Gallup has some fascinating data out, based on more than 120,000 interviews they've completed over the past four months, on the way that partisan identification breaks down by age:
Democrats, somewhat unsurprisingly, have the largest partisan ID advantage among Gen Y'ers, followed by among Baby Boomers. Republicans do relatively well (although are still at a net disadvantage) among Generation X'ers.
What's interesting, though, is what happens when we look at not these abstract generational categories, but rather at the following question: who was President when you turned 18? As annotated in the chart below, the popularity -- or lack thereof -- of the President when the voter turned 18 would seem to have a lot of explanatory power for how their politics turned out later on:
Partisan ID Gap, Based on Identity of President When Voter Turned 18
It's become common knowledge that the younger generation is highly predisposed toward Democrats. (Actually, that's not quite right -- they're more predisposed against Republicans than they are toward Democrats -- but the net effects on their voting behavior are probably about the same.) What's more remarkable, though, is how sharp the increase in the partisan ID gap becomes at about age 25. People aged 26-34 are pretty Democratic, put people aged 18-25 are really Democratic.
The former group came of age in the Clinton Era. Clinton, in the public's mind, is usually regarded as an average-to-slightly-above-average President, and the voters who came of age during his Presidency are associated with an average-to-slightly-above degree of Democratic affiliation.
The 18-25 year olds, however, came of age in the George W. Bush Era. And Bush, at least the vast majority of us think, was not a good President. In fact, most of us would say, he was a really awful President. And the people who turned 18 during his tenure are associated with extremely low levels of Republican identification.
The reason this is a real worry for the Republicans is because you can still see the echo of past Presidencies on the partisan ID trends today. Popular presidents are associated with above-average levels of party support among the generation that came of age during their time in office, whereas unpopular Presidents are associated with below-average ones. Moving backward in time:
George H.W. Bush, a roughly average President who was generally quite popular until roughly the last 12 months of his tenure, is associated with a slightly above-average amount of Republican support.
Reagan, a highly successful President who was popular throughout most of his term and may be even more popular today, is associated with a considerably above-average amount of Republican support.
Carter, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with slightly below-average levels of Democratic support.
Ford, a mediocre-to-average President, is associated with average or slightly below-average levels of Republican support.
Nixon, who was reasonably popular before the Watergate Scandal broke but who is generally regarded as a very poor President today, is associated with below-average levels of Republican support.
Johnson, whose complicated time in office is generally regarded today as having been an above-average Presidency, is associated with generally above-average levels of Democratic support.
Kennedy, who was very popular throughout his brief tenure in the White House, is associated with above-average levels of Democratic support. (You can almost see the spike in popularity among 64- and 65- year olds, who would have been about 17 when Kennedy took office.)
Eisenhower, a popular and effective Republican president, is associated with significantly above-average levels of Republican support.
Finally, we get to Truman and Roosevelt, where things seem to break down a bit. Truman is regarded quite favorably by historians today but was unpopular for much of his tenure; he is associated with average-to-slightly-below levels of Democratic support. The numbers then bounce around a bit for FDR, perhaps because there aren't all that many people in their mid-80s and so the sample sizes are small.
In general, however, this points toward the idea that partisan identification -- while not exactly being "hard-wired" -- can be quite persistent as the voter moves through her lifecourse. Voters who came of age during the eight years of the Bush Presidency are roughly eight points more Democratic than the rest of the country; that advantage could be worth an extra point or two to Democrats throughout the next half-century.
5.09.2009
Bush May Haunt Republicans for Generations
@ 2:49 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
112 comments
one
Going into the future, if Obama turns out to be an effective and well-liked president, you can add 8 more years of above average democratic support, and the GOP will effectively become the Whigs
Nate, I love your stuff, but I can't see this one from the data. Can you plot this as a scatter graph (Net Dem Advantage vs. Presidential Grade).
If your data is generally valid, shouldn't it be adjusted to age 21 for those who began voting before the 18-year-old Amendment took effect? That would be me.
The sad part is that Republicans seem to even have forgotten the difference between "keep your values" and "stay the course". (Now it is sad, before it was scary)
Most national leaders got into their positions not by "staying the course" but by either moving to the center (Merkel, Sarkozy) or by having been the opposition to a weak government (probably soon: Cameron). Right now, the Republicans are neither.
TOP: Hm. That would shift it over to the left three years up until...Nixon, I think?
Interestingly enough - I actually AM 25. (Just turned.) 9/11 happened my senior year, and my first voting-eligible year was 2002. I think that voters who may have been eligible before 9/11 may have shifted over a bit?
Re: Thread - I'd also be a bit reticent to declare the Republicans the Whigs right about now. I think, had Bush and the Republicans as a whole not screwed the pooch after 9/11 (wasn't the 109th Congress nicknamed the Do-Nothing Congress?), our first lady would be Cindy McCain, and it may well have been the Republicans with a 60-seat caucus in the Senate.
I think that, contingent on what Obama does (so far, regardless of your opinion on the effectiveness of his programs, one can't deny that his administration has been ambitious), the Millennials may shift or may hold their partisan ID. I don't think there's been a President that's been as widely condemned as Bush (save for Nixon, and that was in the wake of the largest scandal of the late 20th Century - and even then, Nixon was considered a fairly effective President up until Watergate) in the past 80 years.
I've been saying for a long time that GWB and his gang are by far the biggest reason for the Democrats' popularity today. Now this has been "scientifically" explained.
I hope and believe this is correct, but the analysis looks like an apples to oranges comparison to me. What I'd really like to see is a graph of party affiliation of 18-25 year olds back when they were 18-25, can we dig up a set of polls going back x years showing party affiliation of 18-25 year-olds.
Otherwise, it's hard to see how much of the current 18-25 year old preference is just age, and will go down as they grow older. I would suspect that democrat affiliation goes down a few points as one ages from youth to middle age.
Well, I find the analysis interesting, but I think the implications are a bit of a stretch. This is a 'period' table of partisan affiliation by age. You really need a 'cohort' table to make the claims you make. Sure people in their late-60s identify with Republicans than the average of other ages, but what did they look like when THEY were 20? I'm sure affiliation doesn't change that much over time, but it would be interesting to see how much is life-cycle driven versus generationally driven. It's also pretty obvious to me that there is a lot of noise in this graph. Why is the 39 & 40 year-old-gap about 4 points greater than the years immediately before it and after it?
(23 year-old Texas Democrat. Of the non-secessionist variety.)
Yeah, in order to really distinguish this from the "Young people are always Democrats" hypothesis, I think one would have to find previous data (say, at the end of the Clinton years) which suggested a significantly more modest Dem advantage among 18-25 year olds. One thing that supports the "Bush has permanently mauled his own party" theory is the very significant dropoff between Clinton and Bush. I think the "young people are always Democrats" hypothesis would suggest a less prominent transition.
On a completely unrelated note, has anyone noticed that the top 6 posts on this blog are about the silly Tea Parties? Do the libertarians have some massive botnet somewhere that generates hits whenever "Ron Paul" or "Tea paries" come up?
Chuck- I would guess that the spike at the end of the Reagan administration has a lot to do with the Iran-Contra scandal. Remember the Dems gained 8 seats that year in the Senate.
Some writers above are arguing with exactly what is the point of the post: People's voting identification throughout their life is strongly influenced by their identification at the time they first were entitled to vote in a Presidential election. Similar data has been provided about people's religious identification (though that correlation is weakening).
What might prove an even stronger correlation is to test this on data about regular voters.
IDENTICAL conclusions - from an entirely independent set of data:
http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/14245/
I am 39 years old, so when I turned 18 Ronald Reagan was the president. When I was 18 I considered myself and registered as a Republican. Then W came along. I am now a stalwart Democrat. The problem is that the party lost its way. It is totally out of touch with the American people. I have matured quite a bit and came to realize how messed up the Republicans had become. They have been running way to far to the right, leaving no room for moderates. They used to be the party of personal responsibility and respected individuals rights. Now they have become the party of NO! No new ideas, no personal responsibility, no individual rights. Nope, its their way or the highway. That isn't a party I can be a part of.
Nate, a question.
Can a particularly unpopular President muddy the results for what came before him? I ask because I turned 18 when George H.W. was in office and I became a Republican, but George W. and the others in the party made me change to independent during his term. So I used to be right in line with your data, but not anymore. Is that common?
-Jason M. Bryant
DanAtCA,
I hope that there are a lot more of people like you. My Dad was the same as you. Repulican during Reagan, moderate liberal now!
Just a quick thought, and in some ways I can't believe I am writing this. Is it all really George W Bush's fault? Doesn't Newt Gingrich take some blame? And the ineffective campaign of John S McCain, especially the pick of Sarah Palin? And Karl Rove, and the politics of destruction? And these are just some other factors I could think of. Seems to me as if its the GOP as a whole that have had a collective breakdown.
Assuming an Administration's effect is delivered entirely on 18-year-olds is slightly simplistic. I think the impact is delivered roughly evenly on everyone in their teenage years. And the cause isn't so much the competence of the Administration as the Zeitgeist - the Reagan generation wasn't caused so much by Carter's perceived fecklessness as by a counter-reaction to the disorders of the late Sixties and Seventies.
Similarly the New Deal Democratic wave was only partly a response to Roosevelt's successes; it was more indebted to the experience of impending national collapse during Hoover's unfortunate term.
