Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Demographic Trends in the Republican Party

Demographic Trends in the Republican Party

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter7Share on Facebook19Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Blogcritics readers are familiar primarily with my political commentary, but likely only peripherally aware that I also work as a political consultant. One part of that work is issue and candidate polling carried out through my firm Azimuth Research Group. We’ve been polling very actively during this period leading into the 2012 election and all of our polls include general control questions which are not the primariy focus of the poll but can provide useful demographic information to put results in perspective.  Since most of our polls are of Republican voters, over time these demographic questions provide us with a useful snapshot of the GOP membership.

One of the standard control questions which we ask with most of our polls is the age of participants. Taking the answers to this question from a series of polls conducted nationwide involving over 8000 participants during the past 6 months has given us a pretty good profile of the age of the Republican voter base going into the 2012 election.

To start, the obvious conclusion from the breakdown of ages is that most Republican voters are quite old. The party will probably lose over a third of its members to old age in the next 20 years and has only tiny base of younger voters to replace them.

Age Range Graph Percent
18-27 6%
28-37 14%
38-47 15%
48-57 24%
58+ 37%

 

The Republican Party is not a party of the young. More than two thirds of those polled were over 48 years old and only 20% were in the bottom two age brackets. This raises the question of what kind of a future a party has whose membership averages close to retirement age with very few new members becoming involved at or near college age. There’s not much time left for those who currently lead the party. Membership is already shrinking and the trend suggested in these polls is one which would leave the Republican party as a much smaller minority party in less than a generation.

The other significant aspect of this is the difference in political preferences between older and younger Republicans. Taking another question asked in two of our recent polls of a total of about 1800 voters, addressing what the top issue concerns for the 2012 election are, younger Republicans responded very differently from their older counterparts. In these polls both groups agreed that “Government Spending” and “Unemployment” were the top concerns

18-37 Year Olds 58 and Older
Issue Graph Percent Graph Percent
Government Spending 50% 36%
Unemployment 26% 22%
Individual Liberty 15% 14%
Right to Life 5% 10%
Family Values+ 0% 7%
Immigration+ 0% 6%

 

The first thing a look at the top and bottom age ranges reveals is that the Republican Party is not nearly as socially conservative as generally believed. The support for “Family Values” and even “Right to Life” issues is relatively small across the board. But while the groups are substantially similar in their positions on the most important – mostly economic – issues, they are radically different when it comes to the more divisive social issues. In the poll on which this is based, out of almost 1000 responses there were almost no participants under the age of 37 who ranked “Immigration” or “Family Values” as a top concern and half as many gave “Right to Life” the top rating as in the older age group. This suggests that for the younger generation of Republicans social issues are an absolute non-priority, or at best issues of convenience which they don’t prioritize significantly.

This is further born out by candidate polling. In recent polls older voters go much more heavily for socially conservative candidates like Rick Perry and Herman Cain, while younger voters are attracted to the more socially moderate or socially neutral candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

18-37 Year Olds 58 and Older
Issue Graph Percent Graph Percent
Social Conservatives 52% 78%
Social Moderates 46% 20%

 

In the older age group support for social conservatives is three times support for social moderates, while in the younger group the support splits almost 50-50.  Given that some social moderates are also among the most fiscally conservative candidates this bears out the trend towards much less interest in socially conservative views among younger Republican voters.

It is inevitable that the socially conservative 23% of the oldest population group will die off and do so fairly quickly. They will almost all be gone within two decades. In addition to reducing the total membership of the party by as much as a third, they will also leave behind a party with very little interest in social conservatism. You can draw your own conclusions from this, but at the very least it means that prioritizing social issues is a big mistake in the long term as it turns away younger voters and panders to a vocal minority which won’t be around for long.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://www.rightcondition.com arkady

    Very interesting data and this supports the effort of the RLC in reshaping the status quo Republicans. It now not only becomes essential to win elections, but essential for future survival.

  • jamminsue

    Interesting…this to me shows that the issues that are traditioally Republican are outdated and no longer important. The Republican Party better figure out how to get off the guns and babies garbage and on to issues of substance.

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/2011/07/repealing-great-society.html Tommy Mack

    The Republican Party is not a party of the young.

