What is the source of these statistics? I’m not sure you’re representing the numbers in the correct context.
This is an odd way to build a “trend.” The 18-29 voters of 2008 had become 24-35 year old voters by 2014, meaning that without a better breakdown by actual age and opinion, the numbers are meaningless. In 2014, what was the breakdown for 24-35 voters? Each group of 18-year-old voters is going to enter the electorate with different views in a different political and cultural climate and it seems odd to attempt to predict behavior by pretending that any age-based cohort is is static.
Clemenceau’s purported remark, “My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.” probably has a certain amount of reality behind it, but pretending that all 18-year-olds and all 30-year-olds vote the exact same way every election, based on their age, alone, is unlikely to prove true.
You know, at this point my mental image of adaher includes him wearing two Sherlock Holmes hats, perpendicular, with a brim facing in every direction.
That’s enough of the personal remarks right there, that is.
Glad to see you’ve cleared up that frog
in your throat.
The age group stats graphed down about the middle of this page (Pew) suggest that the overall trend for the electorate is away from the parties. Generally, this should bode well for the Rs, because independents probably will not vote or spoil the ballots if they are disenchanted with the options.
They’re effectively meaningless if you don’t compare demographic support for the parties relative to party support from the general population. Sure, that cohort voted for Democrats at a lower rate in 2012 than in 2008, but so did the rest of the country.
I don’t follow. Why would that bode any better for the Rs than for the Ds?
It seems as though lower turnout tends to favor the Rs in swingable districts, presumably because they have a more diligent base who will vote for a maggoty dirtclod if the alternative is a D. Independents generally shy away from maggoty dirtclods, though sometimes they will swing that way if the noise machine is effective at portraying the D as just a D-dressed-R. The RW noise machine(s) appears to be better than the LW noise suppressor(s) and, through my window, it looks like the Rs are more adept at la familia values where the Ds look more like Occupy-ers, who are not very well organized and easy to deprecate. “Organized” would seem to be a good thing, in terms of running the country, though, given their behavior and track record, one of the words that naturally follows “Organized” probably ought not be merely implied.
I should clarify that “maggoty dirtclod” is not meant to be interpreted as a synonym for “R” but as a description of the LCD of the R party.
I’ve got a question.
If I’m understanding correctly, adahar’s point is that Hispanic and young voters cannot be counted upon to reliably vote for Democrats. This is so because some pundits believe that Hispanics and young voters are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Democrats. (This seems to ignore the fact that the young voters who voted in 2008 will not be young voters in 2016.)
If those two blocs are not reliably Democratic voters, then why do Republicans seem intent on disenfranchising them?? Instead of persuading this apparently malleable group of voters with their outstanding ideas, Republicans push through Voter ID laws and gerrymander ethnic minorities into oblivion at every opportunity.
It seems to me that Republicans with a better grasp of demographic trends than adahar are concerned that those blocs are reliable Democratic voters and want to block their access to the polls as much as possible. If that were not so, they wouldn’t need to go to so much trouble.
Because ID laws aren’t meant to disenfranchise. And don’t, when constructed properly so that getting the voter ID is free. You have to register to vote to vote. Any “obstacle” to voting that is free is not actually going to disenfranchise, at least no more than requiring people to register in the first place does.
As for Latino voters, Republicans have aggressively gone after Latino voters and in places like Florida and Texas, have actually been successful. Democrats for quite some time have thought they could turn Texas blue, but as long as Latinos vote 40% or more for Republicans in Texas, that won’t happen even if Latinos become the majority there. “Latino” is also a sloppy classification. You can target subgroups pretty easily, like Cubans, and win votes there.
Your first sentence is laughable. Of course voter ID laws are meant to disenfranchise. I didn’t think Republicans were even hiding behind that any more. (Maybe you didn’t get that email.) They are designed to make it harder to vote. They tend to be effective at that.
Take a look at Texas’ voter ID law. There are only seven (SEVEN!) forms of photo ID that are acceptable:
[ol]
[li]A Texas Driver’s License[/li][li]A Texas DPS-issued ID card[/li][li]A US Military photo ID[/li][li]A Texas DPS-issued Concealed-Carry Handgun License[/li][li]A US Passport[/li][li]A certificate of citizenship bearing a photo (whatever that is)[/li][li]And my personal favorite, a Voter Photo ID Card (which – and this is great – requires a PHOTO ID to obtain!)[/li][/ol]
You’re going to have a very hard time convincing me that that list is not specifically designed to disenfranchise poor people. All of those IDs cost money – some of them cost a lot of money. The Voter ID card is “free”, but costs money for the supporting documentation. And, as I note, the documentation required for the Voter ID requires a photo ID in order to obtain. It is clearly designed to cause people to give up in frustration.
However, the discussion isn’t about Photo ID, so I’ll leave it at that. My point still stands: if young people (for instance) can be so easily turned to favor Republicans, why the effort to disenfranchise them? (Notice that a college/university ID is not on the list, even though they are Texas-government issued photo IDs (at public institutions).)
In order to register, you also have to provide documentation. Believe it or not, they don’t just take your word for it that you are who you say you are when you register.
Besides, your argument proves my point. If the GOP was truly reliant on the elderly, who are most negatively impacted by voter ID laws, then it would be stupid to try to pass such laws. If the GOP is trying to disenfranchise Democrats, that would be because the groups that are the most reliable GOP supporters now and in the likely future are groups that have no problem obtaining ID. Such as young professionals and middle class Latinos, groups Democrats thought were in the bag. The REpublicans even made inroads among profesional single women in 2014, which would pretty much end the Democrats’ hopes for a couple of elections if it goes that way again in 2016.
So you agree that photo ID laws are a waste of time and money? As you point out, they already ask for identity information when you register.
The elderly are not the most negatively impacted by the photo ID law. In Texas, the Republicans conveniently worked in a work-around for them. If a voter is over 65, he/she can request a mail-in ballot. No ID required for that one. Imagine that.
Don’t know about you guys, but if I were a Texas election official, a guy who shows me a concealed carry permit is definitely going to get to vote. Might be my cousin John Wesley and that good ol’ boy is mite touchy!
Here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, we have voter registration laws that have been described a universally respected and admired authority as being “too lax”. Pretty much boils down to having some proof of residence, like a bill or an official letter, and a registered voter who will vouch for you. That’s it, you register, you vote.
While back we had a super dooper close election. They counted and recounted, fussed and argued over absentee ballots, and the result was a win by Franken amounting to little more than a butterfly’s eyelash. And that was it, no problems, no breakdown of civil order. It might be noted that it also resulted in the election of the Hon. Kieth Ellison, who is a Mooslim! But he’s a Lutheran Mooslim and makes a mean hot dish, so its OK…
Voter fraud level zero. * Bupkiss*, zip, squadoosh, nada damn thing…
You might want to bring some Breathe Right™ Strips to that upcoming family reunion.
But the wall of voter confidence was torn down that day. Brick by Brick…
Here in Texas, the CHL opens lots of doors. It’s also called the “Texas Citizenship Card”. At the State Capitol, visitors (including reporters, etc.) must pass through metal detectors to enter. This can lead to long lines when the circus (the legislature) is in town. However, CHL holders can flash their card and not pass through the detectors. So, you can’t bring a gun into the Capitol unless you have a gun card. Then it’s okay. I know that the CHL requires a background check and all that, but no background check can guarantee that a person isn’t going to go nuts and shoot up the Capitol. “Past performance does not indicate future performance.”
In Texas, it does sound like the GOP was trying to pull something.