But simplifications aside, the thrust is correct and important. Party orientation, once formed, remains remarkably stable over a lifetime. And eight years of W has brightened Democratic prospects well into this century.
Does anyone know where I might find some more long term viter ID polling that goes back at least a few decades?
Bush will be viewed in the near term, as something of an avuncular bumbler who some how kept us safe and lifted the nation to years of relative prosperity after catastrophe struck during the first year of his term. The judgment of George Bush must be left to more distant historians, those who do not suffer from the bias so palpable among the most numerous influential observers on the scene. Truth is difficult to discern in the present environment as all those who report have bias.
I think the fortunes of both parties will be shaped almost exclusively by the perception of Barack Obama both in terms of the efficacy of his prescriptions and the assessment of the honesty of his motives.
Obama is an extraordinary figure, willing to breathlessly pursue a very left wing agenda that is founded in a bias towards collective action, those so-called public private partnerships that are meant to thwart the more ungovernable forces of the invisible hand that seems far too resilient and adaptive to come much to heel despite unilateral government intervention. (As a side note his foreign policy will crumble in Afghanistan and Iraq unless he has great will and ignores the HuffPo crowd.)
At root Obama is outcomes determinative, believing that the ends -- the redistribution of wealth -- justifies the anti-capitalist and anti-democratic means. This is a common and necessary pattern when a government attempts to impose on society results that are contrary to those that would otherwise result from the operation of market forces.
In other words Obama’s success depends on the instigation of a form of totalitarianism, of fascism. Left or Right, the economy must be made to serve government ends. Fascism and state socialism are easier to implement than outright collectivist socialism/communism because they can be achieved through incrementalism and the locking in of circumstances, as in these public-private partnerships. They do not require outright revolution.
Because the people have been lulled to sleep by the pleasant sonorities of Obama's rhetoric and because the media is cravenly among Obama's boosters, the stunning nature of what Obama seeks to accomplish is not really apparent to all but the few partisans out there.
Lucky for Obama that those who are most inclined to oppose him, among them the Republicans and the moneyed interests are in their most weakened and dispirited condition in years. The causes for this are debatable, but the reality of the impact is undeniable: Obama is getting a free pass in terms of the substance of the debate – no one is really discussing the theoretical underpinnings of what he is trying to do, all we talk about are things like AF One, Rush Limbaugh, Mrs. Obama’s $500 kicks, “the lack of ideas among the Republicans”.
From my vantage point Obama’s policies are destined for failure. At best his will be an anemic and unproductive recovery that will fail to do much to stimulate growth to the point where the economy can be called robust. His longer term policies for dealing with “global warming” and imposing a “green” economy, founded on cap and tax system, along with rationing-dependent health care reform, have really not received serious debate, except for each side to shout about the other’s failures. Still, Obama’s is skilled at spin and may just convince the public that such a “restrained” economy beats the “boom and bust” cycles of the Reagan – Bush –Clinton eras. And he is adept at making a fearful public that has suffered enormous economic dislocation even more afraid about the punitive costs of healthcare, especially as they age, along with the whole Hollywood – media access stoking the fires of “global warming”, practically heating up the earth themselves by their own hot air!
At some point though, the better way becomes apparent and the state-centered, approach will be rejected in favor of a more progressive, pro-growth economic and social model that does not depend on the sharing of scarcity, but on the availability of plenty. The distinction between the GOP and the Dems can be put thus and if you ask me, the GOP has the better end of that stick.
Obama has a big ego it seems, but also seems to be possessed of admirable personal restraint. His success, however, may depend more on the personal qualities of those around him as well as the fidelity of those influential observers to start calling a “spade” a “spade” and letting there be serious and focused debate on where Obama wants to take us before we wake up there and wonder how we got there.
05.09.09
Petekent01 (on twitter – and much more succinct!)
Let's see...in November 2004 I was almost 17 years old. Had I been able to vote, my choice at the time would have been George W. Bush.
In November of 2008, when I was first able to vote in a Presidential election, I was almost 21 years old. I voted for Barack Obama.
My political position shifted rather quickly, but I think this is where it is going to stay.
Even my sister, a pretty staunch conservative at age 25, voted for Obama.
WTF, Gen X? I hated Reality Bites as well, but it wasn't THAT bad.
Maybe it was Higher Learning that did it? That I can understand.
Oh well, seeing as I am one... Generation Y FTW!!! Fuck the Boomers!
Looking at the data with a demographer's eye, I would say that the Truman and FDR numbers may be a bit out of sync due to the large gender bias in any sample taken of adults over age 75. That there are likely many more women than men in the sample increases the partisan advantage for dems beyond where it would be if taken say, 15 years ago before many of the men in that age group died out.
I find your analysis to be always interesting and perceptive. This one is a bit of a stretch because we have a group of people who came to voting age during the worst presidency in history in the age of communication. People know more sooner now that any other time in even recent history. They could watch it go awful on television. And they also were confronted with the best communicator for the office of president since Reagan or Roosevelt.
Mark Grebner:
I vividly remember the 1980 election, when I was 15. My strong impressions of the main reasons why Reagan won were:
(1) The Iran hostage crisis
(2) Inflation and the gas crisis
(3) The popularity of Reagan's proposed tax cuts
I would put Religious Right concerns about "permissiveness" somewhere down the list from those. Remember that Jimmy Carter was and is a Born-Again Christian, and was a fairly conservative Democrat, socially and fiscally. In some ways, Nixon and Ford were more liberal in their fiscal and social policies, since they funded public housing more, for example.
Nate:
I don't understand "mediocre-to-average." I consider mediocrity to represent a midpoint between excellence and execrableness, and therefore, to be essentially synonymous with average quality.
wv: fundo - the people who voted in large numbers for Carter and then switched to Reagan in 1980
Coincidentally I was zipping through 5M voters records here in NY looking at the age distribution of the half dozen parties we have. Net net. Dems staying even. Independents (the party), nonaffialiated, Libertarians dominated by younger cohorts. Conservatives and Republicans dying out. For every year since 1917 the Republican share of the cohort is shrinking. To your point unless the Republicans can deliver a successful Presidency they will end up like the Whigs. Which means another conservative party (but with several major differences) will replace them. The real battle will be for nonaffiliated. If the Dems turn in results like our slugs in Albany, a new rightist party will have no trouble winning a few cycles from now. As long as they aren't Republicans.
Pete Kent -
Thank you for doing your part to destroy much of the remaining support for Republicans.
Remember, people, Pete Kent represents a fairly typical contemporary Republican voter.
At root Obama is outcomes determinative, believing that the ends -- the redistribution of wealth -- justifies the anti-capitalist and anti-democratic means. This is a common and necessary pattern when a government attempts to impose on society results that are contrary to those that would otherwise result from the operation of market forces.Can we allow the choices of people this dishonest and ignorant to govern our country?
Of course not.
A democratically elected centrist (mildly conservative, even, by world standards, on economic matters) is "anti-democratic" and "anti-capitalist".
But it gets crazier...
In other words Obama’s success depends on the instigation of a form of totalitarianism, of fascism. Left or Right, the economy must be made to serve government ends. Fascism and state socialism are easier to implement than outright collectivist socialism/communism because they can be achieved through incrementalism and the locking in of circumstances, as in these public-private partnerships. They do not require outright revolution.Even putting aside the fact that Pete Kent supported George W. Bush for years without a word of complaint about "fascism", this is pure craziness.
A completely democratically elected moderate socialist who has not initiated any policies that could be remotely seen to increase violations of human rights (yes, he has moved to slowly with regard to those initiated by Bush, but that's not what he has initiated), is a "fascist".
Pete Kent and others like him do not deserve to be taken remotely seriously.
There is a party that caters to the bigoted delusions of Kent and his ilk, and that party needs to be voted entirely out of existence.
It needs to go. We can worry about the (inevitable) emergence of legitimate opposition later.
or . . .
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-- Winston Churchill
Certainly there are multiple factors that go into self-selection of Party ID, but we can play the "more data, please" game for eternity. Nate is working in broad strokes here, not explaining every human being's voting patterns.
I think one of the largest unaccounted factors in the self-identification of the more elderly is a generational shift in "values" that the Republicans have done a very effective job of capitalising on. When the Right lost the "Culture War", it left a lot of older people yearning for the "good old days", and the Republicans positioned themselves as the advocates of a return to the "good old days".
Now, the "good old days" mean very different things to different people. For some, it is a time when minorities "knew their place" or when women stayed home and raised children. Others miss the conformity of the Fifties, when you "knew where you stood", and questioning authority meant that you got smacked down hard. There are other differences, too, but the point is that the Republican Party has consistently presented a message of society "going to hell in a hand-basket" since the "good old days" and has promoted an aggressive "values" campaign to essentially turn back the social clock.
IOW, for those past a certain age, the Culture War was never really lost; it merely remained under an uneasy cease-fire.
Thus, someone who supported Democrats in their relative youth could be (and was) peeled off to support Republicans based on "values" in their old age.
We saw this in the McCain campaign with copious references to the late Sixties and early Seventies: Weathermen, Huey Newton, Stokely Carmichael, Vietnam protests, etc.
While these references mostly elicit shrugs or blank looks from younger voters, for the elderly they are "hot-button" issues that distinguish Democrats from Republicans.
The Republicans basically re-fought the McGovern/Nixon campaign in 2008. In short, the GOP never even seriously competed for the votes of those under 35, and seems completely bewildered by the failure of these voters to associate Obama with the Black Panther Party, for example.
