Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I understand it is a mix of things. For one a lot of younger people do not like religious conservatism and so long as Republicans keep trotting out candidates that appeal to religious fanatics chances are they will not do well among young people.
Also while a near exclusively white party doesn't help them either, demographics are changing and this is visible among young voters. The GOP is going to have to chip away at the democrats margins on young AAs and Hispanics if they want to win. Out reach as in real out reach as in doing things and acting on issues that appeal to these groups is the only gain here for the GOP.
Finally, they need to actually do something for younger voters like not spend like mad, not get into wars, and not be anti-education or anti-environmental.
If they can pull off some of these things then they will probably have a chance. If not they probably will go into a "Ice age"
Finally, they need to actually do something for younger voters like not spend like mad, not get into wars, and not be anti-education or anti-environmental.
If they can pull off some of these things then they will probably have a chance. If not they probably will go into a "Ice age"
Obama and the Democrats are spending more than Bush and the Republicans.
Obama and the Democrats are pushing a Cap-and-Trade bill that does nothing for the Environment but will massively raise energy prices and kill a lot of jobs. Obama and the Democrats oppose: drilling, increased refining, coal and nuclear. The GOP supports these measure.
Obama and the Democrats are puppets of the teachers unions, which is why they oppose school choice. The GOP supports school choice.
If you think Obama and the Democrats are doing GOOD things for younger voters, you're 100% wrong. They are raising the debt, which younger people will pay. They are raising taxes and destroying the currency as well as nationalizing Healthcare.
Obama and the Democrats are spending more than Bush and the Republicans.
Obama and the Democrats are pushing a Cap-and-Trade bill that does nothing for the Environment but will massively raise energy prices and kill a lot of jobs. Obama and the Democrats oppose: drilling, increased refining, coal and nuclear. The GOP supports these measure.
Obama and the Democrats are puppets of the teachers unions, which is why they oppose school choice. The GOP supports school choice.
If you think Obama and the Democrats are doing GOOD things for younger voters, you're 100% wrong. They are raising the debt, which younger people will pay. They are raising taxes and destroying the currency as well as nationalizing Healthcare.
If you had to choose between a dog crap and a cow crap which would you pick...this is how spending is with both major parties not much choice.
As to school choice that is education and I can talk as to why I oppose it, but that is not what I mean. I am refering more to higher education as that is the area of education most young voters are actively involved in as they may be in college and often have not had kids who are of school age.
Any bill that helps people go to college Republicans are against. Any bill that is anti-science Republicans are for and along with a general anti-intellectual leadership they are pretty much solidly anti-education.
Also how is drilling for more oil and burning more coal environmentally sound?...That is where your inherent anti-environmental bias comes out. Too often Republicans seek short term gain at all cost environmentally speaking and thus they tend to be anti-environmental.
Finally you fail to address the concerns about religious conservatism and minority out reach. What are Republicans doing to reach out to minorities...nothing in most cases. Additionally most younger people do not want fundamental dominionists having power in America and Republicans cater to them.
As to Public option most people support it. Many of them are young people who see it as a way to actually get insured as they are not eligible for group plans, and cannot afford individual ones. As such if you want to go against health care that is not going to win you many friends among 18-29 year old, many of whom for various reasons are uninsured and want public health care.
It would seem Denial is not just a river in Egypt for you GOPers.
If you had to choose between a dog crap and a cow crap which would you pick...this is how spending is with both major parties not much choice.
As to school choice that is education and I can talk as to why I oppose it, but that is not what I mean. I am refering more to higher education as that is the area of education most young voters are actively involved in as they may be in college and often have not had kids who are of school age.
Any bill that helps people go to college Republicans are against. Any bill that is anti-science Republicans are for and along with a general anti-intellectual leadership they are pretty much solidly anti-education.
Also how is drilling for more oil and burning more coal environmentally sound?...That is where your inherent anti-environmental bias comes out. Too often Republicans seek short term gain at all cost environmentally speaking and thus they tend to be anti-environmental.
Finally you fail to address the concerns about religious conservatism and minority out reach. What are Republicans doing to reach out to minorities...nothing in most cases. Additionally most younger people do not want fundamental dominionists having power in America and Republicans cater to them.
As to Public option most people support it. Many of them are young people who see it as a way to actually get insured as they are not eligible for group plans, and cannot afford individual ones. As such if you want to go against health care that is not going to win you many friends among 18-29 year old, many of whom for various reasons are uninsured and want public health care.
It would seem Denial is not just a river in Egypt for you GOPers.
Republicans are better than Democrats on spending. There is no question about that. Just check any of the sites that monitor such things, be it Citizens Against Government Waste or National Taxpayers Union. It's the 'moderate" GOPers (Bush, Collins, Snowe, etc) that ruin the Republicans' reputations on spending. True conservatives like Ron Paul are very good when it comes to lower spending.
