“Sinz wrote, … that somehow, “suddenly” voters won’t be changing their social attitudes. Of course, I didn’t say that”

Except that you said it: “Social attitudes and political views definitely DO change with aging”

“as those voters age, they’ll find a more appealing home inside the GOP because of low tax, smaller govt, greater economic opportunity, etc.”

I’m one of those voters. Do you know what I’m going to remember the GOP for? Medicare part D, Iraq, Katrina, the economic crisis and huge budget deficits long before the economic crisis started.

If you think me and most people my age will “wise up” to something you think you’ve learned and start voting Republican because of it, stop deluding yourself.

Just Medicare part D alone is enough to convince me that the Republican party does NOT have the economic interests of younger people at heart. If you want something more recent, look at Michael Steele’s ad targeted at seniors promising them that their Medicare won’t be touched.

How are positions like that supposed to appeal to younger people, let alone actually be better for them policy-wise?

“doesn’t mean that Kansas, Michigan, NY or FLA voters have to support that burden.”

The GOP lost 3 of those 4 states in 2008.

“We don’t need more cliched thinking.”

You’ll need to abandon “low taxes, small gov’t” as the mantra the GOP is going to win back voters with, then.

That wasn’t sinz54 point at all –not from the words he wrote and in response to what I wrote. Perception requires correctly perceiving first, Hormel. We were talking about how there isn’t a need to debase the GOP by abandoning political policy to court or pursue the “youth vote”… further, that what the GOP needs to do is to drive down Obama’s numbers with the “youth vote” by painting him properly as “SOSO bickering, partisan, divisive politician”… that as those voters age, they’ll find a more appealing home inside the GOP because of low tax, smaller govt, greater economic opportunity, etc. If a voter wants to change the world through social policy –which is the driving impulse among most “youth voters”, then go join a frickin’ church or volunteer in your community.

Sinz wrote, contrary to all the long-standing in-depth poli sci and soc research, that somehow, “suddenly” voters won’t be changing their social attitudes. Of course, I didn’t say that; he did –that was his spin. I don’t anticipate “youth voters” to shed liberal, sociallly progressive attitudes “suddenly”… it comes with time, with a mortgage, with a family obligation, with fighting for more salary and seeing it sucked dry by fed taxes, etc.

Perception begins, Hormel, with correctly perceiving reality. Sinz didn’t do it. You don’t in reducing the discussion to “perception is reality” cliche. We don’t need more cliched thinking.

BTW, the “Left Coast” doesn’t write off 55m people –it writes off the values of those who comprise the 14.3m eligible voters who have far Left values… which is about 55% of eligible CA voters. Just because CA and the Silicon Valley CEOs in their pampered estates want dope legalized, or drug laws voided, or abortion on demand, or all the felons freed, or a new fed tax to support global enviromental initiatives doesn’t mean that Kansas, Michigan, NY or FLA voters have to support that burden.

Try discussing the issues fairly, Hormel. Left coast doesn’t write off 55m people… it means the GOP shouldn’t pander to an extreme niche of the CA vote that it never has a chance to win.

You missed Sinz’ point: perception is reality. If people perceive the GOP to be intolerant and prudish, they’ll vote accordingly, regardless of what Republicans actually think.

And, “left-coast”? That’s 55+ million people you’re writing off. If you want to rebuild the party, is that really a good attitude to have?

I gotta laugh at your characterization that GOPers are intolerant of hispanics or gays; unless you’re intent on painting the Party into some cartoonish misperception in vogue on the far Left or over at DailyKos-sack land. As a gay father of 3 and Party activist, I can tell you the greatest intolerance I’ve experienced in my life has repeatedly come from Democrats and gay Left activists who’ve called me an Uncle Tom, a concentration camp jew enabler of Nazi Republicans, turncoat, etc. As for hispanics, until conservative talk radio got a-hold of the Immigration Reform proposal of Bush 43 and McCain, hispanics were the largest, fastest growing segment of the GOP… legal and illegal hispanics viewed the GOP as the Party of Opportunity.

As for sexual prudes, I can only say that the far Left media has been working overtime to portray elected GOPers as sex fiends and perverts… whether it be Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Clarence Thomas, Mark Sanford, Ensign, Bob Livingston, et al… if you believed the spin from the MainStreamMedia, you’d think elected GOPers are randy in the extreme. But then, for you probably, monogamy translates into a sexual straightjacket and prudish values, eh?

Smoking dope is hardly new or a trend that distinguishes modern day 18-29 yr olds to prior generations… ever hear of Woodstock?

