NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry would have taken Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi (!), Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida...(a 376-162 electoral win) as well as narrowly losing (by less than 5%) New Mexico, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Nationally, Kerry would have won 54-45%.

Will this generation continue to vote Democratic in coming decades? Or will they become the backbone of the new Republican voters, and the new 18-29 year olds will be the new Democrats?

My guess is the latter. Obviously the 18-29 year old vote has trended left-wing compared to the general population since the 60s. But what happens? Do people just get conservative as they age? Or is it more complicated...do the parties themselves adapt as time goes on?

Very informative has been the national and state exit polls available here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

I'm just curious about the implications of this gap, I don't want to open up a flamewar Bush vs. Kerry mess all over again.

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.

really, because the elderly vote democrat...

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.

I think it has to do more with that old saying, "Vote Democrat if you want to be rich enough to vote Republican."

The Republican party has a nasty little anti-intellectual streak. Look at Bush for example--he's held up as the "You can get C's and be President" president. The Republicans appeal more to greed than anything having to do with higher education--and as people become middle-aged, they usually start accumulating a little wealth of their own.

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.
Not entirely true. While the bulk of voters with high school diplomas and undergrad degrees vote republican, the majority of those with graduate degrees vote dem. Now, one must also remember, the largest percentage of a group is those w/o high school diplomas, who vote massively for the dems.

really, because the elderly vote democrat...
Not always...veterans tend to vote Republican.

I think it has to do more with that old saying, "Vote Democrat if you want to be rich enough to vote Republican."

The Republican party has a nasty little anti-intellectual streak. Look at Bush for example--he's held up as the "You can get C's and be President" president. The Republicans appeal more to greed than anything having to do with higher education--and as people become middle-aged, they usually start accumulating a little wealth of their own.
Yeah, only morons get C's at Yale.
And go to Harvard for grad-school.

really, because the elderly vote democrat...
I've seen that somewhat, but not in this past election. The elderly broke for Bush, I'm guessing largely based on social concerns like abortion, gay marriage, and faith (usually social security plays a larger role in swinging them Democrat, but not this time). Bush took 65+ year olds by 52-47%, only slightly less than his largest group: 30-44 year olds (53-46%).

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.
I wouldn't be so sure. This year Kerry only took those without a high school diploma 50-49% (after Gore took them 60-40% four years ago), representing a strong surge in rural "uneducated" support for the president. Kerry took voters in postgrad study by 55-44%, not much changed from Gore's performance four years ago. Bush's best performance was among those with a high school degree, to a college degree.

Now, one must also remember, the largest percentage of a group is those w/o high school diplomas, who vote massively for the dems.
Not this year, though true in past years. Oh, and only 4% of the voters did not have a high school diploma.

Not always...veterans tend to vote Republican.
This is true.

I also noticed something...across the South the strongest swell in Bush support came from the elderly...but in Montana Kerry took the 60+ group by 8%, after Gore lost the same age group by close to 30% four years ago! That's better than Kerry did among the 18-29 crowd. I have no idea what produced such a switch across the elderly. In North Dakota, Kerry did better among the elderly than the young as well. But it seems most elsewhere, the 18-29s came out strong in favor of Kerry, with the elderly joining the middle-aged in being strong pro-Bush. In fact, it seems some of Bush's strongest gains from 2000 have been in the elderly category, which did go Democrat until recently.

The talk of values voters is a little over-hyped I believe (splitting Iraq and Terrorism into two categories split the "foreign policy" concerns), but it seems to have really pulled a lot of religious older people to Bush.

My grandma voted for Kerry because of Edwards. Not because of anything he did, just for the way he looked/talked :p

My grandma voted for Kerry because of Edwards. Not because of anything he did, just for the way he looked/talked :p


That's what we get for letting women vote.


How's that joke go...
If you're not a democrat at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican at 40 you have no head.

really, the data I've seen suggest that the more educated you are, the more liberal you are. Especially when you consider that most college professors and teachers are liberal. For instance, most of the college professors at my school voted for Kerry. Of course, a liberal doesn't mean you have to vote democrat.

