An Interesting Article On The Democrat Generation

Read this.

It's common knowledge that the popularity or success of the person who is President when one turns 18 has a strong bearing on what political party one affiliates with throughout life. The fact is that while historically this has been true in The United States, it is currently becoming more true. More importantly, as this article shows, Americans don't change political affiliation much once they get settled in.

For the generation of Americans who came of age during the 8 years under Clinton, they identify as Democrat-over-Republican by a margin of about 10 percentage points. For the generation who came of age during the 8 years of G.W. Bush, they identify as Democrat-over-Republican by a margin of about 16 percentage points. That is a 16-year segment of the American population that is much more strongly Democrat than Republican. That's quite significant.

Now, assume that President Obama gets his 8 years and does no worse than Bill Clinton. That will create a 24-year segment of the American population that is much more Democrat than Republican. That's extremely significant.

Imagine if after that, Hillary comes along as President? Assuming she also does no better or worse than Bill Clinton, that will probably create a 28–32 year span of our population... and a period of time that is actually double that — 60 years, until a putative equivalent 30-year gain by Republicans can offset the Democrat advantage... in the year 2054 — that Democrats will have a huge voter advantage over Republicans.

But the truth is that once you've reached that point: where a significant span of the population (half: aged 18 to 50 in the year 2024) identifies significantly (by 16-plus percentage points) as Democrat, then all other things being equal, the likelihood that a Republican can get elected to the White House beyond the year 2020 or 2024 becomes very slim. Then each subsequent batch of 18-year-olds will be coming of age under a Democrat president.

And that is indeed just assuming all other things are equal... which they sure as hell aren't: Currently, it's much worse for Republicans than just not having the White House. They have a terribly tainted and collapsing message and are hemorrhaging registered voters.

Republicans talked about a "permanent majority" once a few years back. I didn't believe it then. Now though — assuming the Obama administration manages to at least muddle through, and Clinton (or someone else) after — the birth of a "permanent majority" may be exactly what America is witnessing.

The only way that this future Democrat hegemony could be avoided now is for liberalism to crash and burn in both message and in practice, and in a manner more severe and more lengthy than conservatism is currently doing. And, to be honest: The damage to the country that such a crash would cause would be so extreme, that anybody who places the health of America over the health of the Republican party better hope and pray that it does not happen.

I suppose that the rise of libertarianism could stop the dominance of liberalism. Right now, libertarians are voting anti-Republican (which of course means voting Democrat). If libertarian candidates can start presenting an attractive-enough platform to lure the 60% of Americans who would vote anti-Democrat, then the permanent Democrat majority could be avoided... and that is probably what will happen eventually, but (unless, as stated above, disaster falls) that won't be happening anytime soon.