Until that elderly demographic shuffles off this mortal coil, the Republicans are anchored to the doomed Culture War, much like marooned Japanese soldiers who fought on without knowing the conflict was already over. And they will continue to appear irrelevant and somewhat comical to younger voters, even if Obama's popularity wanes.
Fascinating!
I'm really dating myself here but I turned of age during the Carter Administration so my first election was Carter-Reagan. I thought that Carter was a failure at the time but couldn't stand to vote for Reagan who scared me (Reagan seems so tame now after 8 long miserable years of GWB) so I voted for the independent Anderson. Since that election I have pretty much voted straight ticket Democrat even though I held my nose both times I voted for Clinton. For the first time since I started voting I voted for a candidate that I was excited about and 100% behind...and best of all that candidate won.
...(mildly conservative, even, by world standards, on economic matters)....
NEWS FLASH!!! We don't go by "world standards"; we go by "American standards," dickbreath!
That's why this country and its people are a bastion of freedom, wealth, and success and not tyranny, abject poverty, and failure like 90%+ of the rest of the world!
Don't you get it?! Don't you fucking get it?!!
Yes, Obama is slightly to the "right" of "world standards" but he is to the far, far left of OUR standards!
Chalk harold up as a ringleader of the looney tunes!
Fuckbag!
It's your choice, America! You are free to pick how you live and who you want to lead us!
You can most certainly elect and are free to keep a man like Barack Obama in office, who (as the leftist apologists like to say to pacify everyone and convince you not to listen to those of us scared to death and terrified of what his radical agenda might bring to this once great country) is a "centrist" and "moderate" and is "to the right" of most people by "world standards." (Please note all of the quoted words).
Yes, Barack Obama is to the right of most people by world standards. Let's look at the rest of the world. Would you really choose anywhere else to live besides the United States of America? Yeah, I didn't think so. But you elected a man who is determined to take us in that direction. He is determined that we shall live by "world standards." You heard harold. That's the measuring stick. That's the direction we're headed in!
Evidently we'd rather give up our dignity to please the world and live by their "standards" rather than stand up for the liberty our forefathers fought for by living our standards.
If they want what we have, let them embrace the freedom that we have. Otherwise, let them wallow in their own defecation.
Pete Kent wrote:
"The judgement of George Bush must be left to more distant historians, those who do not suffer from the bias so palpable among the most numerous influential observers on the scene. Truth is difficult to discern in the present environment as all those who report have bias".
Way to miss the point, PK.
The point that Nate is making is that those turning 18 now will be biased against the Republican Party because of the current negative opinion of the Bush Administration. They aren't going to wait for "more distant historians" to weigh in before forming an opinion.
"Because the people have been lulled to sleep by the pleasant sonorities of Obama's rhetoric and because the media is cravenly among Obama's boosters, the stunning nature of what Obama seeks to accomplish is not really apparent to all but the few partisans out there."
The translation: the 25% of the population that remains with the GOP is outraged not by what Obama has done, but by what he will do in the future.
If Obama fails to establish a Cuban-style dictatorship (as virtually every Republican believes he will), then the Republicans will look pretty stupid, won't they?
Or will the wingnuts merely claim that they thwarted his sinister schemes by waving tea-bags around, thus scaring Obama away from pursuing his "radical agenda"?
Face it: either way you'll look stupid and irrelevant. I suggest you get used to it.
Pet Kent wrote:"Bush will be viewed in the near term, as something of an avuncular bumbler who some how kept us safe and lifted the nation to years of relative prosperity after catastrophe struck during the first year of his term"Hahahahaha! Bush lifted the nation to prosperity!
Thanks for the laugh!
I turned 18 in 2002 when Bush was trying to sell the Iraq war. Five months later, we invaded it. I graduated college six months before the recession started in 12/07. I wasn't able to find a job before than and got stuck with a couple of part time jobs that I disliked. I also had to move back with my parents. Fortunately, I got into grad school and I can see an end to the crappy jobs I never really liked, but still have for the time being. All I can say is that my experience is not unique, and the Republicans have almost certainly lost people my age, especially when we're so excited about Obama.
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-- Winston ChurchillConservatism in Churchill's time meant trying to prop up an empire that was near to collapse, and good riddance to the British Empire. Study the history of any country under British yoke, and find out what happened to the natives under British rule; the "conservatism" Churchill espoused would be considered abject tyranny today. Guess who was the first person to recommend gassing the unruly Kurds? That's right, Churchill, when the British Empire took control of huge chunks of the Middle East after WWI, and the natives were none too happy about it. (Saner voices shot down Churchill's plan.)
And Pete Kent ... ?
"The judgment of George Bush must be left to more distant historians, those who do not suffer from the bias so palpable among the most numerous influential observers on the scene."Meanwhile, you're judging Obama over things he hasn't even done yet.
To follow on Chris' point - there's another bias kicking in among the oldest generation (the FDR generation especially), and that's a bias towards the wealthy. The poor die out first, and the rich die out last, and the rich favor the republicans. So that's my take on why the figures for FDR "misbehave".
Don't worry, PeteKent! Let them mock us.
People did the same thing to Noah 4500 years ago.
Didn't turn out so well for them, you know, with the unquenching flood that ended all of humanity but eight people and all.
Nut Butter wrote:
"Evidently we'd rather give up our dignity to please the world and live by their "standards" rather than stand up for the liberty our forefathers fought for by living our standards."
Evidently you are unaware of the crucial role that the French played in gaining "the liberty that our forefathers fought for".
It's eminently possible to love your own country while refusing to demonise other countries.
One small fly in the ointment that might help explain some of the seeming discrepancy of the Nixon years and prior:
Until July 1, 1971, the age of voting was 21, not 18.
Any polls from prior to the 1972 elections will almost assuredly show voters 21 and up, and totally ignore those under 21 prior to the date of the election.
Overall, though, it is my belief that, for the most part, the party of the candidate you vote for first is shaped during the 10 or so years prior to that first vote, with more influence as you approach that first election.
Those who changed parties at some time after they first voted are probably much more likely to revert to their initial party choice. That is NOT to say that everyone who changes party affiliation, just that those who do are more likely to revert back at a later point.
One reason I can think of this happening is that a candidate of their 'first party of choice' in a later election may not appeal to the voter - a person who voted for Democratic Party candidates before 1972 might not have been very enthralled with McGovern, switched parties to vote for Nixon, and stayed with the GOOPers for quite a while. Then when Watergate tarnished Nixon, or when Bush 41 came on the scene, or when the newt started his shenanigans, or when little shrub totally effed government up, many of the voters who were originally registered as and voted for Democrats, then became a GOOPer for some reason, reverted back to their original party, the Democratic party.
Of course, the opposite might have occurred (but to a much lesser extent) during the Carter Presidency when many considered him a weak President, or when Clinton caused all kinds of embarrassment to the Office of the President, and got impeached as a result.
I think we will see a very large Democratic leaning and registration advantage for the next several years still, as those who were pre-18 prior to the 2008 election and will cast their first vote in the 2010 or the 2012 election were in their teens from Katrina on, and had a front-row view of the little shrub [mal]administration, and a large majority of them will almost certainly be influenced by a probable impressive Obama first administration.
I'm also sure that many are getting a first-hand view of the mess the GOOPers are in now, and not liking the looks of such an authoritarian-acting party (teens are stereotyped, and probably correctly so, as more rebellious against authority of any type than any other generational group, and seem to be most allergic to any hint of 'my way or the highway' thinking as seems the current theme of the GOOPers). This might help explain some of the 'youthful' look of the backers of Ron Paul - somewhat conservative, but rebellious, and not likely to join the GOOPers in their current incarnation.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Evidently you are unaware of the crucial role that the French played in gaining "the liberty that our forefathers fought for".
I'm well aware of France's role in our independence. But I'm under no obligation to stand by the "French model" because of anything that country ever did for us, past or present.
Besides, France's values in 2009 are in stark contrast to where they were in 1776. If you demonize Republicans today and say they in no way resemble Republicans of the 1950s and 60s, or especially as far back as the 1860s (Party of Lincoln?), then I can turn the tables just as easily.
It's eminently possible to love your own country while refusing to demonise other countries.
I agree. And I hardly "demonized" anyone. Re-read what I said. I merely pointed out the United States glows with freedom and success and the rest of the world (think world standards - using harold's own words to measure Obama) lives with fewer liberties and ubiquitous abject poverty.
Harold was measuring Obama by "world standards." I simply pointed out the fallacy in that kind of metric based on where the "world" stands.
I eat facts and shit a diarrhea of truth all over you. Get over it.
Nut-Butt... Can we count on you to stay with this ID? It seems as if you were using this ID yesterday to voice your concern troll remarks, while allowing your other sockpuppets to rant, but since you were outed so masterfully yesterday, not much need for the fig leaves anymore, eh? I suppose that's why the reasonable, rational Nut Butter reverted so quickly to the screeching dickbreath/fuckbag lexicon.
I think another huge factor in the very recent most decline of interest in the GOP can be laid right at Sarah Palin's door. Many conservatives, who would have otherwise voted for McCain, blanched at the thought of Sarah Pail with her hand on the nuclear button and stayed home on Election Day.
Todd Dugdale said...
the crucial role that the French played in gaining "the liberty that our forefathers fought for".