The thing is that, as the more educated you become, the more money you are likely to make. Republicans are more "you get to keep your money, no sharing at all" while Democrats are more "let's share the money". So people who are making tons of money usually lean towards republican.

During the past election, we got the following results. People who made more 100k a year wanted Kerry to win by a majority. Urban areas were usually pro-Kerry.

On the other hand, people who lived in rural states were pro-bush. Religious people were pro-bush.

It was a battle between high-education, atheist versus low-education, religious.

really, the data I've seen suggest that the more educated you are, the more liberal you are. Especially when you consider that most college professors and teachers are liberal. For instance, most of the college professors at my school voted for Kerry. Of course, a liberal doesn't mean you have to vote democrat.

The thing is that, as the more educated you become, the more money you are likely to make. Republicans are more "you get to keep your money, no sharing at all" while Democrats are more "let's share the money". So people who are making tons of money usually lean towards republican.

During the past election, we got the following results. People who made more 100k a year wanted Kerry to win by a majority. Urban areas were usually pro-Kerry.

On the other hand, people who lived in rural states were pro-bush. Religious people were pro-bush.

It was a battle between high-education, atheist versus low-education, religious.

Salaries are relative. You need to make $100k a year in NYC, but you can get by on much less in Alabama.

Those who can't do, teach.

Source?

Yeah, only morons get C's at Yale.
And go to Harvard for grad-school.

Morons with lots of money. :D

That's what we get for letting women vote.


How's that joke go...
If you're not a democrat at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican at 40 you have no head.

"If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40 you have no head."

Winston Churchill

(supposedly)

I think it has to do more with that old saying, "Vote Democrat if you want to be rich enough to vote Republican."

The Republican party has a nasty little anti-intellectual streak. Look at Bush for example--he's held up as the "You can get C's and be President" president. The Republicans appeal more to greed than anything having to do with higher education--and as people become middle-aged, they usually start accumulating a little wealth of their own.
Isn't that saying from when their "official" positions on taxes were the reverse of what they are today?

really, the data I've seen suggest that the more educated you are, the more liberal you are. Especially when you consider that most college professors and teachers are liberal. For instance, most of the college professors at my school voted for Kerry. Of course, a liberal doesn't mean you have to vote democrat.
Most teachers live in an extremely insular world, the school system, and don't experience the real world all that often. Theirs is a realm of dreams and ideals. The get paid to teach, which in the end is only partially quantifiable.

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.

Your first sentence is incorrect. Statistics have shown little correlation to education in regards to political standpoint. If you judged by this past election alone, you would see the exact opposite, as the average Bush supporter typically had less education than the average Kerry supporter. Though this is not always the case. (This implies nothing about their intelligence, I myself am both a highschool and college dropout.)

The reason older voters tend to vote conservative more than liberal is quite simple. Conservative's in general, want to conserve the traditions of the past, while Liberals, typically want to change traditions in order to make things better. Older people are more likely to see the values of their own youth in the former, while younger people with new and different values are more likely to see their own in the latter.

I think as more people get into their working world and make more money, they want to see less and less of their money go to the goverment in taxes, so they become more conservative. Also, having children tends to make you a bit more conservative.

Having said that, I think I went in the opposite direction as I got older. I was quite conservative when I was younger, but I've leaned more and more to the left the older I've gotten, though I've never lost my insistence on making defense a high priority. Also, Barry Goldwater even 1) supported gays in the military and 2) said Clinton was doing a good job as President and people should have left him alone.

Of course, that was early in Clinton's first term before Monicagate.

How's that joke go...
If you're not a democrat at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican at 40 you have no head.
"If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40 you have no head."
Winston Churchill
(supposedly)
Both wrong:
"Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. Any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool."
George Bernard Shaw

Speaking of the great man, here's one that neatly sums up his namesake (GWB):
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."

If only 18-29 year olds' votes counted...
Well, if they had bothered to vote in the first place, Kerry would have been president anyway. Before looking at how they voted, best look at how few of them voted. I think that's more important.

