NationStates Jolt Archive

Tell me now, do you believe that this is actually a long term factor in elections? If it weren't for the little bit about "80 percent" of children end up voting like their parents in the long run, I would be laughing. Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

Is this really the reason that Republicans have steadily increased in number over the years? A biological "grass roots" effort? Is it a cultural thing? Do Democrats use more birth control? Should Democrats get out there and pump out more babies for the party?

But the data on young Americans tell a different story. Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.

The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831

I find the 80% extremely questionable.

I find the 80% extremely questionable.

The question I have is, is it possible?

I have five kids, and none of them are remotely liberal. In fact, my daughter is far more conservative than I am, and is a teenager in rebellion (she doesn't approve of my lifestyle, for instance).

Possible? Maybe. I doubt it though, your circumstances and experience dictate political beliefs, and not everyone votes party line anyway.

Long story short I doubt it has much bearing. Though I suppose it could.

clicky (http://sorethumbsonline.com/d/20060320.html)

All I know is this - my maternal grandparents are pro-Bush Republicans, and both of their living daughters are liberal Democrats. Their adopted son, incidentally, is a Libertarian. I am farther left than any of them on many things. I have a feeling my kids will be radical leftists.

Tell me now, do you believe that this is actually a long term factor in elections? If it weren't for the little bit about "80 percent" of children end up voting like their parents in the long run, I would be laughing. Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs.

Is this really the reason that Republicans have steadily increased in number over the years? A biological "grass roots" effort? Is it a cultural thing? Do Democrats use more birth control? Should Democrats get out there and pump out more babies for the party?



http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
And don't forget the "Roe" factor ... it's in an old opinionjournal piece, too.

And don't forget the "Roe" factor ... it's in an old opinionjournal piece, too.

This reminds me of one of the arguments that I've heard as to why there should not be a joint Jewish-Palestinian state - the birth rate of the Palestinians far outstrips the Jewish birth rate, and the Jews would be in a minority within a generation.

Not that I buy the argument completely, but at a basic level, is birthing children and raising them with your initial bias (towards one party or another) a factor in elections over the long run?

clicky (http://sorethumbsonline.com/d/20060320.html)

God, that is the stupidest comic in the world, it's stupidness is up there with Family Circus and Cathy.

clicky (http://sorethumbsonline.com/d/20060320.html)

Lol.

To the rest of the thread:

Not only do I doubt the 80%, I also want to bring up the fact that generations themselves are strongly influenced by a desire to be different than the generateion before them. Just as the Neo-cons, Reagan, Bush, and Bush were the product of a response to the political liberalism of the period before them, we will see a similar trend in the generation after them (in fact, whether or not your realize this yet, we already do. A huge majority of under-18ers couldn't give a fuck less what sexuality someone is, and have no respect for the Bush admin).

Point 2 - The majority of voters are independants who are as likely to vote for one candidate as the other. Their children will also balance out the mix.