How true.
I think it's funny how the most gullible GOOPers are constantly denigrating the French. It's obvious that they have no concept of history, since without French assistance, the Founding Fathers and the other colonists wouldn't have been able to win the American Revolution, something the Founding Fathers and most other Americans of the time fully realized.
It was the French who convinced General Washington to move his army from the north to the Virginia area to face Cornwallis at Yorktown.
It was the French who had the cannons with which to bombard the English under Cornwallis at Yorktown.
It was the French fleet that held the English fleet at bay so that the English troops under Cornwallis at Yorktown could not be resupplied and reinforced.
Earlier, it was the French who contributed massive funds to bankroll the American Revolution.
It was the French who harassed the English in various parts of the world during the entirety of the American Revolution.
So yes, we owe a great amount of gratitude to the French. And it was that opinion that almost assuredly caused Colonel Charles Stanton, in 1917, to state "Lafayette, we are here" (per General John Pershing in his autobiography) when the first American troops landed in France during WW I.
Maybe some of our less-enlightened, KoolAid swilling, French-bashing GOOPers might benefit from studying a bit of history. Maybe they could start here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html to start to get some perspective? Then again, if they don't have Lush Rimbaugh's permission, I suppose they won't even look at the information, let alone read it.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Very interesting. If you can stand an anecdote from an old-timer, my Dad was born in 1919 (he's been dead for 10 years) and was a Democrat until the 1960's, when he became a far, far-right Republican. I know he voted for Kennedy, but he became extremely right-wing after that. I suspect that it was losing the Vietnam War that did it, but it could have been the whole 60's thing. (He wasn't particularly religious, so it wasn't that.)
What I'm wondering is if certain events can throw off this analysis of yours. Are some things traumatic enough to permanently change a significant percentage of voters? FDR was very popular among my Dad's generation, but the oldest Americans tend to be more Republican than most, these days.
The past eight years - ending in the worst economic crash since the Great Depression - might be one of those traumatic events that could peel off Reagan Republicans, especially if Barack Obama's administration is successful. It might not be just the kids.
For what it's worth, I turned 18 in 1969 and I'm as liberal as my Dad was conservative. I guess that fits your graph pretty well. (But I think it was the Vietnam War, not the president, that turned me into a liberal Democrat.)
I think it's funny how the most gullible GOOPers are constantly denigrating the French. It's obvious that they have no concept of history, since without French assistance, the Founding Fathers and the other colonists wouldn't have been able to win the American Revolution, something the Founding Fathers and most other Americans of the time fully realized....
I'll repeat my point above because evidently a cum-guzzling doofus like Mike in MD can't seem to get it - France of 2009 IS AS MUCH OR MORE DIFFERENT from the France of the late 1700s as the Republican Party of 2009 is from the Republican Part of the 1860s.
Now, if you want to go point-for-point about all of those great things the French did in the 1770s as reasons we shouldn't "denigrate" the French or go around "French-bashing" today and be taken seriously, then let me give you some things the Republican party stood for in 1860 as reasons you shouldn't bash and denigrate them today.
Pragmatus wrote:
"I think another huge factor in the very recent most decline of interest in the GOP can be laid right at Sarah Palin's door."
Yes, she was the crowning blunder of a campaign built on blunders. Apparently the Republicans looked at HRC and made a calculation that women would vote en masse for another woman regardless of their politics...because it worked with Ferraro, right? Meanwhile, McCain was saddled with all of the negative associations with the evangelicals, even though he was nominated to put daylight between the Party and the fundies. To top it off, rational voters across the spectrum were frightened away by her (as you point out).
What did they gain? The fringe, who would largely have voted for McCain anyway.
The Party was left seriously claiming that Palin was the most experienced candidate on the ticket by virtue of her "executive experience" as Governor.
They've never moved back into the real world since that decision was made. Ever since then, every call that the Party has made has been grounded in the delusional belief that the fringe that Palin brought to the table are the majority of Americans.
And as long as they keep on making that assertion, the majority will continue to snicker at them...no matter what happens with Obama.
This isn't the "death" of the Party; just the marginalisation of it. They can remain 'viable' for several more years with their "base", but mostly in "red" states.
Can you spot the 1958, 1981 and 1990 recessions?
You can definitely see the Great Society and I think you can see Nixon's popularity in the absence of a Bush-like numbers.
If you're brave FDR's numbers look like the breaking of America First with Pearl Harbor.
A witless cluck wrote:
"Now, if you want to go point-for-point about all of those great things the French did in the 1770s as reasons we shouldn't "denigrate" the French or go around "French-bashing" today and be taken seriously,"
The point that I was making is that "we" (as in "America") didn't get where we are alone. We needed help. We asked for it. We got it.
That seems to be lost in your jingoistic "analysis", but you attempt to make up for it with witless insults and invective.
You're waving a big red, white, and blue foam finger around. We get it. Number One. Numero Uno. Top of the heap. We rule, the rest of the world drools.
And that's why the Republicans will win (???).
Yeah.
Nope, Todd, my boy, you missed the point I was trying to make by using what harold said above.
Proves you are a novice and a rube.
Sorry, thanks for playing.
From my vantage point, there were two different discussions that evolved. There was the main one, which was my rebuttal to harold, and the one that sprouted forth about the French...
Stay with me now.
Harold measured Obama by "world standards," arguing that he's an okay guy because he's still a little "to the right" by those same standards, thus making him a "centrist" and "moderate."
I made the point that I don't want a president with "centrist" or "moderate" credentials by the rest of the world's standards, I want them by American standards.
The reason being that much of the rest of the world lives in ubiquitous poverty and often under oppressive, tyrannical governments and factions. Thus, I don't want OUR PRESIDENT compared to WORLD STANDARDS. Are you following me?!
Anyway, somewhere in there, a discussion emerged about the French and their contribution to American society because of all the great things they've done for us in the past.
I took that and made another point...that the Republicans have done plenty of great things for this country in the past.
I never put on the "we're number 1" red/white/blue foam finger and spewed "jingoism" as you suggest.
I simply said that if you say it's unfair to go "French-bashing" today because of them helping us during the Revolutionary War or whatever, then by all means let's not bash Republicans today because Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation or [insert generic contribution to society from Republicans from 100+ years ago].
Get my drift, dumbass? I'm acknowleding the Republicans are a vastly different party now than they were then. Just like the French are a different country now than they were then. Get the blinders off, you fucking mook.
Sorry I had to bludgeon you with reason and facts and a cogent point. I get that way when I'm talking to dullards and imbeciles.
Unless you can come up with a rational response and reason as to why we should give the French a pass on what they do now, in 2009, because of what they did in, say, 1776 while we should not give Republicans a pass on what they say or do now in 2009 because of some things they may have done in, say, 1863, then I suggest you keep your fucking mouth closed.
Similarly, if you can't give a good and compelling reason why Barack Obama should be compared, in the context of leftist, centrist/moderate, and right, by world standards instead of American standards, when much of the world lives under oppression, lawlessness, and poverty whereas we live under freedoms, justice, and success, then I further urge you to shut your fucking mouth.
Got that, Todd?!
This data confirms my suspicion that there has been a generational back-and-forth of party preferences. Right now, the Republicans not only have the disadvantage of George W. Bush, but they have also lost one of their generations, the Greatest Generation of the Eisenhower-era, because of natural causes. So now the Reagan/Bush Sr. generation is sandwiched between the Democratic Baby Boomers and the Democratic "Generation Y". Just 10 years ago, the old Eisenhower/Dewey-Republicans (strong on national security, anti-communism, strict law enforcement) and the Reagan/Bush-Republicans (evangelicals, small-government Republicans) surrounded the Democratic Boomers (who somehow lost their advantage on foreign policy and didn't have an answer to the evangelical enthusiasm).
It remains to be seen if the current administration creates a backlash that enables a new Republican generation. But this will not happen quickly anyway. It will be happening over decades, which is one more proof for the realigning character of the 2008 election.
Nut Butter:
Most people come to this site to read insightful analysis and sometimes post relevant comments. What do you come to 538 for? To bitch? Nobody here cares what you think, I promise. If you really think you have something people want to hear, start your own site and spread the love. Or just get a job. And I hope I always miss "the point [you are] trying to make," because I feel less intelligent for having read your comments.
Dan at CA,
me too. Though I switched to Democrat from Republican at the nomination of GWB. Because I couldn't believe that they had good people to choose from, and chose him.
No sweat of my nuts, E-Dub. It's your loss, frankly.
So fucking beat it, asswipe.
Good lord, Nate, how do you keep finding unimagined topics that are so damned interesting? From a stat perspective, I'd have never dreamed to look at it from this angle.
Excellent work as always. It's not pure science, but it's perspective, and that's what those of us who are addicted to the news need... notice I didn't say opinion. There's no shortage of that. Keep it up, man. Seriously, you have to. :o
Wow, if anyone needs any evidence of the demise of (if you pardon the oxymoron) 'conservative thought', they have only to look first at Pete Kent's comedy turn - avuncular bumbler! good god! - and then at butt-nutter's suave persuasions.
Does similar data exist going backwards? If I had to guess, I would say that the 18-25 demographic tends to skew democratic. It would be interesting to watch this data change over time, and possibly draw lines through a particular birth year to see how much change you tend to get over time. That would give us a much better sense of how significant this polling result really is.