    Karl Rove found his political opportunity in the ’64 Goldwater campaign when the landslide went to the Democrat, LBJ. Today, we tend to look over the Nixon win in ’68 and the GOP landslide of ’72. The presidency is cyclical.

    As part of the 58+ group, I am a Democrat. I believe in having smart opposition, which the current GOP is not. The difficulty is its ancients, like Mitch McConnell, and its nonsensical assumptions. This is a great time to be a Republican, Dave, as it was when Rove approached draft age. But policy will be the central GOP issue, as you note.

    Very interesting piece and research. Best of luck.

    Tommy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave, you already know what I’m going to say, but for the very few who haven’t, here goes.

    You put your finger on two of the three big problems that the Republicans face in the coming decades – age and “values voting”. The latter strikes one as ironic considering their reelection of diaper-sex-with-a-hooker Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).

    But you left out the third leg of this particular troika – race. I already addressed this in January of ’09.

    I’ll give the GOP powers-that-be props for honestly trying to face their race problem head-on, and the rank-and-file of the GOP at least seems to have put race behind them with their support of Herman Cain…but your real problem lies in the homogeneity of your rallies, and the race-baiting by your pundits. As long as the pundits keep race-baiting, GOP rallies will stay lily-white because your pundits are giving us Dems LOTS of opportunity for pointing out the obvious racism of conservative pundits…and by association, the conservatives who support keeping them on the air. Oh, and ‘papers-please’ laws that seem to make WWB (walking while brown) a crime don’t help your case, either.

    Until the GOP gets these matters taken care of, the GOP will NOT attract enough young people for the GOP to avoid marginalization in the future. But that’s not going to happen as long as conservative pundits wield such power as evinced by John Boehner consulting with Rush Limbaugh the night before he gave the ‘official’ GOP response to Obama’s attempt to solve the Tea-Party-manufactured debt-ceiling crisis.

    (and it would help if the GOP would start listening to professionals when it comes to little things like global warming and evolution and economic reality, instead of automatically attacking any position the Dems support. Young people pay attention to these things, too, you know.)

  • Igor

    Indeed, the republican party is NOT the party of the young. That is a really bad change. When I was a teenager in the 50’s the republicans were much more attractive: they favored a conservative (i.e., keep the best and change the rest gradually) approach to politics, conserve the American environment (it was liberals who were willing to pollute and destroy to create wealth at the bottom), avoid foreign entanglements (it was democrats who kept getting us into foreign wars), keep economic improvement opportunities open with colleges financed by high taxes on the already rich and middleclass, etc.

    But the republicans walked away from those ideas in favor of increasingly shrill dogmatic fantasies that resulted in outcomes contrary to American ideals.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Igor –

    There used to be conservatives and liberals in both parties…but not so much anymore. The problem with the Republicans is that their politicians seem to compete with each other – “I’m more conservative than you!” – and whoever’s more conservative wins…

    …at least, whoever’s more conservative in the modern definition of conservative.

    Right now, the GOP’s being pulled in three different directions. There’s the Tea Party and its associated nutcases like Bachmann, Allan West, and so on; there’s the Old Guard, the ones who not only remember what “conservative” really meant but are also willing to stand for it; and then there’s the mostly younger section to which Dave alluded, who care much more about jobs and could care less about race, religion, and “values”.

    Who will win the struggle? I suspect the third group will, for the Tea Party is losing steam somewhat and the Old Guard is not only getting older but has been diminished in influence (largely by the Tea Party and its ilk). If the GOP can regain its sanity, reject the Tea Party, and reclaim the sense of pragmatism it once had, they’ll do fine. If not, then either the GOP will be marginalized in the decades to come, or America is in for some dark times indeed.

  • Clavos

    …the Tea Party is losing steam somewhat…

    Evidence?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    The evidence, Clavos, would be the polls. Here’s the results of one by that notoriously left-wing rag Time:

    The poll’s figures show that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” (25 percent) or “somewhat favorable” (29 percent).

    Comparatively, the tea party, which has essentially become the Republican Party’s attempt at a populist movement, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just eight percent being “very favorable” and 19 percent being “somewhat favorable.”

