Droves of millennial women leaving Republican Party: poll

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    It's hard to out democrat the democrats. Maybe instead, the republicans ought to act like an real alternative instead of a cheap, corrupted analog.

    How have the figures changed?

    Between 2002 and 2017, the share of millennial women who identify as Democrats grew from 54 percent to 70 percent, Pew reported. In contrast, 23 percent of younger women now say they are Republican, compared to 36 percent in 2002.
    Meanwhile, more millennial men are identifying as Republican. For the same time period, the share of millennial men identifying as Democrat went from 52 percent to 49 percent, according to the study. About 41 percent of millennial men currently identify as Republican, compared to 39 percent in 2002.
    Across all age groups, women over the past two decades have been leaving the Republican Party and joining the Democrats. Currently, about 56 percent of women align with the Democratic Party, compared to 44 percent of men.
    http//www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/22/droves-of-millennial-women-leaving-republican-party-poll?utm_content=buffer9bc03&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=theblaze
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    If these stats were accurate Hillary Rodham Clinton would be P.O.T.U.S.

    That's incorrect

    The number is probably accurate. The polling infamously failed to predict Trump’s victory. By a lot. But the failure wasn’t in miscalculating the support for Democrats vs Republicans. The failure was in estimating who would show up to the polls.

    Remember, Hillary did win the popular vote, by a lot. But in battleground states especially, the disgruntled Bernie-bot millennials stayed home.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,736
    113
    Michiana
    I have no doubt that the country is going to continue to slide into the Godless, gunless socialist utopia that we have been on the path toward for several decades. Embrace your inner Stalin.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    The number is probably accurate. The polling infamously failed to predict Trump’s victory. By a lot. But the failure wasn’t in miscalculating the support for Democrats vs Republicans. The failure was in estimating who would show up to the polls.

    Remember, Hillary did win the popular vote, by a lot. But in battleground states especially, the disgruntled Bernie-bot millennials stayed home.

    If people want democrats, why stick with the faux-democrat-wanna-bes? Might as well go with the real thing. Increasingly, the republicans are giving fewer and fewer people reason to support them. When you hold super majorities in Indy but yet you can't pass decent gun legislation, you've got all 3 branches of the federal government and you cave in on most democrat budgetary demands while ballooning spending and getting nearly none of the stuff done that you promised you'd do when we elected you...They'd better figure this out or there'll be more people sitting at home the next election.
     

    PaulF

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 4, 2009
    3,045
    83
    Indianapolis
    I have no doubt that the country is going to continue to slide into the Godless, gunless socialist utopia that we have been on the path toward for several decades. Embrace your inner Stalin.


    If California or Massachusetts wants to turn themselves into gunless socialist utopias I really have no problem with that, and I don't think the federal government should be allowed to (or strong enough, honestly) to stop them...as long as the people of those states alone are on the hook to pay for it and are free to leave if they don't like the results. America has the potential to be a great marketplace of social, political, and economic ideas...except for the shadow of the federal government. I don't understand why so many people these days seem to think everyone else should have to live like they do. I have no problem letting others live how they choose, but I demand the same freedom.

    I think America was designed with this freedom in mind, at least to some degree.

    The government should be godless. The people? That's each person's individual choice to make. Blame for the "slide into godlessness" doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to religion itself. More and more people are starting to realize that godlessness is humanity's natural default state, and religion is having an increasingly difficult time convincing them otherwise.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    Blame for the "slide into godlessness" doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to religion itself. More and more people are starting to realize that godlessness is humanity's natural default state, and religion is having an increasingly difficult time convincing them otherwise.

    This is sort of the whole point of the Bible.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Same "polls" that said Trump could never win. :dunno:

    Is that as far as your curiosity goes? "Well, the outcome I believed all along is confirmed, so no reason to figure out if the reasons were what I believed all along." A superficial understanding of why Trump won may help you feel like the world is really more like you want it to be than it actually is. But it's more informative to dig until you get to the answer, even risking that the answer isn't what you wanted it to be.

    If you're a Trump fan, and you voted for him because you believed he's actually the best guy for the job, maybe you won't like the actual reasons why he won. Maybe you'd like to continue believing that Trump won because most people think like you do. But that's not what a deeper dig reveals. There isn't just one reason that Trump won. He won for a lot of reasons that happened to stack in his favor, the least of which, the second worst candidate in modern American history happened to luck out and run against the worst candidate in modern American history.

    So, basically, we lucked out--if you can call having a realityTV host as president lucky--because the Democrats ran an insane candidate.

    And that's not small. I think possibly the thing that will save us from Democrats in 2020 is that they may be incapable of running someone sane. If they run some bat-**** crazy 3rd-wave feminist SJW type, maybe we have a chance. If they run any moderately sane Democrat, stick a fork in it.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    If people want democrats, why stick with the faux-democrat-wanna-bes? Might as well go with the real thing. Increasingly, the republicans are giving fewer and fewer people reason to support them. When you hold super majorities in Indy but yet you can't pass decent gun legislation, you've got all 3 branches of the federal government and you cave in on most democrat budgetary demands while ballooning spending and getting nearly none of the stuff done that you promised you'd do when we elected you...They'd better figure this out or there'll be more people sitting at home the next election.