When you opine that social attitudes don’t change much with age, I wonder what planet –outside of the Left Coast– you live on. Social attitudes and political views definitely DO change with aging and added responsibilities… it’s why older voters generally saw through Obama’s hype on Hope & Change… they had wisdom and life experience on their side. If you don’t think social and political attitudes change with age, sinz54, then you need to tell all those PoliSci and Soc experts in the field… because their research trumps your gut instincts or personal observations of nanny-men in the Silicon Valley.

Nice try, but that’s 3 strikes… and you haven’t even connected with one, yet.

Because of this, “If China can produce goods cheaper than America, and if India can write software and staff call centers cheaper than America, why shouldn’t they?” We the GOP will remain in the forest because in essence you are saying who cares. I think we should, it appears to be hitting us Republican’s in the wallet hard. Evidence – new stats on wealth of Dem membership. Plus the brand new reports of US income drops in general. If we were passionate about this single issue – new members would come.

Well I’ll have to go lick my wounds after another Sinz beheading. It’s getting to be a yawn routine of reprimanding followed by partially/ differently restating my point. But here you add the fatal perceived flaw of our party – “who cares?” which is not good for attracting a majority.

Rachel, Are you the pant suit wearing former Young Republican presidential candidate – if so, high five to you and don’t give up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm

Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most
of the nation’s wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the
long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent
districts.

…

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had
incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented
55% of those affluent households.

*****************************************

The Republicans might be able to dampen contributions from those households to Democrats by a relentless attack message … but they’re not going to win them back easily without proving that Republicans understand how incompetence and bad decision making that plagued the Bush years led the US to the brink of a financial meltdown. It may well be a very interesting fight in 2012, between a governor who seems to exemplify competence (Pawlenty), and an ex-governor who exemplifies ideological purity for social conservatives (Palin). The tough thing for the GOP is that I don’t believe the followers of the latter are going to fight nice.

it’s so mystifying that the GOP has not been leading in the area of job creation and incentives to do so.

It’s not mystifying to me.

We conservatives are strong believers in the free market and free trade–globalization.

And the global free market has delivered its verdict: American workers are overpaid and under-educated. You can get graduates from Chinese or Indian universities to work for less money. And so capital and jobs move out of the U.S. to these other countries.

The principle of comparative advantage suggests that for the world as a whole, this is a good thing. Consumers around the world will be offered cheaper goods and services.

But for America, it means that our workers’ wages are being bid down to a global equilibrium level. And since there are EIGHT TIMES more Chinese and Indians than Americans, it means that the global equilibrium level will be much closer to their per capita income than to ours.

We conservatives are also patriots and nationalists. We want America to be on top. But so far, we’re stymied as to how to reconcile that with global free market economics. If China can produce goods cheaper than America, and if India can write software and staff call centers cheaper than America, why shouldn’t they?

Bush 43, for all his fault, knew that one necessary condition for improving American competitiveness was improving the dismal state of American education. But the more recent glorification of “Joe the Plumber,” implying that a master’s degree doesn’t buy you anything more than having a good heart, wiped out the GOP’s advantage there.

young voters would become behavioral GOPers once they had property, had a family, had others who relied upon them for food, water, housing, education, safety. Right now it’s all about sex, drugs and rock & roll for them.

Some things are not going to change, however.

When these young voters get older and get careers and families:

They’re not suddenly going to become less tolerant of Hispanics or gays.
They’re not suddenly going to become sexual prudes.
They’re not suddenly going to stop smoking marijuana.

Social attitudes don’t change much as they age.

How do I know that? Because the entrepreneurs of Silicon Valley, the ones who created the giant electronics and computer firms that made America the world leader in computers, are still hippies at heart. They still go hot-tubbing on weekends, smoke pot for relaxation rather than drink booze, and have libertarian social attitudes about homosexuality, drugs, and sex.

And they were among the strongest backers of Obama. The CEOs of Google, for example, backed Obama strongly. The fact that they are now self-made billionaires didn’t change that.

“Obama Plummets Among Youth Over Jobs”.

Spin, prevaricate, twist yourselves into pretzels, poke critics in the eye with stick… that’s the truth of your nightmare.

And guess what, the more the Great Obama does… the lower his numbers sink. 2010 and 2012 are looking pretty bad for the Democrats and damn good for the GOP. A blue state like Michigan, ripped by the inaction of Obama on the economy and 8 yrs of failed policies and non-leadership by a Democrat gov and two US Senators, looks like it may be going red in 2010 and 2012. We’ve had 8 yrs of Obama already… their names are Granholm, StupidCow and Levin.