    Overall, the poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe the tea party had either a “negative impact” (40 percent) or very little impact at all (25 percent).

    And here’s the long-term trend since December ’09, which shows a fairly steady approval rating, but also a disapproval rating that has done nothing but rise since then.

  • Clavos

    From the Gallup website, Polling Matters, written by Gallup’s Editor in Chief:

    The TIME Magazine poll was accompanied by this headline: “Why Occupy Wall Street Is More Popular than the Tea Party,” followed by text which, among other things, said, “Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.”

    I’m not sure that conclusion is warranted by the data as collected in the TIME/Abt SRBI poll. Look carefully at how the respondents in the Oct. 9-10 poll when asked about the two entities:

    1. On another issue, is your opinion of the tea party movement very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don’t you know enough about the Tea Party to have an opinion?

    2. In the past few days, a group of protesters has been gathering on Wall Street in New York City and some other cities to protest policies which they say favor the rich, the government’s bank bailout, and the influence of money in our political system. Is your opinion of these protests very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable, or don’t you know enough about the protests to have an opinion?

    TIME’s respondents were provided with a description of the protests, and no description of the Tea Party movement.

    Further, the description of the protests included explicit rationales for their protesting: “. . . policies which they say favor the rich, the government’s bank bailout, and the influence of money in our political system . . . ” Other research shows these types of descriptions test very well, including in particular Americans’ negative views of the “rich” (i.e., Americans favor taxing the rich more), and negative views of the influence of money on the political system. Presumably had the pollsters for TIME included descriptive phrases describing the motives behind the Tea Party movement (e.g., “…big government’s trillion dollar deficit and out of control spending…”), the results could have been different.

    (emphasis added)

  • Arch Conservative

    The fact is that both of our major political parties have, for different reasons, earned their fare share of animosity from the American people and as both parties are wont to continue with the status quo, we’re likely to see an ongoing bout of power shifts where one party is rewarded for a short time merely for the fact that they are not the other party.

    Having to choose between getting poked in the right eye vs. the left eye does not present any winning options, despite the ridiculous, lengthy, BC diatribes to the contrary. But then not picking a side would make it kind of boring to be a BC politics contributor I guess.

  • zingzing

    archie: “But then not picking a side would make it kind of boring to be a BC politics contributor I guess.”

    very true, but “we, the people” should be picking the side against big gov’t AND big bidness. big gov’t is taking our money and giving it to big bidness.

    so why are we fighting amongst ourselves? we’re just handing them their victory. we are our own worst enemy.

    much of the world is behind the ows thing. if we could combine that with the tea party and the pissed off shareholders of major banks, we might could actually accomplish something.

    as it stands, the gov’t laughs every time the tea party elects someone to their boy’s club, and big bidness can sit back and just laugh, because they’ve still got the money and nothing’s changing that right now.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Glenn, your third item – the race issue – is a complete myth. It’s a fabrication of the political left and largely their wishful thinking.

    I live in Texas in an area which is very racially diverse. I see an emerging breakthrough in support from hispanics and to a lesser degree African Americans. As soon as they become more successful and more politically aware and gain the confidence to resist peer pressure they are starting to become Republicans.

    Dave

  • Jordan Richardson

    I see an emerging breakthrough in support from hispanics and to a lesser degree African Americans. As soon as they become more successful and more politically aware and gain the confidence to resist peer pressure they are starting to become Republicans.

    Wow…

    And “the race issue” is a complete myth.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Glenn, your third item – the race issue – is a complete myth. It’s a fabrication of the political left and largely their wishful thinking.

    RIIIIIIIIGHT! That’s why earlier THIS year, a Pew poll found that forty-six percent of ALL Republicans in Mississippi STILL think interracial marriage should be banned!

    Oh, wait! Let me guess! It’s only a Mississippi problem, and there’s only racial harmony between blacks and Republicans once you cross state lines, huh? You got some tickets to watch the tornado races next summer to sell me too, right?

    I’ll sum up the attitude of a whole lot of Republicans in the title of ONE song: “Barack the Magic Negro”.

