and that's no good.


i'm going russian

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 03:27 PM   #8
duovamp
Brazilian Blouselord
 
duovamp's Avatar
 
Location: heavy metal pool party
Posts: 35,142
Default

Republicans are against abortion, some are against contraception as well. This does not strike me as something out of the ordinary that us liberals are producing less babies. But... when your babies look like this, I don't see why you would want to keep having them in the first place...

http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/bush_baby.jpg

 
duovamp is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 03:45 PM   #9
zbeast78
Ownz
 
zbeast78's Avatar
 
Posts: 810
Default

this thread is pointless. its a fact that us young people (which are predominantly liberal) keep failing the democratic party. its not that we don't pop out enough kids, its that we're too lazy or disenchanted to go out and vote.

 
zbeast78 is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 04:04 PM   #10
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by zbeast78
this thread is pointless. its a fact that us young people (which are predominantly liberal) keep failing the democratic party. its not that we don't pop out enough kids, its that we're too lazy or disenchanted to go out and vote.
First, the majority of young voters are actually Republicans nowadays, not Democrats. Second, the problem is not motivating young people to vote, it is that there are not enough liberals in existence to get out there and vote. The liberals are a dying breed.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 06:56 PM   #11
Thaniel Buckner
Minion of Satan
 
Thaniel Buckner's Avatar
 
Location: kicksville
Posts: 7,035
Default

the implication that a group of people is "not having enough babies" is fairly nauseating to read. why not word the article how it should be: "Republicans are having too many babies".

 
Thaniel Buckner is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 07:17 PM   #12
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Liberal parents always have Liberal kids, no matter what "Family Ties" says

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 07:21 PM   #13
Thaniel Buckner
Minion of Satan
 
Thaniel Buckner's Avatar
 
Location: kicksville
Posts: 7,035
Default

DEL

Last edited by Thaniel Buckner : 08-23-2006 at 10:23 AM.

 
Thaniel Buckner is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 07:24 PM   #14
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

sit ubu sit

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 08:21 PM   #15
ravenguy2000
NO FATS
 
ravenguy2000's Avatar
 
Location: NO FEMS
Posts: 29,008
Default

good dog

 
ravenguy2000 is offline
Old 08-22-2006, 08:25 PM   #16
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

woof!

 
Mariner is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 12:25 AM   #17
redbull
Immortal
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin'
Posts: 21,031
Default

rub my belly you fucking asshats

 
redbull is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 12:28 AM   #18
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner
the implication that a group of people is "not having enough babies" is fairly nauseating to read. why not word the article how it should be: "Republicans are having too many babies".
I agree that the real point of the article is being masked by semantics. I suggest the article be worded as follows: "Democrats slip further into denial about why fewer and fewer people buy what they're selling."

 
Corganist is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 12:30 AM   #19
redbull
Immortal
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin'
Posts: 21,031
Default

"Corganist renders entire english to be liberal spook-talk via usage of semantics"

 
redbull is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 07:05 AM   #20
sppunk
Netphoria's George Will
 
sppunk's Avatar
 
Location: Fenway Park
Posts: 37,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
I agree that the real point of the article is being masked by semantics. I suggest the article be worded as follows: "Democrats slip further into denial about why fewer and fewer people buy what they're selling."
Here, here.

Babies are not born political. If you want democratic voters, have a party that for once has a backbone, platform and capable people running. Have pro-liberal ideas in schools, not conservative rhetoric being thrown into textbooks all around the nation.