    I don't side with Republicans. I side with not-Democrats. But I say that only because I believe they're incapable of running a sane candidate. By sane I mean a fiscally responsible enlightenment values supporting candidate. I have no doubt that they'll run a neo-Marxist. So that sticks me with having to vote for Fudds like Trump. Or maybe a protest vote for Al Bundy.

    I don't think Republicans can figure it out. I think the "chamber-o-commerce" mindset is too evolved and ingrained.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    If California or Massachusetts wants to turn themselves into gunless socialist utopias I really have no problem with that, and I don't think the federal government should be allowed to (or strong enough, honestly) to stop them...as long as the people of those states alone are on the hook to pay for it and are free to leave if they don't like the results. America has the potential to be a great marketplace of social, political, and economic ideas...except for the shadow of the federal government. I don't understand why so many people these days seem to think everyone else should have to live like they do. I have no problem letting others live how they choose, but I demand the same freedom.

    I think America was designed with this freedom in mind, at least to some degree.

    I think I agree with that, but the devil is in the details of the "degree". I think the federal government should have the authority to provide a circle of sanity which creates boundaries, within which states should be free to govern however they see fit. So there's a lot more emphasis on "to some degree" than it sounds like you're saying. The US was founded on enlightenment principles, and I think that's a good template for the sane boundaries.

    So states should be federally compelled to protect free speech, press, assembly, religion, RKBA, due process, and all that. States also shouldn't be given power over national immigration, or national borders. Those are clearly the unique authority of the federal government.

    So social safety nets? If you can afford it, go for it. Living wage? Knock yourself out. But, deny 2A rights? **** you. Succeed if you want that. Communism? Get the **** outta here. But if you feel the Bern, okay, as long as you otherwise operate within the sane boundaries. You're SOL when you run out of your wealth makers' money. Don't expect the other states to bail you out. Well. Unless they choose to make a deal, like they bail you out, but then they get to take over your state and impose their own laws.

    The government should be godless. The people? That's each person's individual choice to make. Blame for the "slide into godlessness" doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to religion itself. More and more people are starting to realize that godlessness is humanity's natural default state, and religion is having an increasingly difficult time convincing them otherwise.

    Actually this is not correct. The research seems to clearly point to religion being a part of our evollutionary wiring. Wiring can be overcome, of course, so, increasingly people are. So its fair to say that people are choosing to short-circuit their default wiring. But it's a false claim to say that godlessness is humanity's natural default state. It's not. It's that many people--not even close to a majority--have discovered a perception of reality beyond their natural inclinations towards some religious experience. 70% of people in the US say they are religious. But they are abandoning organized religion.
     

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    14,884
    113
    Indy
    Actually this is not correct. The research seems to clearly point to religion being a part of our evollutionary wiring. Wiring can be overcome, of course, so, increasingly people are. So its fair to say that people are choosing to short-circuit their default wiring. But it's a false claim to say that godlessness is humanity's natural default state. It's not. It's that many people--not even close to a majority--have discovered a perception of reality beyond their natural inclinations towards some religious experience. 70% of people in the US say they are religious. But they are abandoning organized religion.

    I think that we are hard wired with fear of the unknown, fear of death and the drive to seek comfort in all things. This is what results in the adoption of religion, not a direct hard wiring for religion itself, per se.

    Why Religion May Not be Hard-Wired

    As far as 70% of Americans who identify as "religious," I do wonder what portion of that percentage has never seen a church without Christmas or Easter decorations. Or don't even bother with church at all.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,169
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I think that we are hard wired with fear of the unknown, fear of death and the drive to seek comfort in all things. This is what results in the adoption of religion, not a direct hard wiring for religion itself, per se.

    Why Religion May Not be Hard-Wired

    As far as 70% of Americans who identify as "religious," I do wonder what portion of that percentage has never seen a church without Christmas or Easter decorations. Or don't even bother with church at all.

    If it is a coping mechanism, it seems to be a hard-wired one, because it seems to be the default one invoked across both time and culture. I don't see the study explaining the religious experience people have. I think the consensus among evolutionary biologists seems to favor the hard-wiring, still.

    So something that comes to mind that seems appropriate to discuss is the rabid sort of fury the most ardent atheists have against religion. I think that's a psychological phenomenon. It's not rational to have contemptuous venom for religious people. That comes from somewhere other than reason. I think that contempt for religion drives a lot of bias towards pejorative explanations for religion, more than the facts do.

    Religion, depending on the tenants, by itself is benign. Religion mixed with more aggressive human traits has proven to be a toxic combination. Plenty of tyrant religious societies for that observation. It's only a shallow dig that finds eliminating religion is the answer. It's equally true that any ideology mixed with aggressive human traits is a toxic combination, even a godless one. Maybe if we stamp out all religions AND ideologies, we can survive the human tendency for tyrannical leaders.

    Or. Maybe humans are better off being free to believe what they want within a circle of sane boundaries. It's not my place to tell religious people that they're wrong for believing in religion. Especially if not 100% of what they believe is wrong. I think I can agree with Jordan Peterson about that much, that to the extent that religion can motivate people to do benevolent things, that's true enough. Maybe they can do those things without religion. But who am I to say they should? The only thing that I should have to say about how religion people conduct themselves is please don't impose your religious beliefs on me. You don't get to burn me at the stake, or behead me if I don't believe what you believe. You get to believe what you want. I get to believe what I want. We don't get to force our believes on each other.
     
    Top Bottom