Environment and energy are not hand in hand, but they do have a relationship. I hope you know Global Warming is not about saving the environment; it's just about gaining more control over our lives and raising taxes, energy prices, etc. The Democrats have no energy policy, except wind and solar. They are pretty much opposed to everything else. They're taking land off of production and, in Cap and Trade, passed what is arguably the worst bill to ever pass the House of Representatives. There are just as many scientists (if not more) against global warming than for it. A lot of people are skeptical about global warming. It has been said that the Earth has been cooling since 2001. The GOP had a much better energy plan than the Dems' Cap and Trade boondoggle.
I don't know about any higher education bills that have been passed or opposed by either parties. My guess is you're talking about things like Pell grants, etc.
I'm not into reaching out to people after having segregated them into categories. When you talk about the GOP reaching out to minorities, do you mean handing out blanket amnesty, supporting affirmative action and playing the race card when in a jam? That's basically the Democrats' outreach to minorities. It has worked, though. Conservative principles can help minorities just as they help anyone else. Smaller Government, lower taxes, private Healthcare market, modest regulation, free markets etc are policies that helps all citizens regardless of race and gender. Keep in mind that the areas with the poorest minorities have been controlled by Democrats for decades.
The public health option is a disaster. It has failed in Canada and everywhere else it has been tried. We have the most advanced Healthcare system in the world here. Notice how many wealthy foreigners come here for high quality care. Many (if not most) young people can purchase Health insurance for a fair price. Many of these people choose NOT to sacrifice their iPhones, social lives, clothes, etc to save the money for Health insurance. I'm not even sure most people truly support a public health insurance option, when they realize that it may lead to single payer (and longer waits, lower quality care) and will almost certainly lead to higher taxes. You can rig a poll depending on the outcome you're looking for. Just b/c people support it, doesn't mean it has to (or should be) implemented. Why not BMW's for all of us? I support that! The public option would be allowed to offer very cheap premiums b/c it can stay viable despite losing money. Private companies can not do that. That would result in the loss of many private insurance companies and, down the road, could lead to single payer. The Government run insurance programs we already have (Medicare and Medicaid) have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Medicaid is one of the biggest causes for the states' huge deficits. The public programs also reimburse providers at low levels. If the only insurance options are public, then it will be harder for some hospitals and physician practices to stay in business.
Republicans are better than Democrats on spending. There is no question about that. Just check any of the sites that monitor such things, be it Citizens Against Government Waste or National Taxpayers Union. It's the 'moderate" GOPers (Bush, Collins, Snowe, etc) that ruin the Republicans' reputations on spending. True conservatives like Ron Paul are very good when it comes to lower spending.
Environment and energy are not hand in hand, but they do have a relationship. I hope you know Global Warming is not about saving the environment; it's just about gaining more control over our lives and raising taxes, energy prices, etc. The Democrats have no energy policy, except wind and solar. They are pretty much opposed to everything else. They're taking land off of production and, in Cap and Trade, passed what is arguably the worst bill to ever pass the House of Representatives. There are just as many scientists (if not more) against global warming than for it. A lot of people are skeptical about global warming. It has been said that the Earth has been cooling since 2001. The GOP had a much better energy plan than the Dems' Cap and Trade boondoggle.
I don't know about any higher education bills that have been passed or opposed by either parties. My guess is you're talking about things like Pell grants, etc.
I'm not into reaching out to people after having segregated them into categories. When you talk about the GOP reaching out to minorities, do you mean handing out blanket amnesty, supporting affirmative action and playing the race card when in a jam? That's basically the Democrats' outreach to minorities. It has worked, though. Conservative principles can help minorities just as they help anyone else. Smaller Government, lower taxes, private Healthcare market, modest regulation, free markets etc are policies that helps all citizens regardless of race and gender. Keep in mind that the areas with the poorest minorities have been controlled by Democrats for decades.
The public health option is a disaster. It has failed in Canada and everywhere else it has been tried. We have the most advanced Healthcare system in the world here. Notice how many wealthy foreigners come here for high quality care. Many (if not most) young people can purchase Health insurance for a fair price. Many of these people choose NOT to sacrifice their iPhones, social lives, clothes, etc to save the money for Health insurance. I'm not even sure most people truly support a public health insurance option, when they realize that it may lead to single payer (and longer waits, lower quality care) and will almost certainly lead to higher taxes. You can rig a poll depending on the outcome you're looking for. Just b/c people support it, doesn't mean it has to (or should be) implemented. Why not BMW's for all of us? I support that! The public option would be allowed to offer very cheap premiums b/c it can stay viable despite losing money. Private companies can not do that. That would result in the loss of many private insurance companies and, down the road, could lead to single payer. The Government run insurance programs we already have (Medicare and Medicaid) have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities. Medicaid is one of the biggest causes for the states' huge deficits. The public programs also reimburse providers at low levels. If the only insurance options are public, then it will be harder for some hospitals and physician practices to stay in business.
