A site, I might add, that has a direct news feed from Newsmax.

Your source fails the reliability test.

Do you think that these sources presented inaccurate data?
Or just disagreeable data?

The entiore source is there for nothing but Libertarian propaganda.

I'd like to see a similar poll from some reputable pollster.

source. Too easy to slant the results in either direction. IMO.

It's the only way to get a broad picture.

Do you not think a lot of under-35's are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? For instance they support gay marriage and are less religious but want lower taxes "because I want to keep MY money"? That's the interesting thing: They want to be empathetic but narcissistic all at once. (And I'm in my early 20's so I know too much about this, lol.)

I'm glad they are skeptical at this point,.

if they were very "fiscally conservative," as it is commonly understood. For example education costs money and a flat tax doesn't lend itself to many socially liberal outcomes. Things cost money.

The next statement sounds like I'm hurling an insult, and that's not my intent at all: when I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh back in the 90s, he'd make the same point. He's argue that one could not separate social conservatism and economic conservatism for the same kinds of reasons as the one you mentioned.

My counter would be that there are varying degrees of economic liberalism and conservatism. One can deficit-spend (Keynes - Liberal) , but spend the bulk of that money on defense (Reagan - perceived as conservative). On the other hand, one can reduce social spending and balance budgets, and still be perceived as liberal (Bill Clinton).

I don't think all that call themselves fiscal conservatives are flat taxers or supply siders. I think most simply want balanced budgets and lower taxes. I'd assert that those are laudable outcomes in normal economic circumstances, but I'd also assert that no budget should be balanced on the backs of the poor, and that we spend an enormous amount on defense relative to any credible threat from other nations or non-state actors.

Like you I am for balanced budgets when possible, etc. but not on the backs of the poor. It definitely depends on how you define it. Now a days I think of tea party type economic conservatives when I think economic conservatives.

I don't feel a compelling need to explain myself to anybody. However, 20 years ago, Limbaugh wasn't as virulent as he is today. Liberals would call from time to time and he's argue with them. In those days I enjoyed yelling at my radio. I eventually got over it.

I listened to NPR back then. I did until Shrub changed out management and they became a pro war station.

Sorry I misinterpreted your statement. I think he is so vile, that no one but a fan would ever tune in.

Things do indeed cost money, but you can still balance the budget yet still spend FAR more than we are today on socially liberal causes simply by cutting corporate loopholes and reducing the morally unjustified spend on the military, including the NSA.

They do not show economic ideas at all. They have left out anything (economically) left of fascist.

unrec.

My guess is that someone like a Michael Bloomberg or a Joe Liberman will be put out there by corporate America. No primaries to worry about, and no extremist groups to whom the candidate is beholden. The candidate will run on the currently-popular "both parties have failed us" theme, and try to take their half of the electorate out of the middle. It's an idea that I think has a decent shot of working in 2016, but may also lead to interesting problems in actually governing.

As stated above, the candidate would run n the "we need to cut spending and deficits" platform, but simultaneously support abortion rights and same sex marriage rights.

Watching this joke of a congress impoverish the nation, watching the government try to regulate marriage and marijuana, it's all made young people lose belief that government solves more problems than it creates.

it involves ending corporate and 1-percenter tax breaks, putting the bloated military-industrial complex on Jenny Craig, and holding the line on skyrocketing health care costs through single-payer.

Because the groups listed in the results all use that term in different ways.

They're socially liberal, fiscally conservative. They hire on Goldman Sachs folks to run 'the economy'. They use 'fixes' that keep the stock market soaring for the rich, but grow the ranks of those who don't participate in the labor force, or are stuck in minimum or near-minimum wage jobs.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative isn't libertarian, it's 'New Dems'.

We have a libertarian running against our Republican incumbent rep locally. We also have a Democratic candidate running too. My hope is that the Libertarian splits the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote.

http://ballotpedia.org/Washington%27s_5th_Congressional_District_elections,_2014

I am not sure he can pull enough Republican votes to get McMorris kicked out during the primary, but there is a better chance with him in the race than without.

Look at the numbers for liberals and conservatives. Fiscal views - at least having a conservative fiscal view - is not the overriding determinant here.

has effectively crippled the middle-class. The Millennial's cyncism for 'gubmint' isn't far off.

If they vote, they'll mostly vote for Hillary because she's the lesser evil.