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.
The base of the Democratic Party is much younger, so they will obviously receive less of the "married" vote. I'm not sure if this data reflects the assumptions you want to make. Further, I think it's impossible to value the "responsibility" of an individual based on their martial status.
Young people don't vote. Millennials, specifically, vote in historically low numbers. You may want to consider the possibility that the marketing strategy of the Democrats, which is largely aimed at women, doesn't actually appeal to most of them.
Everyone talks about the relatively small "gender gap" in politics while ignoring the huge "marriage gap". Married folks, people with real-life responsibilities they are committed to, vote Republican by wide margins. Singles, who are less experienced and live more in the fantasy world created by media, are the Democrats' base.
[url=http://www.unz.com/isteve/gender-gap-and-marriage-gap/]Gender Gap and Marriage Gap, by Steve Sailer - The Unz Review[/url]
My guess (and I say this objectively, without making value judgements) is that taking on huge responsibilities like marriage and family tends to cause people to be more more concerned about their own backyard and less about the collective “greater good”. It’s funny though, because being public employees, most of our social circle is also public employees... even those who vehemently support republicans in Washington will invariably vote for democrats on a local level if there is even the slightest whiff of the republican candidate not being a union supporter.
At any rate, tl dr: I’m married, middle-age, with a passel of children. I’ve always voted blue. My husband used to be a moderate republican, but switched parties in 2016. Make of it what you will.
Young people don't vote. Millennials, specifically, vote in historically low numbers. You may want to consider the possibility that the marketing strategy of the Democrats, which is largely aimed at women, doesn't actually appeal to most of them.
No, it’s primarily been because until recently most of the candidates have been silent generation or late baby boomer candidates with whom Millennials could not identify. It gets tedious having the same 60-75-year-old candidates run for office election season after election season. I think young people are ready for some new blood to get in there, but many of the older democrats simply refuse to retire.
That said, there are lots of younger folks running all around the country. In the Florida gubernatorial race, both candidates are 39-40. Beto O’Rourke is about 46. I think my state democratic senate candidate is in his early or mid 30s. A candidate challenging the incumbent for a U.S. house seat in an adjacent district to mine is only 32. Her area has largely been red but has been becoming much more purple over the years.
My parents have always voted blue. Almost all of my married friends also vote blue with a few who are independent or have no party affiliation, so I don’t think it necessarily makes a difference. They didn’t suddenly change parties when they got married.
Everyone talks about the relatively small "gender gap" in politics while ignoring the huge "marriage gap". Married folks, people with real-life responsibilities they are committed to, vote Republican by wide margins. Singles, who are less experienced and live more in the fantasy world created by media, are the Democrats' base.
Pretty obnoxious to say that singles are "less experienced and live more in the fantasy world created by media".
Agreed, but inherent in his post is the idea that anyone, single or married, who does not vote Republican is irresponsible and living in a fantasy world. He's managed to insult everyone who doesn't ascribe to Conservatism in his post.
No, it’s primarily been because until recently most of the candidates have been silent generation or late baby boomer candidates with whom Millennials could not identify. It gets tedious having the same 60-75-year-old candidates run for office election season after election season. I think young people are ready for some new blood to get in there, but many of the older democrats simply refuse to retire.
That said, there are lots of younger folks running all around the country. In the Florida gubernatorial race, both candidates are 39-40. Beto O’Rourke is about 46. I think my state democratic senate candidate is in his early or mid 30s. A candidate challenging the incumbent for a U.S. house seat in an adjacent district to mine is only 32. Her area has largely been red but has been becoming much more purple over the years.
My parents have always voted blue. Almost all of my married friends also vote blue with a few who are independent or have no party affiliation, so I don’t think it necessarily makes a difference. They didn’t suddenly change parties when they got married.
Ah, so if they just get younger candidates, Millennials will have someone "to identify with" and will show up at the polls? Ah...got it.
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.