  • Arch Conservative

    “very true, but “we, the people” should be picking the side against big gov’t AND big bidness”

    eh anyone who has read a portion of what I’ve written would know that I am fully aware to the extent that big business and big government have screwed the people of this nation.

    You say that some in this occupy movement may feel the same way? Fair enough. But I don’t subscribe to their “the world owes me whatever I want mentality.” You can spin it any way you want but the simple fact is that the occupy movement is nothing but the latest ugly manifestation of those on the left who believe that they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others and who are unwilling or incapable of dealing with adversity in their own lives.

    A couple of greedy CEOs and politicians does not absolve the people of the personal accountability and responsibility that should accompany each and every decision in their own lives. To me this seems a rather simple notion yet it always has been and always will be lost on the types of people who’d gravitate toward something like “occupy wall street.”

    Oh and Glenn it’s a good thing liberals and Democrats have never hurled racial epithets at black people who just happened to be conservative/republican huh?

    F-ing hypocrite!

  • Jordan Richardson

    But I don’t subscribe to their “the world owes me whatever I want mentality.”

    “They” don’t have that mentality collectively. Some protesters might, just like some big business moguls have a similar attitude with their “the world is my oyster” approaches.

    You can spin it any way you want but the simple fact is that the occupy movement is nothing but the latest ugly manifestation of those on the left who believe that they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others and who are unwilling or incapable of dealing with adversity in their own lives.

    You’re the one doing the spinning, Arch. You can’t simply ascribe a blanket philosophy to such a diverse group.

    OWS is not confined to “those on the left.” It is an international movement involving people from all walks of life, including conservatives.

    The major thrust of the movement is in accord with your repulsion that “they are entitled to the fruits of the labor of others.” In this regard, though, the OWS supporters believe that it is the banks and corporations (complicit with inequitable government policies) that are taking the “fruits of the labour of others.”

    When “we, the people” paid taxes to bail out banks and big corporations, they “believe that they are entitled to the fruits” of our labour. Do you not understand that?

    Most supporters of OWS and similar movements aren’t pushing for something that wasn’t theirs. They’re pushing for economic justice, for that was theirs to be returned and used to serve the people, not line the pockets of the politicians, union bosses, bankers, and CEOs.

    A couple of greedy CEOs and politicians does not absolve the people of the personal accountability and responsibility that should accompany each and every decision in their own lives.

    Nobody is suggesting otherwise. I’ve read countless articles and views from OWS supporters thus far and not one has pointed away from accountability and personal responsibility.

    What is desired is that accountability and responsibility applies to ALL, not just the working class and the poor. We are told to “be responsible” while banks foreclose homes and governments shut out small businesses. We are told to “be accountable” while CEOs give themselves billions in bonuses using our tax dollars.

    To me this seems a rather simple notion yet it always has been and always will be lost on the types of people who’d gravitate toward something like “occupy wall street.”

    You’re wrong and you really need to stop generalizing. Read more. Educate yourself. You’ll learn that the OWS movement is broader than your current sources are telling you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Oh and Glenn it’s a good thing liberals and Democrats have never hurled racial epithets at black people who just happened to be conservative/republican huh?

    The DIFFERENCE, Arch, is a matter of DEGREE. When a few blacks of one party hurl epithets at Herman Cain, you’re talking about a FEW talking about ONE PERSON…and I’ve yet to see ANY evidence of ANY white liberal (or any liberal at all) point ANY racial epithet towards Cain. So…other than the fact that “you just know they do it”, what’s your EVIDENCE?

    On the other hand, when you’re talking FORTY-SIX PERCENT of Republicans in a state still of the opinion that interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL, that’s a whole different level.

    So you’ve got a few liberals who (since you provide NO evidence) may or may NOT point a racial epithet at Cain, compared to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Republicans who are still quite racist in Mississippi.

    It’s a matter of degree, Arch, and all your wishing and hoping otherwise can’t change that fact.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And to all – see y’all in a few days from the other side of the world!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But I don’t subscribe to their “the world owes me whatever I want mentality.”

    It ain’t about that at all. What it is about — it’s time to take the world by the balls!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The Republican Party might have more cause for concern about their inverted pyramid were it not for the reality that voters tend to become more conservative as they get older.

