Fuckin Murica

The neat thing about age based demographics is that when you have one group die out they are replaced by new people. People get more conservative as they age, and people are aging as we speak. All that means is that eventually the demographic that currently stresses social issues like gay marriage and immigration will die out, and they will be replaced by people who bring new issues to the party. Look at this election cycle, many people are already accepting that gay marriage will be law forever. There are only a handful of candidates left pushing that agenda. Fiscal conservatives will never die out, nor are they necessarily losing strength the same way that social conservatives are.

I guess what i'm saying is that i fully accept that some traditionally conservative viewpoints are dying out, but that far from seals the fate of the party itself.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 29 2016 02:58pm

The idea that people get conservative as they age has been debunked for a very long time. People tend to get more liberal, but society tends to get more liberal faster so the ageing population appear to get more conservative.

The demographics won't be the same because the older generation will not be replaced at the same rate as they die due to generational differences in birth rates.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 29 2016 03:02pm

are you talking socially or fiscally conservative. I'm not sure i'd ever accept that people get more fiscally liberal with age.

like i said i fully accept that social issues are on a liberal trend. what i'm saying more generally is that fiscal conservativism wont follow that same slope. also what im saying is that the issues that are decidedly liberal positions today could be neutral positions in 30 years. Who's to say conservatives will be fighting gay marriage in 30 years? Fighting for more harsh drug laws? That dynamic is held up by the large number of Baby boomers that make up the party today, as you said they will be dying out. But to assume that means that the party will greatly decline seems presumptuous to me.

What I said was " the party as it currently exists cannot maintain." Meaning if they change on all those issues they may continue in the future.

Most old people aren't in favor of social security or medicare cuts, yet those are fiscally conservative positions. Cuts and changes tend to affect old people more, so they would tend to be more "conservative" in the sense that they want to keep the status quo, however I doubt they would become more willing to accept spending cuts.

i guess we're coming to semantics because i honestly think we agree. really what i think overall is that your quoted statement is a moot point. Parties rarely stay the same as they currently exist. IMO both parties base their support on fiscal issues and pander far more on social issues given the sentiment of that day and age. And there will always be a sizable demographic of fiscal conservatives, both in wealthy sectors and those who live largely autonomous of government i.e. the ranchers in oregon or cajuns in the swamp.

I'll admit Republicans are more divided because of Donald Trump.

This is true, but there's still a sizeable percentage who support more moderate candidates(Rubio/Kasich). BTW, "moderate" in this primary just means a realistic conservative. Rubio isn't very moderate, and Kasich is only slightly moderate. They are both conservative people who are pragmatic.

I still think Rubio has a chance, although it is slim.



Is that real? Sounds real.

This is why I both hate/love the Donald. He's a badass, but also a dumbass.

I refuse to watch Daily Show washouts.

You should, his family changed their last name from drumpf to trump.

This post was edited by nobrow on Feb 29 2016 07:01pm