If I'm wrong, and a specific birth year tends to keep its party ID (maybe with a +/- 5%) this is really significant. Otherwise, this is just a youth effect.
If you ignore the peaks and valleys and look only at the slope of a line drawn through the data, you see MUCH more clearly.
In addition to the variation depending on how popular the president is, you see there's a stable curve that reflects the New Deal Coalition, then the opposing Nixon-Reagan coalition that has now evaporated.
When you look at the trend of FDR, who was wildly popular to Truman, who was equally UN-popular, so much so that he couldn't even run for re-election in 1952, yet Democrats maintain a significant advantage.
Then the popular Eisenhower era (combined with the Red-scare anti-communism) and Republicans make a come-back.
Kennedy and Johnson together form a uniform high.
This is basically stable. The era of the New Deal Coalition. Then, notice the downward spike in 1965: which corresponds to the Civil Rights struggle ("Freedom Summer").
At this point Southern Whites start to drop out of the Democratic coalition over racist opposition to civil rights.
Notice that the graph shows a straight line plunge from 1968-1988 from around a Dem +16 to around Dem +2 by the end of the Reagan era.
This is the era of the "Southern Strategy," white flight to the suburbs, and blue collar anger over the counter-culture, the anti-war movement, hippies, "welfare Queens," and minorities getting too much "government hand-outs."
Then starting with G.H.W. Bush the graph starts moving in the OPPOSITE direction.
GW Bush starts at Dems +2 and ends with Dems +8. Notice that Clinton is basically a flat line; Dems +8 at the beginning, Dems +10 at the end.
Bush II added +6 to the Democratic column, taking it from Dem +10 at the beginning to Dem +16 at the end (although there were spikes of Dem +18 in the middle).
This corresponds to the Iraq war, Katrina, Social-Security privatization, Republican scandals, etc.
Demographically, this corresponds to increased voting by minorities and young who are much more Democratic.
It's obvious looking at the chart that trends are LONG-TERM and quite long-lasting beneath all the noise of the ups and downs and divide into three periods:
1. 1933-1968 New Deal Coalition.
2. 1968-1988 Nixion-Reagan Coalition.
3. 1988-Present - Clinton + anti-Bush coalition.
Obama has yet to make this coalition HIS the way that FDR did, but he's still in his first year. If he's re-elected we'll be talking about the "Obama coalition" for generations.
BTW: You'll notice that it's perfectly possible for a President to get elected during an era when his party is swimming against the tide:
1. Eisenhower during a period of Democratic dominance.
2. Carter and Clinton during the Nixon-Reagan era.
3. Bush II during the recent Democratic resurgence.
BUT, these electoral wins do NOT change the underlying demographic dynamic (Southern Whites or Urban Minorities) that give advantage to one party or another.
Thus, we are in a LONG-TERM era of Democratic advantage and that will be true for at least a generation, whether Republicans win the White House in 2012 or 2016 or not.
There seems to me to be a weakness in the argument of this post - all you clever bastards can explain to me why I'm wrong.
That is, the popularity of each President under discussion isn't measured by polls or election results or anything - it's just stated. So W's was a terrible presidency, Clinton's a decent one, Reagan's a very good one.
But the consensus about a particular leader or administration is constantly changing. For instance, in my lifetime I've seen the general public sentiment about Margaret Thatcher oscillate between qualified scorn and sanctification.
Admittedly it's hard to see future generations regarding the last US administration as anything other than abysmal, but who knows what the consensus about Clinton and Reagan will be in thirty years? Maybe it will be possible to look at the same graph and use it to justify the argument that bad Presidents increase party identification for their side!
Boing wrote:
"There seems to me to be a weakness in the argument of this post - all you clever bastards can explain to me why I'm wrong."
Sure. Nate is talking about the opinion of a particular Administration at the time a voter "came of age". Since elections are held at the end of a term, I would conclude he is referring to the consensus view as the Administration left office.
The idea is that this consensus shapes voters' self-selection of Party ID for their lifetime, but other factors are obviously involved. Think in terms of a "propensity" toward a Party, not something written in stone.
"but who knows what the consensus about Clinton and Reagan will be in thirty years?"
I guess nobody knows, but it's a moot point wrt the post. We saw during the campaign that there is a certain chronic "undecided" percentage of voters that has a very flexible PID, or perhaps more correctly, none at all.
So, how "history" judges an Administration is not relevant to Nate's thesis. It's doubtful that a lifelong Democrat would switch PID because, given 30 years of retrospective, Reagan turned out to be considered a good President, for example. Possible, but doubtful.
I would also consider it doubtful that many 18 year-olds were heavily influenced to vote for or against Obama based on the consensus opinion or historians' judgement of the Carter Administration.
Nut Butter wrote:
"That's why this country and its people are a bastion of freedom, wealth, and success and not tyranny, abject poverty, and failure like 90%+ of the rest of the world!
Don't you get it?! Don't you fucking get it?!!"
"Let's look at the rest of the world. Would you really choose anywhere else to live besides the United States of America? Yeah, I didn't think so."
"If they want what we have, let them embrace the freedom that we have. Otherwise, let them wallow in their own defecation."
"when much of the world lives under oppression, lawlessness, and poverty whereas we live under freedoms, justice, and success"
"I merely pointed out the United States glows with freedom and success and the rest of the world lives with fewer liberties and ubiquitous abject poverty."
Yes, I admit to being completely mystified how I ever arrived at the conclusion that you were indulging in "jingoism", or waving a red, white, and blue foam finger while yelling "We're Number One!".
"Get my drift, dumbass?"
"Proves you are a novice and a rube."
"I eat facts and shit a diarrhea of truth all over you. Get over it."
"dickbreath!"
"Fuckbag!"
"I further urge you to shut your fucking mouth."
Yeah, see, I don't get your motive for even engaging people here.
You aren't persuading anyone with your grade-school epithets. I don't want to speak for others, but I really haven't seen that approach to be effective in this forum. Mostly people dismiss the opinions of those who take the course you seem to revel in.
Is it some attempt to bully contrary opinions into silence? If so, it certainly betrays a lack of confidence in your own views.
Or are you merely standing up for your "side"? Is that why you have a penchant for sock puppetry? You come here of your own free will, yet you continually find yourself cornered and snarling with bared teeth, calling everyone else names and complaining that they are too stupid to grasp your brilliance.
Frankly, it's a mystery I choose not to plumb further.
Nut Butter: By any reasonable measure the people of Western Europe have social systems which are FAR to the left of what Obama has proposed and their working people are paid higher wages than Americans are, have better health care for less cost, longer paid vacations and better social
safety nets, and yet manage to live every bit as free from government intrusion as we do.
Even Costa Rica has a lower infant mortality rate than we do, and a life expectancy which is almost exactly the same. And they have a thriving multi-party democracy along with free health care and education.
I am, as you surely are, one of the more fortunate Americans -- I am in the upper middle class and, as a result, I live better than the average Western European or Costa Rican. The AVERAGE American, however, doesn't live anywhere nearly as well as I do, and his Western European counterpart lives better -- far better.
Untrammeled capitalism works for about 10% of the population. For everyone else, tight "left wing" regulation by the government is a very, very good thing.
And when unregulated capitalism fucks up, as it inevitably does, the other 90% of the population realizes this, and votes people who think as you do out of office for a generation or two, and gets things put on a more equitable basis. We are now at the beginning of such a period of American history.
Deal with it.
Winston Churchill didn't say the famous "any man under 40 who isn't a socialist has no heart, any man over 40 who is has no head."
The original saying -- somewhat different but similar in intent -- was by a Frenchman named Guisot, who said it in the context of the 1848 revolutions. It was later repeated by Georges Clemenceau, who was President of France during WWI. Nobody has been able to find that Churchill actually said it at any time. I have to admit that as an urban legend it has worked rather well. I always heard that Churchill said it, but scholarly research says he didn't.
Boing,
One reason you're looking at this data differently than Americans might be that the British system (in fact, all parliamentary systems) is based on party popularity (control of the House of Commons) to determine the leader of the government (the Prime Minister). In the British system, if the Conservatives, led by Thatcher, had not won control of the Commons in 1979, Thatcher would not have been the Prime Minister until (if she were still the leader of the Conservatives) the Conservatives won a working majority in Parliament.
In the US, the President is a completely separate office, the winning of which is not at all dependent on which party is in control of the House of Representatives. The Democrats controlled the House (US equivalent to the House of Commons in Britain) from the 1954 elections continuously through the 1992 elections. During that time, Eisenhower won the 1956 election; Nixon won the 1968 and 1972 elections; Reagan won the 1980 and 1984 elections; and Bush 41 won the 1988 election. If the US system were similar to the British system, either Democrats would have held the Presidency from 1954 until 1994, or party control of the House would have changed at various times.
In 1994, the GOOPers won control of the House and kept control until the 2006 election, but in 1996, Clinton won the Presidency. In a Parliamentary system, the GOOPers would have held the executive post (the Presidency).
If the US were using the British system:
1. The only time the party occupying the White House would change would be when the party in control of the House changed; AND
2. Elections would be held when the President (PM equivalent) called them, or when the statute controlling limits on the maximum time between elections calls for them (I believe it is five years in Britain), thus there could not be a time when party control of Congress changed hands without a corresponding change in the party of the executive, or vice versa.