I don't think this point has been raised yet, but as you get older you tend to acquire a family. 18 to 29 year olds would tend to be single moreso than the 30-300 year olds. Could it be that acquiring a family gives you family values, which are the harp of the republican? Is that the conservative trend, being married with kids as opposed to single?

oh if only republican registrars hadnt been ripping up democratic ballots and registration applications or just ignoring them or throwing them away,kerry would be president

oh if only republican registrars hadnt been ripping up democratic ballots and registration applications or just ignoring them or throwing them away,kerry would be president

Ah...yes! The vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! :headbang: :sniper:

I don't think this point has been raised yet, but as you get older you tend to acquire a family. 18 to 29 year olds would tend to be single moreso than the 30-300 year olds. Could it be that acquiring a family gives you family values, which are the harp of the republican? Is that the conservative trend, being married with kids as opposed to single?


Wow are you long lived

<sarcasm>

I think that the poor liberal trend is to have kids without being married (or knowing who the father is). And the poor conservative trend is to have kids while being married. Lots of kids in either case.

For rich liberals, it's usually double-income no kids (DINKs), and for rich conservatives, it's usually double-income one or two kids (DINOOTKs).

Being single past a certain age implies that either you're a real asshole, really ugly, or a combination of the two. Even gay people want to settle down someday.

</sarcasm>

Well, if they had bothered to vote in the first place, Kerry would have been president anyway. Before looking at how they voted, best look at how few of them voted. I think that's more important.
Surprisingly, they did turn out in large numbers.

Just not enough to beat the large turnout in general.

But they did turn out, something to keep in mind.

This was just a generally large turnout year across the board.

So we should be happy they maintained their 17% representation.

Morons with lots of money. :D

How about morons that get into such colleges because of the legacy clause or summat.

How's that joke go...
If you're not a democrat at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican at 40 you have no head.

If you tie yourself to any political party, you need to learn to think for yourself.

Your first sentence is incorrect. Statistics have shown little correlation to education in regards to political standpoint. If you judged by this past election alone, you would see the exact opposite, as the average Bush supporter typically had less education than the average Kerry supporter. Though this is not always the case. (This implies nothing about their intelligence, I myself am both a highschool and college dropout.)

It was also interesting that a study was done before the election demonstrating that Bush supporters generally were wrong on both Bush's and Kerry's stance on policies. Kerry supporters generally had Bush right, and Kerry somewhat right.

Gee,

This is a little disheartening, I would hope that the 18-29 years olds would choose not to vote for either of the two major parties and stand up and do the right thing:

Vote Libertarian.

really, the data I've seen suggest that the more educated you are, the more liberal you are. Especially when you consider that most college professors and teachers are liberal. For instance, most of the college professors at my school voted for Kerry. Of course, a liberal doesn't mean you have to vote democrat.

The thing is that, as the more educated you become, the more money you are likely to make. Republicans are more "you get to keep your money, no sharing at all" while Democrats are more "let's share the money". So people who are making tons of money usually lean towards republican.

During the past election, we got the following results. People who made more 100k a year wanted Kerry to win by a majority. Urban areas were usually pro-Kerry.

On the other hand, people who lived in rural states were pro-bush. Religious people were pro-bush.

It was a battle between high-education, atheist versus low-education, religious.



This isn't true. In general people seem to automatically assume higher education means smarter, and therefore Democrat. Take a look at the statistics some time. In general colleges lean left, and cause their students to lean left. If you're getting a MA from nearly anywhere, chances are 90% of your teachers are Democrats.

It also seems to be that many people in the 'soft' sciences and arts tend to go to grad school because they can't get a job with just an undergrad degree. That means you'll have far more Mass Communication majors with their masters than you might have from an engineering discipline.

Does having an advanced degree automatically make these people smarter than other? Hell no!

Most teachers live in an extremely insular world, the school system, and don't experience the real world all that often. Theirs is a realm of dreams and ideals. The get paid to teach, which in the end is only partially quantifiable.

Teachers do not live in insular worlds. They are people too, they read the news, watch TV. They are the same as you, except their job is teaching. Do you want to know why they're liberal? Because they have to be. Teachers are born liberals, you have to keep an open mind AND be tolerant in order to teach, especially when you have rowdy kids playing around. Being liberal is being tolerant. Any teacher that yelled a lot was probably conservative. I'm trying to find the link that says "9 out of 10 teachers/professors are liberals" but I can't seem to find it anymore. This was the best I can find.
http://www.villanovan.com/news/2004/12/03/News/Liberal.Professors.In.The.Majority-819598.shtml
You can find more articles at Google News and typing in liberal teachers or something.