    What both Republicans and Democrats should be paying attention to is declining membership. Party political activism in general is on the downturn worldwide, and this in itself should worry them.

    Part of it is disillusionment with traditional politics, but I also suspect a lot of it is down to the perception that there are new, alternative, quicker ways of getting things done, especially using the Internet.

  • Arch Conservative

    Gee after months of the moonbats telling me what the tea party is and isn’t about they’re getting their panties in a bunch because I’ve deigned to tell them what I see their precious occupy wall street movement as being about.

    It’s been Koch brothers this and racist gun toting teabaggers that for quite some time now.

    The occupy wall street movement is being backed by Big Union and Barry Sotero himself. It is not a broad representation of the American population. It is a thinly veiled cadre of uber leftists trying to pass themselves off as that in an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that the Democrats, having controlled congress since 2006 and the white house since 2008 haven’t done jack shit to make enhance the economic circumstances of the average American.

    Oh and who gives a fuck what is going on in other countries? Most of the world is to the left of the USA and therefore useless. Maybe you’d like it if we were more like Greece, Italy or Portugal Jordan. In the words of Roger they have really “taken the world by the balls,” whatever the fuck that means.

    It’s always been play number one in the left’s playbook to be louder, more obnoxious and bullying than anyone else in the room to get thier way. Union membership in the country has declined to less than 7% of the private workforce, the unions in Wisconsin couldn’t pull off a flip of the WI state legislature despite thier most earnest efforts, the Democrat president is about as popular as the clap these days and likely to be tossed out on his ass……….The left is losing and they don’t like it so they’ve taken to being uglier and louder than usual. That is all this is.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Arch, the Tea Party had an express list of demands (and funding from millionaires). It’s not that hard, therefore, to determine what they’re “about.”

    The OWS crowd, on the other hand, is much too disjointed and broad (they’re operating on an international scale in 82 different countries currently) to determine what they’re specifically about. They are not an “organization” in any meaningful way, whereas the Tea Party now receives their own debates on CNN.

    Surely you can understand the distinction.

    The OWS movement is being backed by big unions and other liberal entities, yes. But as Chris Hedges pointed out in an article you wouldn’t dare read, this is because of necessity. The liberal groups, the ones that have failed to protect the poor and fight for economic equality, have to be seen as supportive of the movement or they risk dying off.

    The trouble you run into is that you consider the movement as purely national. Like issues like climate change, you only view these things through the American lens. You only see them as “left” and “right” issues involving “Democrats” and “Republicans.”

    This is your basic error. You need to broaden your scope.

    The OWS movement is just as pissed off at the Democrats who have failed as they are about the Republicans in the pocket of big business. They are just as pissed off at the impotence of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi as they are at the collusion of lobbyists and politicians.

    To understand what’s going on in your own country, you should “give a fuck what is going on in other countries.” Of course, I think your basic concern is that of blowing off a little steam. Understanding, it seems to me, isn’t in your vocabulary.

    You’re angry, but you’re not interested in solutions. You’re interested in lobbing the same lame catchphrases (“moonbat,” “Barry Sotero,” “Big Union,” blah blah blah) as always until you feel slightly better, then you’ll head back to the grind and do it all again the next day.

    Don’t you ever wish for something else, Arch, for something more? Don’t you get tired of being so simplistic?

    The left is losing, you’re absolutely right. So is the right. The old political paradigms borne out through lazy semantics and tired thought are dying out. The trouble with you is that you’re still hitching your wagon to a “side” and holding on for dear life.

    The insanity in your approach, Arch, is that you know that it won’t make a difference but you do it anyway.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Archie, apart from their protesting styles I can’t for the life of me see all that many significant differences between the Tea Party and Occupy.

    Both movements have arisen under the same presidential administration. Both have attracted folks from all walks of life, including many who aren’t in the habit of going out into the streets and protesting. Both are pissed off about bailouts, the screwing-over of the middle class and the hopeless state of the economy. Both are calling for a major overhaul of the way things are done in government. Both have one side of the political establishment crapping their pants while the other side either openly or tacitly applauds them. They even say the same things.