I presume for many living under a parliamentary system, the US system is at least somewhat difficult to understand. The same is probable with those in the US, trying to understand a parliamentary system. I am not saying that the above is true for you, but it may subconsciously be affecting your view on the subject.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
slasher14 wrote:
"Even Costa Rica has a lower infant mortality rate than we do, and a life expectancy which is almost exactly the same. And they have a thriving multi-party democracy along with free health care and education."
...and no military at all, btw.
Nate,
Please don't refer to people under 30 as 'Gen Y.' Those that have talked to me about it hate that term (no generation wants to be defined in terms of its predecessor.)
They refer to themselves as 'the hip hop generation,' a term I've also seen in the media, so perhaps you should adopt it.
Eli Blake,
Want some cheese to go with that whine?
In other words, get over it. All you are doing is solidifying your generation's stereotype as whiners of the first order.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Nate's article is picking up the little ups and downs that accompany a popular versus an unpopular president.
However, notice the long-term trends. These are INDEPENDENT of whether Reagan is (insanely) considered a "good president."
BTW: Reagan was quite UN-popular at the end of his administration (Iran-Contra Scandal, etc.). That has no bearing on the underlying politics of his era.
Republicans had all the advantage of a largely CONSERVATIVE electorate between 1968 and 1988.
At that point it slowly starts to erode and that erosion continues during the Bush I administration, carries on right through Clinton and accelerates wildly during the Bush II administration until now we see articles in Time Magazine about the "death spiral" of the GOP.
It's all based on DEMOGRAPHICS people! Democrats are going to have an advantage for at least a generation because of the rise in minority percentage of the voting population and women and youth voting more democratic.
A Republican may well win election in these LIBERAL times, but he'll have to present himself as a "New Republican" to do it, much as Carter and Clinton had to posture as "New Democrats."
From the rantings of the hard-core right-wingers on this site, they are stubbornly refusing to learn this lesson.
It will take ONE MORE election defeat before they figure it out. It took Democrats 16 years and 4 election defeats, until after Walter Mondale in 1984, to realize "maybe we need a way to appeal to conservative Dems and moderates to win."
Compare the lifeless Technocrat Michael Dukakis who tried desperately to run as a centrist, versus Mondale who was a traditional liberal.
Notice that the ONLY Successful Dems in this era were SOUTHERN GOVERNORS who ran explicitly AWAY from their traditional liberal base, while the only successful Republican between 1932 and 1968 -- Eisenhower ran as a centrist moderate, NOT a conservative warrior like Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft!
Interesting premise... I grew up during the Reagan years. My parents were veterans and had grown up during Roosevelt. They both worshiped Roosevelt yet they loved Reagan. They often complained about democrats going too far on some issues. I liked Reagan and identified with the conservatives but found myself disaffected as the religious right started asserting itself more and more on social issues.
I think our country's politics tend to go back and forth like a pendulum. Each party tends to build on the economic ideas and social attitudes perceived as successful until they get too extreme and things start to shift back. The longer a party stays in power the more entrenched they become in their own ideology.
For example, LBJ and his "Great Society" was an extension of Roosevelt's "New Deal". Both big government programs but as the programs grew so did the deficit.
On the other side Reagan comes along and starts us down the deregulation smaller government path. As the economy flourished so did those ideas. Even the democrats moved in that direction. But as the economy fell apart so did the support for deregulation and now we have Obama.
As time goes on the parties can change as much as the electorate. Think about this... The republican party was started by northern abolitionists. It was the party that freed the slaves. The democratic party was the home of the segregationists...now it's the party of the first black president! Isn't that historical irony?
President Clinton "average to above average"???
This was written by Gallup, right?
They of all people should remember that Bill maintained a 60% approval rating THROUGHOUT his 2 terms, despite being incessantly raked over the coals by the media and the special persecutor who went from one witch hunt to another, never finding anything but an alleged BJ in the White House.
To hear the so-called liberal media tell it in the 90s, Clinton was wildly unpopular. To read his actual poll numbers, he was always popular with more than 60% of the electorate, despite that negative media cloak.
PK wrote
The judgment of George Bush must be left to more distant historians, those who do not suffer from the bias so palpable among the most numerous influential observers on the scene. Truth is difficult to discern in the present environment as all those who report have bias.
----------------------------
Okay, first of all, we are perfectly well entitled to make a judgement about George W Bush's presidency. It may be true, though personally I think it is unlikely, that future Historians may view Dubya very differently from his contemporaries. However this is very unlikely. People like to quote the example of Truman, who left office with very low popularity but who historians tend to be kind to, but I don't think that this necessarily applies. Bush's unpopularity relies on firstly an event that noone is going to turn around and say that he did well in hindsight during, in Hurricane Katrina, and secondly, if Iraq pans out ok, then it will be in part because of his volte face over the surge, which he was in part presured into by his own congressional delegation.
Bush is more likely in legacy to resemble Carter or perhaps Johnson in my view. In other words whatever good they managed to do will be dwarfed by their failings. Vietnam, Afghanistan+ Iran and Iraq are all issues that history will struggle to forgive those three men on. [However fair or unfair that might be.]
Also Historians have as much bias as reporters do [speaking as a historian], so the biasses of current reporters are likely to be fairly well mirrored in the history of the Bush years. More left wing historians will be harsh, right wing historians more forgiving. Historical consensus does not generally fall far from the journalistic consensus of a subject.
The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Demographic changes were going to make the Republican Party irrelevant. The incompetence of the Bush Administration just sped up the process by 20 years.
markymark wrote:
"Bush's unpopularity relies on firstly an event that no one is going to turn around and say that he did well in hindsight during, in Hurricane Katrina,"
Spot on.
The Republicans have never really grasped how Katrina blew apart the "benefit of a doubt" that the electorate had granted Bush up until 2005.
The Republicans never regained the credibility they lost in 2005 with Katrina. Everything they did after that was critically examined by the electorate, whereas prior to that it was considered "unpatriotic" to scrutinise Administration policies and actions.
Once that trust was gone, Bush's continually-upbeat statements on Iraq just seemed empty.
And as a whole, the Party still seems to believe that they can make sweeping assertions and that the electorate will believe every word, simply because they say it is so.
That's why the Party has become a punchline; not because they say crazy things, but because they really think that people will believe the crazy things they say.
Gallup’s poll is missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a lot of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term.
Unlike pollsters who are up with current generational trends, Gallup is still using old school generational delineations. By lumping part of GenJones with Boomers, and part with GenX, Gallup’s generational data is seriously flawed. Several top pollsters---including Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen--- have shown that GenJones’ political behavior and voting patterns are clearly distinct from its surrounding generations.
It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down this way:
DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
Generation Jones: 1954-1965
Generation X: 1966-1978
Here is a relatively recent op-ed in USA TODAY about GenJones as the new generation of leadership:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm
Wow! Welcome Nut Butter what an excellent voice you have and what a positive, optimistic vision of America you have
It remains to be seen what Obama will wrought -- in terms of impact, but he has made known the broad outline of his philosophy and it is ideologically based and way to the left. It is based in wanting to see a flattening in terms of the range of economic outcomes, decreasing the wealth of one segment to transfer it to another. One way or the other he sees that as a social good.
He is also stubbornly convinced that Global Warming is manmade and seems unconcerned with the very negative cost-benefit analysis involved in implementing his policy positions, but especially its centerpiece: Cap and Trade, a scheme that is universally panned for destroying America's last remaining foot hold in manufacturing -- export competitiveness. That will be lost against speculative gains that almost certainly will have a non-existent impact on the environment without similar cooperation from China, India and the rest of the developing world, Brazil, Indonesia, Africa, Vietnam, Asia in general.
Only the already non-competitive Europeans will cheerlead for this nonsense because they want to kill our exports and increase their already lagging exports. By imposing European style energy taxes, Obama will drag us down to Europe's level of non-competitiveness resulting in a balance of trade more favorable to Europe.
This is the sort of thing we in the opposition fear. The demonstrably negative consequences of Obama's policies suggest his motives are to be questioned.
Obama is taking away our liberty by limiting and restricting, by directing, the marketplace, which is after all the collective expression of the people's choices. His sense of confidence in the rightness of his judgment over that of the people is as misplaced as it is breathtaking in its arrogance!
The whole, “I have a gift, Harry” belief in himself inspires not confidence in those who are dubious of the underling understanding he has of matters (which are not always easily intuited without tutelage), but genuine fear. The messianic meme flows as much from Obama as it does his adoring fans. That should give us all pause an make us wary of manipulation.
Keep it up Nut Butter. America is God's answer to the veniality of man when left to the blandishments of a charming demagogue. The Devil is very seductive.
God bless America. Never forget your proud history and how even in dereliction are able to deal with it and rise from it better and improved.
Our Nation’s vectors have always been up, our eyes lifted heavenward. Let it ever be thus, an expression of the will of ALL of US -- THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!!!
05.10.09
Petekent01 (on twitter)
Nut Butter -- you are really good at hurling epithets as punctuations of your trenchant and truthful points. Think twice about changing your style.
petekent01 (on twitter)
@Mark Grebner: Thanks for the link to the MI data. I've been looking at related data to see when, in the aggregate, we see a break toward Dem ID over time. You may know that last year Charles Franklin published interested data on trends in Party ID in Wisconsin on Pollster.com. He didn't do an age breakdown, and his data only covered 2000 to 2008, but this shows a sharp break in 2006. MI seems to be similar to WI in that respect.