The kids of today aren't conservative. We can tolerate more things. Seeing as how kids nowadays are bombarded with "make love not war" messages, especially on things such as MTV, and you have a future generation of liberals.

Conservatives are a bunch of old people who have a hard time getting out of bed. That, or they're one of those crazy religious nuts. In the end, I'm going to have to say "conservatives have no education." Of course, moderate republicans are usually very intelligent. But conservatives are morons.

Salaries are relative. You need to make $100k a year in NYC, but you can get by on much less in Alabama.

Those who can't do, teach.

Source?

Yea, those who can't do teaches. Go ahead and think that with your crappy no-highschool diploma job. While I do realize that a portion of teachers are crappy(or maybe you just go to a crappy school), we all have one or two really special teachers out there in every school.

There is nothing IN alabama. By the way, alabama is one f-cked up state. During the last election, they had the ability to strike down a segration law/talk that was on the state constitution. The stupid thing was that it failed. It failed! How sad is that, that the people in alabama still wants to segregate blacks and white.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/

This isn't true. In general people seem to automatically assume higher education means smarter, and therefore Democrat. Take a look at the statistics some time. In general colleges lean left, and cause their students to lean left. If you're getting a MA from nearly anywhere, chances are 90% of your teachers are Democrats.

It also seems to be that many people in the 'soft' sciences and arts tend to go to grad school because they can't get a job with just an undergrad degree. That means you'll have far more Mass Communication majors with their masters than you might have from an engineering discipline.

Does having an advanced degree automatically make these people smarter than other? Hell no!

If anyone's not going to college, then they're a moron. Even a community college degree can increase your paycheck by several thousand a year.

There vote does count. Its just that they don't get out and vote for a variety of reasons.

I don't think this point has been raised yet, but as you get older you tend to acquire a family. 18 to 29 year olds would tend to be single moreso than the 30-300 year olds. Could it be that acquiring a family gives you family values, which are the harp of the republican? Is that the conservative trend, being married with kids as opposed to single?

Considering that divorce rates are *much* higher in traditionally conservative states....probably not.

This isn't true. In general people seem to automatically assume higher education means smarter, and therefore Democrat. Take a look at the statistics some time. In general colleges lean left, and cause their students to lean left. If you're getting a MA from nearly anywhere, chances are 90% of your teachers are Democrats.

This is a myth. I've been to both a small private, liberal arts institution and a large, public, urban technical university. Both have more conservative leanings than liberal.

America's one-party state
Dec 2nd 2004
From The Economist print edition
If you loathe political debate, join the faculty of an American university

TOM WOLFE'S new novel about a young student, “I am Charlotte Simmons”, is a depressing read for any parent. Four years at an Ivy League university costs as much as a house in parts of the heartland—about $120,000 for tuition alone. But what do you get for your money? A ticket to “Animal House”.

In Mr Wolfe's fictional university the pleasures of the body take absolute precedence over the life of the mind. Students “hook up” (ie, sleep around) with indiscriminate zeal. Brainless jocks rule the roost, while impoverished nerds are reduced to ghost-writing their essays for them. The university administration is utterly indifferent to anything except the dogmas of political correctness (men and women are forced to share the same bathrooms in the name of gender equality). The Bacchanalia takes place to the soundtrack of hate-fuelled gangsta rap.

Mr Wolfe clearly exaggerates for effect (that's kinda, like, what satirists do, as one of his students might have explained). But on one subject he is guilty of understatement: diversity. He fires off a few predictable arrows at “diversoids”—students who are chosen on the basis of their race or gender. But he fails to expose the full absurdity of the diversity industry.

Academia is simultaneously both the part of America that is most obsessed with diversity, and the least diverse part of the country. On the one hand, colleges bend over backwards to hire minority professors and recruit minority students, aided by an ever-burgeoning bureaucracy of “diversity officers”. Yet, when it comes to politics, they are not just indifferent to diversity, but downright allergic to it.

