Because the Democrats are just brimming with elevated young talent. The GOP is the one with the young stars, the Democrats have become the party of aging Boomers.
If the Democrats truly want to keep young voters, they are going to have to start elevating them into the limelight, rather than the old guard hogging it all for themselves.
You are really lousy with statistics uh? 
As I have seen happen with scientists and Hispanic Republican operatives, they become independent or democrat after seeing the intransigence of the current leadership.
Yeah that Obama guy was so senile against that paragon of youth, McCain…
The reality is that that has been many times pointed out the young republicans you are pointing out are more often than not deniers of science and women rights.
And no, most young Americans that are involved in science and technology are looking at the current republican crop and they say “no thanks” as pointed before, they may not like Obama as before. But that does not mean they are jumping to the Republicans, like you pointed before, they should stop making so many mistakes and governing bad. Not seeing them going for that any moment soon, they are doubling down on the stupid.
What could be dumber than the wave of bankruptcies and fiscal crises afflicting the blue model? Democrats are furiously and desperately trying to avoid blame for what their model leads to.
Oh c’mon, be fair. He’s better with statistics than he is with facts.
I pointed before at a study that showed that while it is true that the worst 5 cities for small business, that are what creates a lot of jobs and shows the health of a city, are managed by Democrats. The 5 best cities were also manages by Democrats.
The only dumb point is the one you just made there. Clearly, many other factors are at play rather than just blaming an specific party for what is going on in a big recession. And it is also notable that you only made that lousy point to continue avoiding what the young people with smarts are seeing.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/22/2513461/coffman-grants-climate-change/
Young people with smarts, LOL. The Democrats have been playing that card since 1952. If only the smart people voted, Democrats would win. Except the opposite is true. Democrats rely on the uneducated, not the educated.
No debunking whatsoever of what scientists and other tech oriented people are seeing. Your replies are the ones that are laughable as you do not deal with the evidence I showed here and before.
So, as I pointed far early in the thread, you are even denying that what the Republican leadership is offering now is just blind leadership. And you can not help insulting the very people that you are supposedly making an effort here to convince, as I pointed early also, it is not my problem that you reach for those maneuvers.
And before you wonder what I’m talking about, I will have to post this item again, as it shows what deep hole the Republicans are getting into regarding the youth vote thanks to their denial ways:
So, no. Your “Except the opposite is true. Democrats rely on the uneducated” is not only tone deaf and wrong, it is also insulting. But thanks once again for showing all the “amazing rhetoric” that many Republicans think will get them to convince all the “uneducated” to vote for the willfully blind.
They’re in an easy position, there, because they’re not even campaigning to solve problems, but only to block the Dems from solving them, which, N.B., is not solving them.
What, like Jindal and Ryan and Rand Paul? 
Those are white dwarfs.
Depends on how you mean that. Pubs are on average more likely than Dems to have bachelors’ degrees, but Dems are more likely than Pubs to have graduate degrees.
Not spending our way out of the problem, that’s what is dumber. N.B.: Keynesian economics never has been discredited, though for some reason a lot of conservatives seem to assume it has been.
No, it has not been. But there’s two sides to Keynesian fiscal policy: surpluses in good times, deficits in bad times. If you do one, but not the other, it doesn’t work. You just end up with fiscal problems.
If the Republicans can go back to Eisenhower and Coolidge on fiscal policy, they can undo a lot of the damage done by Reaganomics and the Bush years.
Well, they won’t, will they? Too many gored oxen.
Remember Ross Perot? His notion was: 1) the deficit is Problem Number One and 2) to pay it down we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.
Didn’t get far, did he?
The Republicans would not be my first choice to fix the problems caused by other Republicans. But if they think they can do it, great; now let’s hear them realistically talk about it on the campaign trail.
To be fair, Perot got farther than just about any other independent candidate during my lifetime.
And, speaking anecdotally as a liberal Democrat in Virginia, nobody likes Terry McAuliffe, not even liberal Democrats, and he’s still leading.
Do you even remember what a big deal gays in the military was in 1993? Do you remember the Clinton health care reform plan? Obama passed what the Republicans were advocating in response to Clinton. Clinton was denounced as so un-American and so liberal that some Republican members of Congress warned him that if he visited their states, he was liable to be assassinated.
I mean, fuck, Adaher, I think you and your ilk have gotten so used to lying that you might not even know the difference between lie and truth any more.
I mean it’s clever of you to try to revise history into making Clinton a conservative Republican rather than the slightly-left-of-center president that he was, one that was considered so leftist by the Republicans of the time that they could barely bring themselves to be civil.
Obama is to the right of Clinton. He’s pretty much exactly where Bob Dole was in 1992. And if you gave a fuck about the truth, you’d realize that. But I don’t think you do care. All you care about is propagating your big lie talking points and constantly working the refs.
From Texas: A tan dwarf speaks up!
Why such a radical stance? The article mentions he has no Republican challenger in need of out-nutcasing. Perhaps he’s atoning for being less hateful than Ted Cruz on immigration reform. (Not that the office he’s seeking has a thing to do with health care or immigration.) Then, there’s:
all you have to do is choose the lesser of two evils. What is needed is a 3 party or more system not orchestrated by the “Men behind the Curtain”
Now , you know McCain and Romney were chosen. They couldn’t win. So, the question remains who decided Obama is the man. “The Man” ? The Men, maybe old white men?