It's also well to keep in mind that when you look at other political attitudes -- not just party ID -- you see sharp breaks by age, in which younger folks (under ca. age 35-40) are more open to diversity (read: tolerant on gay rights, civil rights generally). So there is a generational or cohort phenomenon going on as well as some kind of secular trend that favors the Democrats and opposes extreme conservative ideology.
I think another point that Nate's analysis could have highlighted is that it isn't just a GWB legacy but also the GOP in general (including Congress and the Tom Delays of the world) did a pretty damn good job of sullying their political image.
And that's why the GOP is in such trouble today -- losing substantial support among independents and moderates and reducing themselves down to a core of true believers.
The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state.You can look at Massachusetts if you want. It's a mish-mash; our tax code is not nearly as liberal as it should be (what part of liberal landslide did these idiots not get? They're talking about reducing the budget shortfall with a SALES tax.) On the other hand, we have way too much in the way of sloppy patronage, which has actually be shrinking lately, but not enough -- we have flat-out duplication of function, bureaucracies in charge (separately) of "roads" and "turnpikes".
The heavy-handed regulation that people complain about, is caused more by an excessive love of "local control", rather than liberal principles. So, there are state rules, and local rules, and every local rule is different. Full employment for people who keep track of this nonsense. Also leads to nonsense like intersection where four (straight-through) lanes enter and three leave -- change in jurisdiction, change in road striping. That's localism, not liberalism.
Also, because New England is so old, we have some really crazy laws, and those are generally used to obstruct development. But, last I heard, "rule of law" was a really good thing, so a law's a law. If I couldn't buy hand tools or alcoholic beverages on Sunday back before that law was repealed(? or was it struck down on establishment of religion grounds?), then I think it is totally ok for a developer to get tangled in crazy old laws, too.
On the good side, we historically have spent well on schools, and generally gotten good results (demographics has a lot to do with this). We have the lowest divorce rate in the nation (demographics has a lot to do with this). We manage to provide health care to people who need it -- a former colleague from a job in CA, independently moved to MA, and while jobless, discovered that he had cancer. The heartless bureaucrats we have here pointed him in the right direction, he got his cancer fixed, at no cost to him, except a peculiar scar (which is how I learned of this). He's now healthy, happy, employed, paying taxes, and helping to analyze genes.
I think the one thing you need with one party rule is constant vigilance against corruption. Neither party has a monopoly on that, but given that there are corrupt people in this world who are looking for ways to line their pockets, they're going to go where the money/power is.
And as far as I can tell, that is the one and only thing that the current Republican Party might be good for. Their policies are idiotic, but if they detect even a whiff of Democratic corruption, I am confident they will point it out. Unfortunately, the current batch is such a bunch of crazies that their signal-to-noise ratio is pretty bad, so they may not even be good for that.
"Superdestroyer said...
The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Demographic changes were going to make the Republican Party irrelevant. The incompetence of the Bush Administration just sped up the process by 20 years."Here's seemingly the only person in this entire thread who gets it. DEMOGRAPHY RULES!
What was the REASON for the shift from a New Deal Coalition from 1932 to 1968 to the Nixon - Reagan Coalition of 1968 to 1988?
If it was a reaction against the "excesses of Johnson" it wouldn't have lasted 20 years.
Southern Whites shifted from being Democrats to Republicans as a result of opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. Northern working class whites reacted against the counter-culture, the anti-war movement, the environmental movement, the women's rights movement, and against urban integration (busing).
In 1960, Kennedy won Texas, LA, Ark., MO, Ala, GA, SC, NC and W. VA as well as MN, MI, NY & PA. His strength was in the DEEP SOUTH!
In 1968 Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas and the election.
This trend continued till 1988. By 2000 you see a re-alignment with REPUBLICANS winning the South and mid-West, while Democrats sweep the Northeast and Upper Mid-West and Far-West.
All that happened in 2008 is that minorities, women and the youth vote finally swamped the working-class "angry Whites" of the Reagan "backlash."
Note that the Obama Coalition is largely the same as the McGovern Coalition. The same demographic Groups that in 1972 had made up only 37.5% of the electorate in 2008 represented 53% in 2008!
Thesis: It takes something MAJOR to shake up these coalitions. In the case of the Democratic coalition, a losing war and divisive racial politics. In the case of the Republican coalition, the alienation of minorities and middle-class women and urban dwellers.
Today's Republican party is still largely a RURAL, church-going, White party, hostile to "big-government." But the nation as a whole has been moving AWAY from that demographic for a long time.
The trends Nate analyzes here are important because who was President when you reach 18 has some impact. My politics were defined by opposition to the Vietnam War.
But, underlying this and more fundamental is DEMOGRAPHICS!
Cugel wrote:
"Here's seemingly the only person in this entire thread who gets it. DEMOGRAPHY RULES!"
I think that I put forth at least some of the points you just made in my previous comment. So I would like to think that I "get it".
"Note that the Obama Coalition is largely the same as the McGovern Coalition. The same demographic Groups that in 1972 had made up only 37.5% of the electorate in 2008 represented 53% in 2008!"
This is pretty much what I meant when I said that the Republicans just re-fought McGovern/Nixon in 2008.
The Republican "resurgence" was based on the Culture War and the (attempted) disenfranchisement of minorities. Young people since Clinton have naturally failed to identify with the losing side of the Culture War, and minorities have failed to identify with the losing side of the segregation struggle since Nixon.
Reagan wanted to abolish the Voting Rights Act, after all. His only message to minorities is that "a rising tide lifts all boats". The GOP, under the guise of fighting "voter fraud", has tried very hard to keep blacks from voting for decades. And we all saw how Republicans were praying for racism to be the determining factor in a McCain victory ("Bradley Effect").
This is what Steele is (putatively) fighting, but it is a hopeless battle.
Likewise, trying to sell a "back to the Fifties" social order to young people is a losing proposition.
The Republicans are praying for Obama to be a disaster, but they have no means to appeal to the young or minorities if such a disaster comes to pass.
Of course, the president that most shaped your youth might not be the one that was in power when you turned 18. I'd imagine that FDR and Kennedy dominated these people's consciousnesses more than Truman and Johnson.
You're right, Todd. The Republican "plan" is outmoded, perhaps atavistic is the word. Still trying to win like Reagan. Counting on vote suppression of minorities and new voters -- putting their fingers in the dike to prevent the younger and less white population from full participation. Conjuring up images of secession if they can't control the country's destiny.
While I agree with Cugel that the shifting demography is definitely against the GOP (Nate has made that point in several posts, including his analysis of Prop 8 votes in California, and his article about how the urbanization of America meant that the GOP "rural" message in 2008 was out of tune with changing demographic reality), let's not sound too deterministic about this. It's the message, the messengers, and the target audience that are all producing a "permanent Republican minority."
I put that last concept in quote marks because nothing is permanent in politics, and yet unknown events can shift the political map a lot.
Nutbutter -
NEWS FLASH!!! We don't go by "world standards"; we go by "American standards," dickbreath! You chose a good name for yourself.
Nobody but Americans voted in the 2008 presidential election.
We're all as American as you.
You lost, and you're going to keep on losing.
Your right wing lunatic standards are not "American standards".
People like you are most obviously not what makes the United States either prosperous or free.
The United States is part of the world, and only a FOOL would advocate ignoring what goes on in the rest of the world.
Pete Kent -
Wow! Welcome Nut Butter what an excellent voice you have and what a positive, optimistic vision of America you haveYou really are too good to be true. I'm almost wondering if someone hijacked the Pete Kent name and is posting parody stuff.
ConnectingTheDots said...
Gallup’s poll is missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X
FYI - Most reputable demographers call all those born between 1946 and 1964 the Baby Boom generation. The so-called "generation Jones" was a part of the Baby Boomer generation, not a separate generation. Most reputable demographers consider the generation that followed the Baby Boomer generation to be Generation X.
The peak years for the Baby Boom, in number of babies born, was the period between 1957 and 1961, when between 4.2 and 4.3 million were born each year. The post-WW II birth rate per 1000 population peaked in 1957 at 25.3, and then started to drop dramatically, to a rate of 14 per 1000 population today.
So if the Baby Boomer generation is called that because of a boom in births (but you state that it lasted until 1954), but the highest number of babies AND the highest post-WW II birth rate was in 1957, why would the babies born in that year not be called part of the Baby Boomer generation?
It's like saying there are X number of Irish. Some have black hair. Some have red hair. By your Baby Boomer generation followed by a completely separate 'Generation Jones' scenario, you would only count the ones with black hair as Irish, not the ones with red hair, as they are different.
WRONG
The red hair Irish are Irish, just a subset of the total Irish population.
Since you clearly don't know anything about demographics in relation to the Baby Boom generation, I didn't even try to read the rest of your post.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Todd Dugdale said...
And as a whole, the Party still seems to believe that they can make sweeping assertions and that the electorate will believe every word, simply because they say it is so.
Along those lines, the RNC will be holding a meeting on May 20 to plan how to come back from the wilderness. Part of the problem with the RNC is that they still don't get it.
According to an article in today's Baltimore Sun, the RNC intends to vote on a series of resolutions intended to move the party forward. Among the most provocative: one that would formally label the opposition as the "Democrat Socialist Party."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.steele10may10,0,6397573.story?page=2
Gee, I wonder how the GOOPers would like it if the Democratic Party members started to call the GOOPers members of the "Repuke Fascist Party"?
