"Republicans resurgent forever"

The post-election theme of the bulk of self-professed political scientists is that Bush has laid the groundwork for a perpetual Republican majority.

But any rational look at the age demographics turns this argument into mush.

The New York Times this morning reports on the age breakdown of the vote. Sorry, I can't link the chart, only the story:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/weekinreview/07conn.html?8br>


The chart reports the following:

The 18-29-yr-olds voted 54-45 Kerry;
The 30-44-yr-olds voted 53-46 Bush;
The 45-59-yr-olds voted 51-48 Bush;
The 60-and-overs voted 54-46 Bush.

Does anyone really think that the current crop of 18-29-yr-olds -- now 17% of the electorate -- will be LESS involved politically than they were this year, or that their attitudes will change dramataically? I sure don't. As the older part of that cohort pushes itself into dominance -- child-rearing, money-making consumers, for instance -- over the next 5 or 10 years, they will have their place at the table and their numbers will begin to turn the 30-44-yr-old band more purple. They may grow slightly more economically conservative, but that's a GOOD thing when you've got an administration running up a $7 trillion debt; socially, they will NOT magically turn into gay-bashing, prayer-invoking tub thumpers.

This will all happen as the present band of 60-and-overs -- Bush's strongest cohort in percentage advantage -- withers away. Remember that 2 million people in this country die every year, and nearly all of them are old!

I think there is much to be hopeful for in the age demographics.

when they can't get prescription drugs! :eyes:

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'

<snip>

Democrats lost the battle, not the war
Only people suffering from historical amnesia could believe this election proves that liberalism is dead.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason


Nov. 6, 2004 |

In the dark post-election mood that lingers, the defeated should find history both restorative and instructive. Restorative because the past reminds us that both victors and vanquished tend to mistake the dimensions of the immediate event, whose true significance cannot be known until years or even decades later. Instructive because the past tells us so much about how the conditions of our present distress came to exist -- and, most important, how we can change them.

So for the moment set aside the triumphal proclamations from the Republican leadership and their echoes in the media, along with the petty recriminations against John Kerry, who has devoted his life to public service and deserves admiration for the honorable campaign he waged against unscrupulous opponents. As a presidential candidate he had his virtues and flaws, which obviously differed from those of George W. Bush -- and will surely differ from those of the next Democratic nominee.

<snip>

more at http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/11/06/history/index_np.html

Just when a party seems down and out, a resurgency occurs. In my state, I think up to 1/3 of the voters are registered Independant. This may not mean much to those who want to see the world in black and white, but I have always thought that my vote was important because independants decide every single presidential election. Chimpy had a few things going for him - incumbancy, so called "wartime Preznit" (what a joke), Kerry was a senator, Kerry was from Massachusetts. We can easily win the WH back with the right candidate. The real battle though is going to be winning Congress back - the cycle there is much longer and will take time to build momentum in our direction. We'll find our place again - a little patience and overstepping of our opponents will help.