Redstate

We on the Right have all too often allowed the "center" to be rhetorically dragged to the Left ...

Why exactly should we concede, just because a 97% pro-abortion media deems it so, that to be a moderate on social issues one must be opposed to parental notification, support partial birth abortion, support gun control, be in favor gay marriage, etc.?

Which is why, as far as I'm concerned Tom Coburn is every bit as socially "moderate" as Arlen Specter - whom I have seen and heard described as a "moderate on abortion" ...

I don't disagree with you. I was just asking because Naugle called Stivers as social moderate. I just want to know what he means by that.

www.republicansenate.org

This is what Wikipedia has on Coburn on abortion: "On the issue [of abortion], Coburn sparked controversy with his remark about feticidal gynecologists "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."[11] Coburn also objects to legal abortion in cases of rape, and he has justified his position by noting that his great-grandmother was raped by a sheriff.[12] In the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings concerning Samuel Alito, Coburn asserted that his grandmother was a product of that rape."

If this is a moderate position on abortion, please tell me what a conservative position would be.

I'm actually not taking a stand on whether or not Coburn is a moderate on abortion.

My position is that if people as far to Left on abortion as Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, etc. can be labeled "moderates" on abortion then so should Tom Coburn.

"Moderation" doesn't just run to the Left.

I guess it was too subtle for me.

.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Now I'm someone who is opposed to abortion in all forms but supports gay marriage and some gun control. Would a candidate with that position still be a social conservative?

www.mikehuckabee.com

I don't think that would count according to the self-definition of the social conservative movement. You might get away with it on guns (you'd need to give some more details on what "gun control" you support) but supporting gay marriage probably disqualifies you.

However, the editorial board at the New York Times would probably consider you to be th second coming of Attila the Hun.

GOPaisano,
'Gays Against Abortion' was the bumpersticker I saw on a beemer driving through Clayton,Georgian yesterday.
I'd say we have a pretty broad political spectrum in this country of ours.

The under 30 crowd is slightly more pro-life than the rest of the country and much more pro-same-sex marriage than the rest of the country. I think you'll see a growing segment of pro-life, pro-gay marriage proponents as that generation grows older. The question is whether they will be Rs or Ds...

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Hasn't the under-30 crowd ALWAYS been more left-leaning, for as long as we've tracked these things?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.

Neil, I think that is a 1960's era "known fact."

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I have yet to see any real evidence of that assertion. I actually asked a while back for any academic or public study that showed people got more Republican (or conservative) as they got older.

There is decent evidence that party selection happens in the 18-30 age range and stays pretty constant. Thus, the very GOP generation that came of age in the 1980-1988 era is the most GOP age cohort still.** And the current 18-25 age bracket is the most Democratic since the FDR generation. If they solidify that way, there is no reason I see to think they will become Republicans when they turn 30.

There may be some movement toward conservative fiscal views with age (and employment), but I haven't found any data that says people get more pro-life or more anti-same-sex marriage as they get older.

There is data that old people are more anti-same-sex marriage, but they have always been that way. If anything, the 30-40 crowd has become more amenable to same-sex marriage over their lifetime.

But I would be very interested in any study or data on people getting "more conservative" with age.

**Note that Reagan did better with the youngest voting cohort (under 30) than with the overall electorate. That would be seen as very strange today, but he did it in both 1980 and 1984.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

In OH-15, with Ohio State being right there and all.

Topical, even if you guys didn't mean to be. That's when you know you're on your game.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

I think George H.W. Bush won the under 30 cohort as well in 1988.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I'm kind of an outlier because I converted in my mid-30s but that was a result of events and reflection more than it was age, per se. All the people I knew who were liberals when they were 25 are still liberals today.

"...I would be very interested in any study or data on people getting "more conservative" with age."

I would like to see a few studies on the effects of parenthood upon one's beliefs. I know a lady that was something of libertine prior to becoming a mother. Today she is something of a social moderate.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Although there is also the fact that conservatives are more likely to marry, to start a family, and to have larger families. So the direction of the causation may be hard to identify. Do conservatives just marry more or do people who get married become more conservative?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

This is just anecdotal but I'd be surprised if home ownership didn't have the effect of wising people up about money, at the very least, even if they continue to vote Democratic. Once you own a home, particularly if you're paying a mortgage, you get very smart very fast about your finances or else you find you don't have one any more, very quickly.

Find those who were 18-30 at the start of the Clinton Administration. Track their Party identification over time.

I pick them because, in 1993, as a sixteen and seventeen year old, I was constantly assured that they were highly liberal on social and fiscal issues, and that they were America's liberal future. I was further assured of this every year until 2000. I have no idea if this is true or not, but you'd expect, given how Clinton did with the "youth" vote, that this should confirm your theory or shoot a gaping hole in it.

I'm not being snide; this honestly strikes me as conveniently accessible and falsifiable data.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The hard part of this data is finding some that follows the cohort. So I may be able to find the data on the 18-30 cohort in 1992. But finding the 22-34 cohort in 1996, the 26-38 cohort in 2000 and the 30-42 cohort in 2004 is harder. It would probably take some researcher doing it to test this type of hypothesis. I think that has probably happened but I don't know where to find it.

FWIW, 1992 is hard to use b/c of Perot although the party ID part should be possible.

Here is a snapshot of the phenomenon that I'd like to see over time. You can see the "Reagan cohort" pretty clearly.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm curious about the entire group that came of age in 1992-2000 -- that is, turned 18 and progressed toward 30 during that time.

Where I'm going with this is: If your theory is correct, folks now in their mid-thirties should be pretty heavily Democrat, as should folks in their early thirties and even late twenties. It's only in the mid-to-late 20s that we should see Republican identifiers as a potential majority.

If this isn't true, then it at least suggests that voting patterns have begun to become more fluid, much the same way "downticket voting" has changed in the last couple of decades.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

....I think they tend to be fiscally conservative as well, especially with respect to entitlements and social security. Many people in my age group don't even expect to receive Social Security when they retire, and almost everyone I talk to favors some sort of privatization of the system, at least for young workers.

Most young people are "hip to the game" with respect to affirmative action and political correctness too. I don't think they buy into the "white guilt" that has been prevalent since the late 1960s.

The one area where young voters may be more liberal is environmental issues. Whether or not they will favor higher taxes and more regulation remains to be seen.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

This is only one person, so take it with a grain of salt. A gay friend of mine said that quite a few homosexuals oppose abortions because they believe that at some point in the future (when sexual orientation may be found through gentic testing) abortion will be used to eradicate them (homosexuals).

I would rather he opposed abortion because everyone who suffers the proceedure is eradicated.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Hey Matt,

Every time you edit, it goes off the front page.

Fight On!