Oh, and don't run people like John Kerry and John Edwards - who have the same chance to win as the Pittsburgh Pirates - for president.

 
sppunk is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 08:23 AM   #21
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

The rule of thumb in politics is this: 40% will always vote Republican no matter what and 40% will always vote Democrat no matter what. It doesn't matter who is running, what the party platform is, etc., etc. They will just always vote that way. Voters choose an identity and just stick with it. However, it is the 20% in the middle that matter - the Independents. And the vast majority of newly registered voters across this country are Independents. So, there is also something to be said for running the right candidate, having the right platform, etc, as there is that need to attract those middle 20%. (However, the portion of the 20% that whatever party attracts do not ever actually become base voters for that party, they still remain Independents.) But, um, yeah, best reason I've heard so far to have a baby.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 08:49 AM   #22
Nimrod's Son
Master of Karate and Friendship
 
Nimrod's Son's Avatar
 
Location: in your butt
Posts: 72,959
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar
The rule of thumb in politics is this: 40% will always vote Republican no matter what and 40% will always vote Democrat no matter what. It doesn't matter who is running, what the party platform is, etc., etc. They will just always vote that way. Voters choose an identity and just stick with it.
It is antiquated thinking like this that will cause the Rs and Ds to lose their stranglehold on the next generation

 
Nimrod's Son is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 10:20 AM   #23
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
I agree that the real point of the article is being masked by semantics. I suggest the article be worded as follows: "Democrats slip further into denial about why fewer and fewer people buy what they're selling."
Question: Do you think the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress would do a better job of dealing with each of the following issues and problems?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/all...4.graphic2.GIF

SAMPLE: Interviews with 1,033 adult Americans conducted via telephone August 18-20, 2006, by Opinion Research Corporation.

SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% pts.


Question: Who do you think is currently winning the war on terrorism -- the U.S. and its allies, neither side, or the terrorists?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/all...n9.graphic.GIF

SAMPLE: Interviews with 1,033 adult Americans conducted via telephone by Opinion Research Corporation.

SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 3% pts.


Question: Which of the following statements comes closer to your view?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/all...21.graphic.GIF

SAMPLE: Interviews with 516 adult Americans conducted via telephone August 18-20, 2006, by Opinion Research Corporation.

SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5% pts.



Not surprisingly, it's kind of mixed. And yes, this does cover a broad range of subjects, but it's interesting to find that some people consider Republicans better for some things and Democrats another.

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 10:41 AM   #24
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

It's interesting, though, how the results vary according to on and off election years (off election years = mid-term elections). Whatever party the president is, the other party almost always does better on the issues, in the polls, and on Election Day in the year of an off-year election.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-23-2006, 10:52 AM   #25
jukeboxphuckup
Ownz
 
jukeboxphuckup's Avatar
 
Location: New York
Posts: 620
Default

This is completely stupid. We're talking about having kids so that they can vote for our own parties. How about teaching children to think for themselves and to understand the entire world around them before forming their viewpoints and becoming loyal to a party? How about teaching people to determine whether a political candidate is good for their country based on that candidate's stance on individual issues rather than what color he or she is representing? It's ridiculous how politics has become such an us versus them thing. It's pretty much become a sports event.

 
jukeboxphuckup is offline
Old 08-24-2006, 11:34 AM   #26
beef curtains
Immortal
 
beef curtains's Avatar
 
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,760
Default

Time to have children Sam! Do your part for the country!

 
beef curtains is offline
Old 08-27-2006, 10:03 PM   #27
SpFission
Apocalyptic Poster
 
SpFission's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,999
Default

Well, Liberals are mostly fags and yuppies so...

 
SpFission is offline
Old 08-27-2006, 10:12 PM   #28
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beef curtains
Time to have children Sam! Do your part for the country!
Nah, with my luck I'd wind up giving birth to an ultra-conservative Republican.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 08-27-2006, 10:15 PM   #29
Ol' Couch Ass
Socialphobic
 
Ol' Couch Ass's Avatar
 
Location: The Filthy South
Posts: 11,124
Default

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../180px-Apk.jpg

Here is your future child, Alex P. Keaton.

 
Ol' Couch Ass is offline
Old 08-28-2006, 06:48 PM   #30
Effloresce
Banned
 
Posts: 5,018
Default

Now just wait a minute. According to 2004 election results, 54% of the youth vote was Democratic. It was the same percentage in 2000, I believe.

 
Effloresce is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright 1998-2014