One I would not at all describe Bush as a moderate anything. Two Bush and Reagan have been the biggest spenders in history prior to Obama dwarfing Johnson and FDR. Me thinks mayhaps that when a Republican wins sometime in the future they will bust the budget in ways that makes Obama look like a fiscal conservative. BTW I can list left wing equvalent organizations that will say Republicans are worse on spending so those right wing organizations really do not mean squat. Many viewed going into debt to finance tax cuts as the fiscally responsible thing to do only 6 years ago.
As to education look no further then the cuts made to student loans in the 2006 Republican passed budget which slashed higher education assistance. Additionally, scratch a bill banning evolution, or reducing funding for scientific research and you will find a Republican. that is the way it is.
Additional public health has not failed in Canada and it has been a resounding success most places it has been tried in the EU. Thus why Tories cannot touch the NHS in Britain, one of the more conservative Western European countries.
You are totally disconnected from how many young people live in America, if you think in we think only in terms of I-pods, clothes and BMWs many of think in terms of paying rent and putting gas in our 11 year old clunkers to get to work and between that, food and bills (usually power, heat, loans and internet) many of us just cannot pay for extortion rate insurance costs.
As to global warming. Give me a break, I never buy into conspiracy theories and this is just a bridge too far. Pretty much all scientists agree climate change is happening and the vast majority say it is man made. You are just showing again your anti enviromental bias. There are currently a great deal of nuclear and coal plants going already dems are not going to shut them all down. The goal is just to have a higher % of energy come from wind and solar rather then trashing our environment for a short term solution.
I also notice you have not mentioned anything about the religious wing of your party...do you just trott them out to win elections and ignore them the rest of the time? I think not republicans are notorious for legislating the bible and sin to keep these people happy and many young folks do not like that.
Finally, the last Republican I heard do out reach to minority groups was Jack Kemp. It does not have to be affirmative action or aminsty...it could be entrapenuership insentives and oppertunity zones or whatever, but to put a new spin on an old saying, in regards to minorities supporting Republicans Nothing from nothing leaves nothing in ballot box, which is where Republicans are.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 06-30-2009 at 11:49 PM..
The younger folks of this world are simply more technically and perhaps better informed then the older folks…. You can say thanks mainly to the Internet! I suspect thats why many of them gave there vote to Obama.
The majority of younger voters voted for Obama because they were hooked on a feeling. I would say that the young democrats that I know are not critical thinkers. They voted for Obama because he would be the first Black President or he is "beautiful and he has a beautiful family" or he speaks well or he is not Bush. They were really not aware of his policys.
The majority of younger voters voted for Obama because they were hooked on a feeling. I would say that the young democrats that I know are not critical thinkers. They voted for Obama because he would be the first Black President or he is "beautiful and he has a beautiful family" or he speaks well or he is not Bush. They were really not aware of his policys.
Neither I nor anyone I know my age voted for Obama for those reasons. That is why the media liked Obama.
Most of us the people I know voted for him, because we wanted to draw down rather then escalate in Iraq. We wanted a more green president. We wanted access to health care, we wanted a president that would do something about our economic plight rather then tie himself to an ideology, or we wanted a president that was not in bed with the religious right or some combination of those issues and while I agree Obama may not have delivered on all these things yet he is doing a better job the Bush did or probably McCain would have.
So think whatever you want, but do not expect things to change in terms of elections. At least not until you face and untangle the real reasons young people voted democratic last time.
The majority of younger voters voted for Obama because they were hooked on a feeling. I would say that the young democrats that I know are not critical thinkers. They voted for Obama because he would be the first Black President or he is "beautiful and he has a beautiful family" or he speaks well or he is not Bush. They were really not aware of his policys.
The young adults that I know, including my own two daughters and their friends, are not that shallow and they are critical thinkers. Obama spoke to them in a way Bush didn't (I mean that metaphorically.) They are the ones providing the personnell for the war, who have to find first jobs in this lousy economy, etc.
I have been around for a while and from my point of view, all the Republican administrations have been frustrating and disappointing while the Democratic have been less so. This administration is likeliest to be the most satisfying to date. His next term should be better than the current. The GOP has a major gap with this member of the “boomer” generation.
One of the things a Republican administration did to me was to eliminate my customer base and destroy my business. If Obama's energy plans materialize I might just retire from this job and go back to restoring hydroelectric generators on small dams. That was fun.
