How Long Can The Republican Party Do Without Young People?

[highland145]

Without reading 75 posts...until their $$ runs out and then the "have nots" will have to figure out how to have without the $$ from the $$ makers.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Nice puffery, overall. Young Libertopians will be ignored as long as they're a relatively insignificant % of voters, which they are.

Agreed I admitted for now that is a losing demographic for Republicans. But what other future conservatives are there when church participation is so low with American youth in general?

Eventually running on social issues is a losing strategy.

 

[Agent11]

The Libertarian party should merge with the Republican party. I would try to get the Greens as well, it would be a diverse group. Rosie O'Donnell wouldn't go for that though I guess.

 

[sm625]

Well when the IRS starts coming after young people because they refused to pay a frickin massive fine for not bending over and being raped by the insurance industry, they will either vote republican, or just out and out frikcin riot and burn this frickin country down like you wouldnt believe. Who knows how far it could go if you piss off a bunch of already unemployed people. I means seriously how the *** do you expect millions of people with no income to come up with these outrageous dollar values? I dont know if they'll riot. But one thing I do know for sure: they sure as hell wont be voting democrat after they get hit by the bill on this one.

 

[Agent11]

If you have no income you get a waiver or medicaid iirc.

 

[theeedude]

Well when the IRS starts coming after young people because they refused to pay a frickin massive fine for not bending over and being raped by the insurance industry, they will either vote republican, or just out and out frikcin riot and burn this frickin country down like you wouldnt believe. Who knows how far it could go if you piss off a bunch of already unemployed people. I means seriously how the *** do you expect millions of people with no income to come up with these outrageous dollar values? I dont know if they'll riot. But one thing I do know for sure: they sure as hell wont be voting democrat after they get hit by the bill on this one.

$95

 

[poofyhairguy]

Well when the IRS starts coming after young people because they refused to pay a frickin massive fine for not bending over and being raped by the insurance industry

Actually at worst they will get their tax refund reduced or some nasty letters:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-the-obamacare-penalty-actually-have-teeth--144740030.html

That side of the law has no teeth, I don't see it being the thing that get that finally gets the under-35 Americans participating more in politics.

What will get them is like everyone else- owning property, having kids, just having more of a stake in the world in general.

The question is when that time comes, is the Republican party ready to welcome back the young generation on their terms, which basically means giving up on policies like "protection of marriage" and marijuana prohibition?

 

[theeedude]

The rise of conservative movement coincided with the rise of suburbs and white flight.
It was largely about separating from the cities, both geographically, and financially in terms of taxes. Poor people lived in the cities, rich and middle class lived in the suburbs and didn't want to pay taxes to support the unwashed urban masses.
That trend is now reversing, affluent young people are shunning the suburbs and moving back to the cities, and a lot of former suburbs are urbanizing. City dwellers are more liberal and accepting of government. The trend is not the Republican's friend here. Obviously their unforced errors and utter political (and other) stupidity are not helping. GOP is becoming a caricature of itself.

 

[Matt1970]

The rise of conservative movement coincided with the rise of suburbs and white flight.
It was largely about separating from the cities, both geographically, and financially in terms of taxes. Poor people lived in the cities, rich and middle class lived in the suburbs and didn't want to pay taxes to support the unwashed urban masses.
That trend is now reversing, affluent young people are shunning the suburbs and moving back to the cities, and a lot of former suburbs are urbanizing. City dwellers are more liberal and accepting of government. The trend is not the Republican's friend here. Obviously their unforced errors and utter political (and other) stupidity are not helping. GOP is becoming a caricature of itself.

People are only accepting of government to a point. Shoving massive unpopular legislation down their throats, telling them they could keep their plans only to turn around and force them out of their current plans because they weren't up to snuff and a plan that is up to snuff will cost you more and it's increasingly looking like it will cost everyone more. So basically lie to people, force them to do things they don't want to do and hit um right where it counts, in their wallets.

Tell me again why the GOP won't look good in 2014 and 2016?

 

[dank69]

That's not accurate, as age is not well correlated with partisan identification. Currently Democrats do best among the young and the old, with Republicans doing best in the middle.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118285/Democrats-Best-Among-Generation-Baby-Boomers.aspx

What IS the case however is that political science literature shows that partisan ID tends to be fairly stable in individuals over time. This means that if you're a Democrat or Republican at age 18, you are quite likely to identify the same way at age 58. If you look at the Republican gains in the middle aged, that correlates pretty strongly with... you guessed it... the popularity of Republicanism among young people in the late 80's.

I blame Michael J. Fox.

 

[dank69]

The Libertarian party should merge with the Republican party. I would try to get the Greens as well, it would be a diverse group. Rosie O'Donnell wouldn't go for that though I guess.

Somehow I don't think Green Party and GOP policies mesh all that well.

 

[dank69]

People are only accepting of government to a point. Shoving massive unpopular legislation down their throats, telling them they could keep their plans only to turn around and force them out of their current plans because they weren't up to snuff and a plan that is up to snuff will cost you more and it's increasingly looking like it will cost everyone more. So basically lie to people, force them to do things they don't want to do and hit um right where it counts, in their wallets.

