"The Fertility Gap" - liberals aren't having enough babies?

BlueStar · 08-22-2006, 11:51 AM

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. ...

redbull · 08-22-2006, 11:52 AM

BlueStar · 08-22-2006, 11:57 AM

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

Aeroplane · 08-22-2006, 12:29 PM

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

BlueStar · 08-22-2006, 01:04 PM

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 · 08-22-2006, 01:14 PM

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".

Aeroplane · 08-22-2006, 03:11 PM

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

duovamp · 08-22-2006, 03:27 PM

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

zbeast78 · 08-22-2006, 03:45 PM

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.

BlueStar · 08-22-2006, 04:04 PM

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.

Thaniel Buckner · 08-22-2006, 06:56 PM

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".

Nimrod's Son · 08-22-2006, 07:17 PM

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

Thaniel Buckner · 10:23 AM

Nimrod's Son · 08-22-2006, 07:24 PM

sit ubu sit

ravenguy2000 · 08-22-2006, 08:21 PM

good dog

Mariner · 08-22-2006, 08:25 PM

woof!

redbull · 08-23-2006, 12:25 AM

rub my belly you fucking asshats

Corganist · 08-23-2006, 12:28 AM

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."

redbull · 08-23-2006, 12:30 AM

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

sppunk · 08-23-2006, 07:05 AM

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.

BlueStar · 08-23-2006, 08:23 AM

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.

Nimrod's Son · 08-23-2006, 08:49 AM

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

Aeroplane · 08-23-2006, 10:20 AM

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.

BlueStar · 08-23-2006, 10:41 AM

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.

jukeboxphuckup · 08-23-2006, 10:52 AM

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.

beef curtains · 08-24-2006, 11:34 AM

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

SpFission · 08-27-2006, 10:03 PM

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

BlueStar · 08-27-2006, 10:12 PM

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.

Ol' Couch Ass · 08-27-2006, 10:15 PM

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

Here is your future child, Alex P. Keaton.

Effloresce · 08-28-2006, 06:48 PM

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.

08-22-2006, 11:51 AM	#1
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	"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. ...

08-22-2006, 11:52 AM	#2
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	lulz

08-22-2006, 07:21 PM	#13
Thaniel Buckner Minion of Satan Location: kicksville Posts: 7,031	DEL Last edited by Thaniel Buckner : 08-23-2006 at 10:23 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-22-2006, 11:57 AM	#3
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	http://www.babyrockapparel.com/siteb...LO-250x297.jpg

08-22-2006, 12:29 PM	#4
Aeroplane Minion of Satan Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA Posts: 8,579	wouldn't this make the Republicans support gay marriage then, in effect, even less liberal babies produced?

08-22-2006, 01:04 PM	#5
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	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.

08-22-2006, 01:14 PM	#6
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	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".

08-22-2006, 03:27 PM	#8
duovamp Brazilian Blouselord Location: heavy metal pool party Posts: 35,781	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

08-22-2006, 03:45 PM	#9
zbeast78 Ownz Posts: 806	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.

08-22-2006, 06:56 PM	#11
Thaniel Buckner Minion of Satan Location: kicksville Posts: 7,031	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".

08-22-2006, 07:17 PM	#12
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,975	Liberal parents always have Liberal kids, no matter what "Family Ties" says

08-22-2006, 07:24 PM	#14
Nimrod's Son Master of Karate and Friendship Location: in your butt Posts: 72,975	sit ubu sit

08-22-2006, 08:21 PM	#15
ravenguy2000 NO FATS Location: NO FEMS Posts: 29,003	good dog

08-22-2006, 08:25 PM	#16
Mariner OB-GYN Kenobi Location: the sea Posts: 17,020	woof!

08-23-2006, 12:25 AM	#17
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	rub my belly you fucking asshats

08-23-2006, 12:30 AM	#19
redbull Immortal Location: like liutenant dan i'm rollin' Posts: 21,016	"Corganist renders entire english to be liberal spook-talk via usage of semantics"

08-23-2006, 08:23 AM	#21
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	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.

08-23-2006, 10:41 AM	#24
BlueStar Newly independent Location: Some state's capitol building Posts: 7,242	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.

08-23-2006, 10:52 AM	#25
jukeboxphuckup Ownz Location: New York Posts: 620	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.

08-24-2006, 11:34 AM	#26
beef curtains Immortal Location: I like me so much better when you're naked Posts: 21,752	Time to have children Sam! Do your part for the country!

08-27-2006, 10:03 PM	#27
SpFission Apocalyptic Poster Posts: 2,999	Well, Liberals are mostly fags and yuppies so...

08-27-2006, 10:15 PM	#29
Ol' Couch Ass Socialphobic Location: The Filthy South Posts: 11,300	http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../180px-Apk.jpg Here is your future child, Alex P. Keaton.

08-28-2006, 06:48 PM	#30
Effloresce Banned Posts: 5,018	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.