One I would not at all describe Bush as a moderate anything. Two Bush and Reagan have been the biggest spenders in history prior to Obama dwarfing Johnson and FDR. Me thinks mayhaps that when a Republican wins sometime in the future they will bust the budget in ways that makes Obama look like a fiscal conservative. BTW I can list left wing equvalent organizations that will say Republicans are worse on spending so those right wing organizations really do not mean squat. Many viewed going into debt to finance tax cuts as the fiscally responsible thing to do only 6 years ago.
As to education look no further then the cuts made to student loans in the 2006 Republican passed budget which slashed higher education assistance. Additionally, scratch a bill banning evolution, or reducing funding for scientific research and you will find a Republican. that is the way it is.
Additional public health has not failed in Canada and it has been a resounding success most places it has been tried in the EU. Thus why Tories cannot touch the NHS in Britain, one of the more conservative Western European countries.
You are totally disconnected from how many young people live in America, if you think in we think only in terms of I-pods, clothes and BMWs many of think in terms of paying rent and putting gas in our 11 year old clunkers to get to work and between that, food and bills (usually power, heat, loans and internet) many of us just cannot pay for extortion rate insurance costs.
As to global warming. Give me a break, I never buy into conspiracy theories and this is just a bridge too far. Pretty much all scientists agree climate change is happening and the vast majority say it is man made. You are just showing again your anti enviromental bias. There are currently a great deal of nuclear and coal plants going already dems are not going to shut them all down. The goal is just to have a higher % of energy come from wind and solar rather then trashing our environment for a short term solution.
I also notice you have not mentioned anything about the religious wing of your party...do you just trott them out to win elections and ignore them the rest of the time? I think not republicans are notorious for legislating the bible and sin to keep these people happy and many young folks do not like that.
Finally, the last Republican I heard do out reach to minority groups was Jack Kemp. It does not have to be affirmative action or aminsty...it could be entrapenuership insentives and oppertunity zones or whatever, but to put a new spin on an old saying, in regards to minorities supporting Republicans Nothing from nothing leaves nothing in ballot box, which is where Republicans are.
The climate has been changing forever and will continue to change. Many of them disagree that this is man made or that CO2 emissions are a major cause of this change. There were 31,000 scientists who just signed a petition last year against global warming. The EPA even had a Scientist whose report showing that the Earth was cooling was hidden from the public before the vote on Cap and Trade. I think they fired him. The Science is NOT settled and, before we take radical measures on the environment, we need to debate the issue more carefully. The Waxman Markey bill would kill an already weak Economy. If wind and solar were profitable and practical, the market would bring them to forefront. Let the market decide which form of energy is best. Global warming is a straw man for higher taxes and more control. If you can be convinced that being alive (i.e. exhaling CO2) is destroying the planet, the Government can more easily control you. Sounds like you've already been duped!
My insurance premiums are not that high and I know that they are typically reasonable for younger, healthy males. Of course, females' premiums will be higher b/c they can have children. Of the uninsured, roughly 1/6 are illegals and 1/4 are eligible for Medicaid but have yet to apply. Many of the remaining uninsured earn $ 50K or more but choose not to buy coverage. If a disaster strikes, they can get treated in the ER and they know it. On top of that, the Government does NOT owe Healthcare insurance to anyone. It's not a right. A public plan would take from wealthy Americans to subsidize insurance for less successful Americans. Canadians have to wait longer for services and have much fewer MRIs and CTs per capita than we do. Their waits have been increasing significantly over the past 15 years. Why do you want the Government to control if you live or die? Haven't you heard the phrase He who has giveth, can taketh away? If you depend on the state, they can 'help' you but they can also destroy you. Canada rations care a lot more than we do. Why do you think more Canadians come here for care than the reverse? Only 40% of cancer patients in Britain ever see an Oncologist, according to Cato.
I don't pay much attention to the religious right. The elected GOP officials, as far as I see, don't bible thump nearly as much as the left would make you think. This is a straw man argument. I oppose teaching creationism in public schools, for example. However, between a conservative candidate who supports this and someone like Obama (who will destroy the Economy, Healthcare system and currency), I'll still take the conservative.
CAGW and NTU aren't right wing groups. They weight Congress' votes and score members accordingly based on whether or not they are big spenders. They have a solid system as people like Jeff Flake, Jim DeMint and Ron Paul score highest while Obama, Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Waxman, etc score very poorly.
School choice is one area where conservatives are giving minorities more opportunity than the libs who are in the back pocket of the NEA and AFT. I don't know as much about enterprise zones but, in general, conservative Economic principles will help minorities more than liberal ones. If liberal economic policies are so great, why are the big Democratic cities in such big trouble? Its Dems who control: Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Baltimore, Miami, Atlanta, Newark, Gary, Philly, Camden, Oakland, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