Tell me again why the GOP won't look good in 2014 and 2016?

Because by Nov. 2014 the ACA will be as much of a thorn in Dems' side as Benghazi is today.

 

[dank69]

$95

Outrageous!!!!!

 

[Matt1970]

Well when the IRS starts coming after young people because they refused to pay a frickin massive fine for not bending over and being raped by the insurance industry, they will either vote republican, or just out and out frikcin riot and burn this frickin country down like you wouldnt believe. Who knows how far it could go if you piss off a bunch of already unemployed people. I means seriously how the *** do you expect millions of people with no income to come up with these outrageous dollar values? I dont know if they'll riot. But one thing I do know for sure: they sure as hell wont be voting democrat after they get hit by the bill on this one.

It's a Tax.

$95

no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ideally both parties would have their fangs pulled. They constitute an effective duopoly preventing any alternatives. That there theoretically could be a third party is a laughable suggestion under the current system. All effective power, influence and money is divided between the two, and this is impossible to counter without changes in elective infrastructure. I'd love to see election finance reform, but not with qualifications to keep the status quo.

The biggest party will wind up being the party of disinterest. There is no sense in spending money to vote for who you are allowed to pick, and again theoretical concerns do not count. Ultimately, at least at the federal and most state elections, you will pick who is vetted.

 

[theeedude]

People are only accepting of government to a point. Shoving massive unpopular legislation down their throats, telling them they could keep their plans only to turn around and force them out of their current plans because they weren't up to snuff and a plan that is up to snuff will cost you more and it's increasingly looking like it will cost everyone more. So basically lie to people, force them to do things they don't want to do and hit um right where it counts, in their wallets.

Tell me again why the GOP won't look good in 2014 and 2016?

Tell me why the GOP doesn't look good now?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Tell me why the GOP doesn't look good now?

Neither look good. It's a matter of who stinks less and on what issue.

 

[SparkyJJO]

$95

The first year. It goes up every year after that, and quite quickly if I recall correctly.

 

[OverVolt]

And so I guess your argument is that the Republicans starting with Ronald Reagan attracted the young and stupid? This seems like strange position to hold as he's basically the most venerated individual in the modern party.

Back then young people had the phrase "Never trust anyone over 30" and took political power for themselves by sheer baby boomer demographics.

They weren't the young and stupid they were the young and up and coming.

 

[werepossum]

I'm thinking your argument is more that young people's party affiliation swings back and forth. Seems to me during the Vietnam era many were with the Dem party, then later switched if your assertion is accurate. So, now they've swung back to the Dem party. No one really knows if it will stay that way or they'll swing back again.

Fern

Obama gave them a giant kick in the ass to swing them back. Well, at least the ones who are successful; I suppose doubling your health insurance costs doesn't really matter if Uncle Sugar is picking up the tab.

 

[Fern]

$95

No, that's not quite right about the penalty/tax.

It's the greater of (1) $95 per person or (2) 1% of modified gross income. I.e., if your family income is $50K it's $500.

Fern

 

[kage69]

It's the issues.

Obama has frustrated many people by failing to deliver any substantive change except delivery of a catastrophe of a health care law.

I'm sure gay and lesbian enlisted would disagree with you. I myself am firmly in the camp of those very happy with Obama's substantive change in tactics against al Qaeda. Pretty much exactly what I was hoping would happen when Obama announced that getting OBL was his foremost foreign policy priority.

You'll notice my examples were events that have actually happened.

I think it's comical in a sad sort of way that a segment of people on the right seem to have no problem whatsoever in expecting Obama to just stomp his foot and fix a colossal mess in record time. That's almost alarming coming from a group that can either keep silent or actively run damage control for an admin that manipulated the country into a war that took 5 years to get right. The level of disgust and outrage I hear from some people over the ACA is just amazing. You'd think someone they know or love was getting shot at/blown up over it, at Obama's decision.



Ugh, sorry, getting off topic...



Honestly, I think the GOP has one or two more elections cycles before things really start to fall apart. Might be shorter though, they seem to have not learned much in the past couple elections cycles.

 

[Agent11]

The Republican party really does need to drop the social issues. . . The pandering to that small demographic provides a lot of ammunition for liberals. At the same time I do not think that private religious institutions should be forced to provide services they find reprehensible. . .Obama Care is law now, so you would think that wouldn't be a problem as such people could just go to the exchanges.

 

[Jhhnn]

At the same time I do not think that private religious institutions should be forced to provide services they find reprehensible.

They're not, other than when they engage in business, compete with private enterprise. Nobody forces them to own hospitals. Nobody forces them to perform "reprehensible" services in hospitals they do own, either. That includes tubal ligation as an adjunct to a C-section, for example.

 

[Matt1970]

I'm sure gay and lesbian enlisted would disagree with you. .

You don't remember when Obama was against gay marriage up until just over a year ago? At age 51 he finally decides he isn't a bigot. But his opinion evolved right?