    Their perception of who the bogeyman is is the only tangible thing that separates them.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Their perception of who the bogeyman is is the only tangible thing that separates them.

    I would call that a pretty significant difference.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I also think the Tea Party was a rebranding of Republican politics, whereas many in the OWS crowd would assert that the current brand of politics and the current comfortable relationship Wall Street shares with politicians in general isn’t working.

    OWS appears concerned with economic equality, whereas the Tea Party is concerned with a constitutionality and less taxation on corporations AND individuals (this would include a removal of many social services and agencies, along with a rejection of environmental policies, a repeal of the health care plan and so forth). Very few within the Tea Party movement have spouted rhetoric blaming corporations for the current global state of affairs (see the Contract from America, for instance).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @24

    But not insurmountable.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    I would call that a pretty significant difference.

    Perhaps, Jordan.

    But since both entities also tend to agree that Bogeyman A and Bogeyman B are in each other’s pockets, we would seem to have one more commonality.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    #13

    Waiting for Dave to respond to this.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    My sister-in-law is visiting from Georgia. It is clear from talking to her that anyone who isn’t rich is lazy. Black people are lazier than white people and their problem is that they have been pampered by gov’t programs, like, for instance the post office which somehow was started to benefit them. (???? I would ask, but every time she opens her mouth my tongue gets a little shorter.) But she has black friends (she even calls them ‘my black girlfriend’) so, I am to take it she is not prejudiced, her criticisms are valid and not motivated by racism.

    (If I bite my tongue too many more times I will have to learn to speed type.)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh, I forgot to mention that she is a Republican. She says agrees with the Republican thinking on everything.

    So, Dave, I guess Republicans aren’t racists, it’s just that racists are highly attracted to their values and beliefs.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh, one more thing. Hallefuckinglujiah that Republicans are dying out.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Cindy, there are ignorant people everywhere and they put their check marks in all kinds of strange boxes.

    It’s the “I’m all right, Jack” attitude that’s so galling in the case of your sister-in-law.

  • Arch Conservative

    I’m making the world’s smallest violin motion with my left hand just for you Cindy.

    Your sister-in-law probably spent today telling her friends how she had to visit with her insufferable sister-in-law who went on and on about how unfair life was and how everyone with a dollar more in their pocket than her was an evil, greedy, corrupt, rich fat cat with absolutely no morals and how her failure to obtain even a modicum degree of success and/or happiness was due to these ammoral sobs who had kept her down her whole life.

  • Clavos

    …Republicans are dying out.

    I don’t think so, Cindy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re right, they’re not, especially if by the R-name you’re referring to the crackers, but that’s the peculiarity of the “American spirit.”

    We both agree, I suppose, that conservatism, as a purely intellectual stance and position, is foreign to the American psyche, almost by definition. It’s not in the beast. Consequently, whatever comes across as approximating a conservative position has got to be emotional in make up.

    But that’s true of most politics and political stances, ain’t that so?

  • Arch Conservative

    wtf are you talking about Roger?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry, I spoke in code.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger #35 –

    Interesting comment. I’ll have to think on that a while.

    Arch – that’s the difference between thee and me. All of us have a natural tendency to reject things that are not in our worldview, but some of us do so a lot more than others.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    @38

    The following discussion, see points 10 through 12, sort of explains where I’m coming from, Glenn.

  • Mickey Adkins

    We older folks MUST start YOUNG REPUBLICANS groups all over this country to share our world view of POLITICAL and PERSONAL FREEDOM with the younger people before it is too late. From these groups we can find new, young Conservative candidates for office. Our young people learn to be Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Marxists from their college professors and movies/TV … we MUST find ways to counteract that influence!!!

    We are coming in “late to this party” so-to-speak… the Progressives/Socialists/Communist/Marxists have had a plan in place to capture the minds of our children for several decades and they have done a good job of it, but… WE CANNOT GIVE UP … WE MUST CATCH UP!!!

  • John

    To say “This suggests that for the younger generation of Republicans social issues are an absolute non-priority,” is untrue, because you asked individuals to give their top priority. What the survey shows is that none of the younger group rate social issues at the top. It is an incorrect conclusion to say that these are non-issues to them.