Evidence of the atypical uniformity of American universities grows by the week. The Centre for Responsive Politics notes that this year two universities—the University of California and Harvard—occupied first and second place in the list of donations to the Kerry campaign by employee groups, ahead of Time Warner, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft et al. Employees at both universities gave 19 times as much to John Kerry as to George Bush. Meanwhile, a new national survey of more than 1,000 academics by Daniel Klein, of Santa Clara University, shows that Democrats outnumber Republicans by at least seven to one in the humanities and social sciences. And things are likely to get less balanced, because younger professors are more liberal. For instance, at Berkeley and Stanford, where Democrats overall outnumber Republicans by a mere nine to one, the ratio rises above 30 to one among assistant and associate professors.

“So what”, you might say, particularly if you happen to be an American liberal academic. Yet the current situation makes a mockery of the very legal opinion that underpins the diversity fad. In 1978, Justice Lewis Powell argued that diversity is vital to a university's educational mission, to promote the atmosphere of “speculation, experiment and creation” that is essential to their identities. The more diverse the body, the more robust the exchange of ideas. Why apply that argument so rigorously to, say, sexual orientation, where you have campus groups that proudly call themselves GLBTQ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning), but ignore it when it comes to political beliefs?

This is profoundly unhealthy per se. Debating chambers are becoming echo chambers. Students hear only one side of the story on everything from abortion (good) to the rise of the West (bad). It is notable that the surveys show far more conservatives in the more rigorous disciplines such as economics than in the vaguer 1960s “ologies”. Yet, as George Will pointed out in the Washington Post this week, this monotheism is also limiting universities' ability to influence the wider intellectual culture. In John Kennedy's day, there were so many profs in Washington that it was said the waters of the Charles flowed into the Potomac. These days, academia is marginalised in the capital—unless, of course, you count all the Straussian conservative intellectuals in think-tanks who left academia because they thought it was rigged against them.

Bias in universities is hard to correct because it is usually not overt: it has to do with prejudice about which topics are worth studying and what values are worth holding. Stephen Balch, the president of the conservative National Association of Scholars, argues that university faculties suffer from the same political problems as the “small republics” described in Federalist 10: a motivated majority within the faculty finds it easy to monopolise decision-making and squeeze out minorities.

Ivy-clad propaganda

The question is what to do about it. The most radical solution comes from David Horowitz, a conservative provocateur: force universities to endorse an Academic Bill of Rights, guaranteeing conservatives a fairer deal. Bills modelled on this idea are working their way through Republican state legislatures, most notably Colorado's. But even some conservatives are nervous about politicians interfering in self-governing institutions.

Mr Balch prefers an appropriately Madisonian solution to his Madisonian problem: a voluntary system of checks and balances to preserve the influence of minorities and promote intellectual competition. This might include a system of proportional voting that would give dissenters on a faculty more power, or the establishment of special programmes to promote views that are under-represented by the faculties.

The likelihood of much changing in universities in the near future is slim. The Republican business elite doesn't give a fig about silly academic fads in the humanities so long as American universities remain on the cutting edge of science and technology. As for the university establishment, leftists are hardly likely to relinquish their grip on one of the few bits of America where they remain in the ascendant. And that is a tragedy not just for America's universities but also for liberal thought.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3446265

>>>>It is notable that the surveys show far more conservatives in the more rigorous disciplines such as economics than in the vaguer 1960s “ologies”.



This is what I was trying to say in part. You'll find far fewer Democrats in disciplines that could actually get a job if they had to leave academia. Engineers, scientists, economists, all must be able to present solid rational concepts then defend them. They can't get away with talks about feelings and questionable stats to prove their point.

This is what I was trying to say in part. You'll find far fewer Democrats in disciplines that could actually get a job if they had to leave academia. Engineers, scientists, economists, all must be able to present solid rational concepts then defend them. They can't get away with talks about feelings and questionable stats to prove their point.

At my undergrad school, every prof that expressed any type of political stance at all, from engineering profs to theology profs to chemistry profs leaned to the conservative stance.

Of course, most of my profs never even mentioned political stances.