The Republican Party was severely rebuked by the electorate in 2006 and in 2008. I wonder how many more times the electorate will need to rebuke them before they start to wise up that if they don't mend their ways, they are headed in the same direction as the Federalists, the Whigs, the Know-nothings, the Free Soilers, and all the other (at one time) at least somewhat influential political parties that are now as extinct as the Dodo bird?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
"mediocre-to-average"? Mediocre and average mean the same thing.
ronebofh said...
"mediocre-to-average"? Mediocre and average mean the same thing.
According to Dictionary.com:
Mediocre:
1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate.
2. rather poor or inferior.
Average:
1. a quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean
2. a typical amount, rate, degree, etc.; norm.
Subtle, but very significant differences, in the definitions of the two words.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@cityguy60640:
Reagan stood for a smaller government? But...didn't the size of government increase during his presidency?
Me, I especially loved his invasion of Grenada. It takes a big, tough man to take on a country of that size! (This was reprised by Bush 41's invasion of Panama.)
Aside to Pete Kent: "wrought" is not a present-tense verb form. It's the past tense of "wright."
wv: parfi: it's like a sundi, but it's tall and French.
@dr2chase:
Massachusetts' tax code isn't "liberal" because its electorate has defeated initiatives to institute a progressive income tax.
The Mass. constitution bans a progressive tax, and attempts to change the constitution by referendum have failed miserably (and, if IIRC, repeatedly).
Doesn't matter which party's in power. If the people don't want it, it ain't gonna happen.
The Left/Right continuum is beginning to break down. The internet age will foster powerful third and fourth parties as the decadence of the Republicans and Democrats becomes obvious to everyone.
Seriously Nate, there was nothing like being in high school when all my friends were shipping off to war and I wanted to kill that sonofabitch in the Oval office and I literally could not do a thing about it.
The general powerlessness of adolescence compounded with the powerlessness against the Bush administration, oh yeah, I will never ever vote Republican and would even be willing to go to war against them. Literally.
Democrats remain unreliably sufficiently progressive for me, but yeah, dead on the money for voter affiliation. Powerlessness should be a common theme.
(20, Female, Minnesota Democrat)
I completely agree with your analysis. I actually wrote about this in one of my Poli-Sci papers last semester. If you think about my generation's history, Bush is the only president we've ever really known or seen in action. Sure, we lived under Clinton (and a bit of Reagan) too, but all of our political science courses were most certainly taken while Bush was president, and of course we over-analyzed everything he did in those classes/high school.
I would say the line begins to blur as our "politically-aware lifetime" lengthens. If you see more presidents work, you have more experiences upon which to base your bias/opinion.
In other words, it might not be who was president when you turned 18... it was who was president when you took political science (high school).
Super-Explosive Found in WTC Remains
Scientists found an active high-quality ‘super-explosive’ in the dust collected after the attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001.
http://www.javno.com/en-world/super-explosive-found-in-wtc-remains_249153
Mike - I don't think I'm suffering from confusion between parliamentary and presidential systems - not on this issue, anyway.
What's bothering me is that Nate hasn't correlated the data to the popularity of each President as measured by election results, opinion polls or anything else.
In his verbal redescription of the data, he gives us a mishmash of 1) a rough sense of how popular they were during their Presidencies (Bush 41, Kennedy, possibly Eisenhower); 2) how their legacy is regarded now (Carter, Ford, Johnson, possibly Bush 43); and 3) a combination of the two (Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Truman).
But whether we are talking about the popularity of the President at the time the 18-year-old was voting, or how his legacy has come to be regarded by history, surely makes a big difference to his argument?
Todd says: Since elections are held at the end of a term, I would conclude he is referring to the consensus view as the Administration left office....
So, how "history" judges an Administration is not relevant to Nate's thesis.In that case, why does Nate include things like:
"George H. W. Bush, a roughly average President who was generally quite popular until roughly the last 12 months of his tenure."?
Of course Republicans realize they're lost for a generation or more. Why would the once-secretive Cheney now feel so compelled to make his public defenses of his war crimes?
Cugel, I think you are very good at assessing what has been placed before us. But I demur to say that the Reagan coalition of Southern Democrats necessarily included Nixon. I think Nixon saw the use of the Southern Strategy not as a long-term way to build the party, but as a way to get elected in '68. Let's face it - McGovern was never a serious threat for Nixon in '72.
But what we now call "neo-cons" saw the utility of the Southern Strategy for building the GOP into a legislative majority party in Congress. Gingrich is far more in-line with Reagan than he is with Nixon. Ignoring Ford, Nixon (and to a lesser extent Bush Sr) represents the last of the New Deal Coalition Republican Presidents. Nixon would not be classified as a neo-con; perhaps most notably because he had a coherent view of reality by comparison with our contemporary neo-cons.
What Nate is pointing out is not new to political scientists; as my poli-sci prof put it, "It's not how old you are that matters for your Party ID, it's how old you were when you were young." This gets at the socialization factor and the durability of Party ID.
This bears deeper examination now because the trend points to the death of the Republican Party. While there are some bright spots for the GOP with Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush Sr, it is important to realize that none of these leaders were Southerners. The GOP is now led almost exclusively by Southerners. Suddenly the GOP has no northern constituency and minimal prospects for continuity through socialization.
Unfortunately, what Gallup cannot measure (yet) is the incredible anger that will most assuredly erupt toward the Democrats when the bills for Obama's (NOT BUSH'S!) enormous deficits, which are already 4 times the record deficit under Bush, all start coming due.
Right now, many of the younger voters are standing at the station waiting for the gravy train to roll in, but that's not what's coming down the tracks. You can't govern this way, people, without eventually paying the bill.
I'm not the least bit worried about the conservatives in this country - of either party. They'll do just fine once this generation gets past mooning over Obama, and they'll be doing that soon enough.
Brian, for the first time ever, Obama accounted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in his budget. If you want the 800 pound gorilla, there it is. And it will be nice when Obama finally does what his constituency asked of him - when he ends the Iraq War.
It bears mentioning that had the Clinton Tax Scheme remained in-place, the national debt would have been paid off or nearing elimination by right about now, 9/11 or no. But it was the Republicans and a non-trivial number of Democrats who went along with this horrific idea. So, before I heap blame on top of Obama for engaging in proper accounting and taking measures to combat the deepest recession since the Great Depression, I'm looking to hold Republicans accountable for the $12T of national debt that came prior to Obama borrowing dollar one.
Demographics rule. Members of a post WWI baby "boom" born through the mid-Twenties grew up in the Depression, voted for FDR, and fought in WWII. Their children, the Baby Boomers, grew up in the Cold War, voted Democratic by large margins, got drafted to Vietnam, and were the first generation that went to integrated schools. Their children, the current crop of under-30 year olds, grew up under the turmoil of Clinton's sexcapade, 9/11, the Patriot Act, and the GWOT, and saw their contemporaries shipping off to Iraq--they rejeced the Republican party and voted for Obama in large numbers. The Republican party is not only faced with the failures of its leadership and polices, but are faced with a new bulge in the population of first-time voters who are voting with the Democrats.
Interesting that larger generations seem to vote Democratic (party that tends to be concerned with large groups and participates in mass events) while smaller generations tend to vote with Republicans (party that emphasizes the striving and attainments of the individual).
Much is being made of declining Republican registration and the changing Democrat/Republican ratio: But what of the independents? Independent voters are increasing, almost to the point of becoming like a third party. Obviously many, many of these people are refugees from the Republican Party (doubtless people repelled by the present GOP circus). But will these people vote differently in coming elections? It's still a two party system. Will they suddenly become progressives? I don’t see it.
Barak Obama won 53% of the popular vote. As a Democrat, I’m delighted. But I have no delusions.
@Matt: "Wrought" is indeed a (archaic) past tense, but of "work," not "wright," which my Compact Oxford English Dictionary lists only as a noun (albeit one that I'm guessing is related). Wrought iron is iron that has been worked.
You are correct. I've asserted this same thing for several years: I generally identified myself as a Republican for a long time, mostly by default because Reagan was president when I first began to care about such things.
It took Bush, Rove, and Cheney to flush that away forever. Nothing else provided enough swirl.
Care I feel your pain about jobs. I just graduated and it took me 9 months to get a job offer. I worked at a part time job I absolutely despised in the mean time.
Let me get to my point - if things get worse, or stay the same, what motivation do I have (I didn't vote this election-didn't register in time)to vote for Obama in four years or Democrat for the rest of my life? He'll promise to let Nancy Pelosi write more trillion dollar spending bills just to do "something" to try and jump start the economy? He dumped trillions in debt onto the backs of me, my children and my grandchildren.
To be honest it seemed like Ron Paul was the only honest person running this election. We need more candidates like him in the future.
Bush-Cheney did not keep us safe. Their sloppy handling of transition and deliberate ignoring of Clarke's warnings probably CAUSED 9/11 by failing to follow up and prevent it.
Until 9/11 Bush's prsidency was failing, but Karl Rove showed him how to exploit 9/11 to gain re-election by starting the totally unjustified Iraq war -- becoming a "War President", and by divisive exploitation of racism and cultural issues like abortion where Bush really held no firm views.
Bush will be viewed in history as clearly the worst modern president, eclipsing Harding, Hoover and Nixon in the harm he inflicted on our nation and its people, and on the world.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment