So you disagree with the notion that younger voters are more idealistic. And you disagree with the notion that, since most young voters are democrats, they don’t change parties generally at some age for some reason and with some cause on a consistent basis. To me, these aren’t stigmas, as I find nothing wrong with being idealistic or swapping parties for any reason. I believe many young Democrats do vote Democrat simply because to them the party is seen as the one that values idealism. I also believe that many Republicans vote Republican just because it is seen as the party of family values. These may be stigmas if you can call them that, but at least I offer my stigmas equally on both sides.

I’m not going to idolize Reagan. I don’t idolize politicians in general, actually. That’s why I’m saying, without comparing him to any previous administration, that I hope McCain downsizes government. McCain’s the best chance I’ve got of realizing that, much better than Obama, certainly.

The problem comes when you say this:

“Perhaps it’s because younger voters are more idealist than realist, and thus support many programs that would be too expensive or inefficient to run effectively. So it’s no surprise that Obama draws the young crowd.”

This is a generalization that creates stigma. Something you claim to oppose. Your generalization implies that younger people are know-nothings while older people somehow have a better understanding of the economy, war, and energy. This is a fallacy.

Then there is this:
“However, the fact that their income is lower could be the reason why they would support Obama’s tax cuts, or perhaps they haven’t taken the time to research their candidate.”

The first generalization is okay. The next is a mindless leap. You imply that minorities do not exam their candidates with the same degree of scrutiny as whites. You offer nothing to suggest this is true. You merely toss it out there as a possibility. You are offering a stigma as an option. Minorities don’t take time to understand the politcal process.

I like this one, too.
“Anyway, it’s also a common statistic that many former Democrats turn Republican around the age of 35 after they start raising a family.”

If it is so common please cite it. I do not doubt that certain Presidents cause some Americans to shift parties. Reagan changed Democrats to Republicans. I have yet to see a statistic that says there is a large shift in political affiliation at age 35.

My belief the conservative movement is dying is not my own. McCain has expressed his fear he is losing growing minority groups. As for this election, the effects of this voter shift have not come to full fruition. The conservative movement has not died but its future looks bleak.

Finally, there is this:
“Define core values.”

You defined them for me:
“You actually raised a good point in your last paragraph. From 2000-2004 I believe the Republicans in Congress lost sight of their core value of downsizing federal government”

Your line about the Republicans losing their way is simply false. Since Reagan, the motto of lower taxes and smaller government has been only half-heartedly practiced by Republicans. They get the lower taxes part right. It is the less government part they continually fail at. Reagan failed and Bush II failed. When Bush I violated the important part of the motto, he was booted from office.

If you do not follow this Republican motto I am sorry for implying you do. However, given your willingness to repeat the “they lost their way” excuse, I think my mistake was reasonable.

Overall, my point is that Republicans are losing ground with youth voters and minority voters. You have offered very little to uproot this point other than citing a “common statistic” that says it will all change when young people turn 35.

Instead you have tried to explain why this is true by offering generalizations. In doing so you have thrown out stigmas on both groups as possibilities.

Actually, “under speculation” also can be applied, and I meant it. That was not a misuse of words, although I’m not perfect. It’s under speculation as to why Democrats get the youth vote and often times the minority vote.

Second, I believe you meant “generalizations.” And, no, it wasn’t all speculation, as I did provide some concrete facts about voting trends and education. However, my personal take on the “why” they vote that way was speculation, as I noted in my post. Also, generalization in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, but a useful tool humans have used throughout the ages. When we’re talking about a generalized group or demographic, such as “youth voters” or “minorities” we tend to have to generalize our answers. Generalization isn’t always bad, only if you use it in a bad way by applying a stigma or stereotype to that group. If I generalized and said, “Most Democrats support raising taxes,” that is not an improper use of generalization because that does not imply any stigma. If I said, however, that “Most Democrats are idiots who don’t understand how the economy works,” that would be an abuse of generalization. Where in my post did you feel I abused my right to generalize that you would portray it in a bad context?

And if conservatives are a dying breed, then this election sure is close considering the economy and whatnot favor a Democratic sweep. So then why are McCain and Obama virtually tied right now if we’re dieing off? Conservatives dieing out plus “Bush third term” equals Obama 20-point lead, correct?

My core values aren’t personified by anyone. Association games won’t work on me because I have nobody to directly associate my complete set of beliefs with. Define core values.

So I assume your core values are personified by Reagan. You do realize government spending and the deficit under Reagan went up.

Second, your entire entry was nothing but speculation and broad generlizations.

Thank you pondering but that doesn’t change the fact that Conservatives are a dying breed. This was my point. The Reagan revolution is in its winter years.

Also, I find it a pretty big leap of faith to say older people have done a great job managing the economy. It wasn’t Gen Y tht put us in this mess.

>>>Palin is a no-account religious fanatic,>>>

soooooooo what does that make oBOMBa ?
after all he sat in a “christian” church for 20 years and was very involved.
Ill be waiting for your learned answer.

Oh dear, Kahn has infected Jeremiah. I wonder how such an infection gets spread….

Mark writes:
One day the left will get it – she’s one of us. She’s of that part of America – the overwhelming majority – which believes in God, believes in fellow Americans, loves this nation, would rather a child become a soldier

————————————-

At one time, the United States of America was an open society welcoming people from all over the globe regardless of ideology.

Today, sadly, a once glorious country has become just a shadow of itself where in order to be considered a ‘real American’ you must become an isolationist, wrapped up in a cocoon of patriotic ignorance, ridiculing anyone who has become educated enough to look beyond America’s borders to the rest of humanity in other parts of the world.

Why is it taken as a badge of honor to be so self-absorbed that you have a hard time to find another country on the map, with perhaps the exception being those nations you have invaded and occupied or ones slated for future military action?

If America continues to exclude those who do not fit the mold Mark has embraced as being the only legitimate one, what will become of y’all?

Heh, interesting. We both claim that our supported candidate is mostly honest and consistent while the other isn’t. Hard to argue when we both have the same set of facts but interpret them different ways.

You are correct that some of her political views may be influenced by her religion, but it doesn’t mean her religion monopolizes her political views. If that were so, why did she veto a bill against gay marriage? Why doesn’t she enforce in Alaskan public schools creationism or push through more laws in that manner? In essence I’m willing to wager that, if she for some unfortunate reason has to take the office of president, she won’t needlessly veto any laws that go against her beliefs or elect super-right-wing judges. Although I do understand your skepticism, but I have the same skepticism for Obama.

I guess I can accept your viewpoint on the Obama/Wright connection, although I do think you’re misinterpreting her “Holy War” comments (as I think we discussed in an earlier thread).

And, even though I do think the media is mostly biased, I do think Palin should face them more anyway. I mean, they’re going to run out of stuff to throw at her eventually anyway.

I think Palin as a choice was brilliant not just because of her values and popularity, but also because of her youth and ability to reinvigorate the Republican image.

At this point I believe we are at an impass and are doing nothing but offering our beliefs on which candidate is more trustworthy and better for the country. Until some hard evidence comes out that both sides will admit incriminates one of the candidates, then I don’t see much advance in dialogue. Unfortunately, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for nonpartisan evaluation of facts from either side, so this may take awhile.