At my current school, most of my profs seem to be moderates, with the exception of one or two.

All anecdotal evidence, of course, but your article picked two schools that *everyone* knows are liberal-leaning to talk about. Those two schools do not, in any way, represent the entire University system.

Affirmative action for Republicans?

You are shitting me.

It's been like this forever. The older you are, the more conservative you are. Yes, the elderly are sometimes split even, but they are a funny bunch, politically speaking. They grew up in a time period where politicians had cookie-cutter philosophies, and they voted based more on personality and amicability, and less on issues. I suspect they are still like that today (most are, but not all). However, it certainly helps if a politician promises to send the elderly more benefits. I myself am amazed that Bush won, yet promised to privatize Social Security.

It's been like this forever. The older you are, the more conservative you are. Yes, the elderly are sometimes split even, but they are a funny bunch, politically speaking. They grew up in a time period where politicians had cookie-cutter philosophies, and they voted based more on personality and amicability, and less on issues. I suspect they are still like that today (most are, but not all). However, it certainly helps if a politician promises to send the elderly more benefits. I myself am amazed that Bush won, yet promised to privatize Social Security.

Didn't you know?

It's much more important to keep "them gays in their proper place, without the rights of the straight people" than it is to have money.

Didn't you know?

It's much more important to keep "them gays in their proper place, without the rights of the straight people" than it is to have money.
Well I don't believe that the majority of the elderly voted based on the gay issue.

I don't suppose anyone considered that the reason why teachers aren't conservative is because they seem more interested in making money than helping people? Hike pay for a university professor to $200k per year, and watch the conservatives flock to it. Liberals, by contrast, pick teaching primarily because the rewards are things other than money.

And as for the youth vote, listen carefully: The youth in America did vote, in record numbers. How do I figure, well consider: the number of voters who were in the 18-29 demographic stayed the same at 17%, but the total number of voters increased by 15 million over the last election. That means that roughly 2.5 million more youths voted in this election than in last election. The only reason this wasn't reported was because news outlets were lazy and stupid.

I don't suppose anyone considered that the reason why teachers aren't conservative is because they seem more interested in making money than helping people? Hike pay for a university professor to $200k per year, and watch the conservatives flock to it. Liberals, by contrast, pick teaching primarily because the rewards are things other than money.
I think liberals are just drawn to the universities and Hollywood the way conservatives are drawn to country music and NASCAR. No "conspiracy".

And as for the youth vote, listen carefully: The youth in America did vote, in record numbers. How do I figure, well consider: the number of voters who were in the 18-29 demographic stayed the same at 17%, but the total number of voters increased by 15 million over the last election. That means that roughly 2.5 million more youths voted in this election than in last election. The only reason this wasn't reported was because news outlets were lazy and stupid.
That is entirely true. It was a year of high turnout across the board...and the fact that we maintained the 17% total representation bodes well for the future.

Statisitics have usually shown that as a person becomes more educated (whether by life experience or in a classroom) they tend to lean more and more conservative. A conservative would probably say that older people vote Republican because they have learned more about how life actually works.

The parties do change over time but this is the current trend.

As people age and get more educated, they would get more liberal. Is it really smart to give tax breaks to billionaires and go to a war you don't even know how to fight?

Sadly, no one wants to challenge voter fraud here or riot or anything. People here voice their opinion, but do not physically show thta they mean it.

Well I don't believe that the majority of the elderly voted based on the gay issue.

Out of those who did vote for Bush, the number one reason was given as "moral issues."

How's that joke go...
If you're not a democrat at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican at 40 you have no head.
Actually, Winston Churchill said

"If you're not a socialist at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a capitalist at 30 you have no head."

He didn't mention democrats or Republicans.

Actually, Winston Churchill said

"If you're not a socialist at 20 you have no heart, but if you're not a capitalist at 30 you have no head."

He didn't mention democrats or Republicans.
I now a different quote - not from Churchill - but using the same method:
"If you aren´t a communists at 20 you have no heart, if you still are one at 40 you have no brain."

I disagree to the first part. You can have a brain at the age of 20.
But I strongly agree with the second part.

Affirmative action for Republicans?

You are shitting me.
Yes, I was just thinking that!