THE ROE FACTOR
In the United States, the percentage of the population under 5 years old is 7%. San Francisco? 5.5%. Manhattan? 4.9%. Key West? 4.7%. Beverly Hills? 3.7%. Malibu? 4.5%. West Hollywood? 1.6%. Vermont? 5.6%. Seattle? 5.9%. Marin County? 5.9%. Santa Monica? 5.4%.The point is one that in the past, left leaning outlets such as the New York Times have had articles about in the past: conservatives are out breeding leftists in the country. They're simply not having enough children to replace their ranks as they age and die. The reasons for this are many, as commenters brought up:
So, as you can see, in our liberal bastions, you liberals just ain't having the number of kids you should have. I haven't been able to find the figures, but I'll bet a lot that in none of these jurisdictions - or anyplace else where liberal Demcorats do real well at election time - is the fertility rate 2.1% - which means each woman having, on average, 2.1 children over their life time. That is mere replacement rate - you don't grow, but you don't decline. if you aren't replacing yourselves, then you haven't got a future.
Now, some other stats - more population under 5 years old:
Salt Lake City? 8.9%. Las Vegas? 7.9%. Kansas City? 8.5%. Norfolk, VA? 9.6%. Palmdale, CA? 10.4%.
Getting the picture? The areas of the country which tend to vote heavily Republican are having kids - a lot more kids than you liberals are even thinking of having (and what is up with West Hollywood? I know there is a large gay community there - but isn't anyone doing heterosexual sex with a purpose out there?).
Liberals dont have many kids because they're too focused on "what they want" and "how they feel". Kids just get in the way.This is just one piece of the puzzle that indicates the way the nation is shifting. Take a look at these stats from Opinion Jounral regarding abortion rates in states, based on their voting record in 2004:
Thats why they kill them before birth so they dont have to deal with the RESPONSIBILITY!
Let the good times roll!
I think its interesting to watch satelite TV, and listen to satelite radio (I have Sirius) and see how many programs or DJ's push a liberal agenda. They push for open borders and call it "diversity".
They push for homosexual activity/marriage and present it as a joke so it seems funny and not disturbing.
A few of them still belitle religion and love to make fun of Christains and Catholics.
Of course they worship Al Gore, some of the rock stations I listen to have a whole hour dedicated to bands that sing about "Global Warming". I dont mind songs about "Global Warming", but I dont want to listen to it for a whole hour and feel like i'm trying to get it cramed down my throat.
Some of that was off-topic.
At this time I throw a Monkey Wrench into your most interesting plan (See Mark's comments above)
I am a Christian
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all my Heart
I am a Liberal Democrat.
So, what about those Christians who are Liberal and choose for whatever reason, not to have kids?
My reason, I do not want to add to this over populated planet.
Liberal Democratic Christian.
And Remember, there is absolutly nothing wrong with being Liberal
Also remember that Jesus Christ is neither Liberal or Conservative, and does not favior any political party or political lifestyle.
-by Magnum Serpentine
leftists abort themselves outta existence.
I read a study (Opinion Journal?) that concluded that there were ~12 million aborted democratic voters MISSING from the last election due to the accumulated effects of abortion since Roe. Assumptions included that lefty parents would tend to nurture lefty kids.
if true, social conservatives will paradoxically diminish their own relative voting strength to the extent that abortion is restricted.
from that perspective, left & rightwingers should JOIN forces to restrict abortion.
There are better models than Salt Lake City, charming as it is. From trips through India, it seems that most of the population is rather religious, often to the point of driving out neighbors who don't follow the correct religgion, and they tend to have a lot of children.
My wife and I are very liberal, and have one child. We have reasons why we choose not to ahve any more right now. Being liberals, we don't think that we need to justify that decision to anyone else. I'm not sure why conservatives are so worried about why some women aren't breeding, and see it as a problem. We do realize that we pay a similar amount in taxes as those with more children while receiving less back, but being liberals, we know we will always be giving money to conservatives.
It seems what you're worried about is that conservative kids will be led astray and become liberals. As long as zealots and bigots remain the voice of the Right, this is a legitimate concern. c'est la vie.
For one who is so quick to criticize the scientific method of any professional polling indicating Democratic advantage, Mark disappoints.
First, as Ricorun points out, none of these cities are distinctly Republican. On the contrary, I would think high birth rates for major urban areas like Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Norfolk would be great for the Democrats, according to your reasoning.
Second, wouldn't it be much easier to provide a survey showing that Republicans have larger families than Democrats do?
Third, even assuming for a moment that Mark's "survey" is accurate, it ignores the reality that young voting-age people are leaving the Republican Party in droves. These people, my generation, will be tilting the political landscape towards liberals long before today's 5-year-olds become eligible to vote.
-by Gar Wood
True - and Oscar Goodman has the long term and loyal support of this Republican; he's our mayor, and we love him (even though I now reside in North Las Vegas). His Democratic party registration is entirely irrelevant to his position as mayor of Las Vegas...he didn't win the mayor's office because he is a Democrat, but because he's Oscar Goodman, mayor of life (if he wants it).
True enough, those particular cities have over-representation of demographics which might tend to vote Democrat - but they are not nearly as likely to vote Democratic as the same demographics in other, more liberal jurisdiction (nature of things - hearing a stronger and more consistent conservative message, they are more likely to be swayed to vote conservative). But if you don't like those examples, how about these:
Washoe County, Nevada; 384,000 people, 7.1% under 5, 81% white, 2004 Republican House candidate - 64% of the vote.
Orange County, California; 2.9 million people, 7.6% under 5, only 1.6% black, 2004 GOP vote 59%.
You can try to slice it up and say that demographics doesn't favor the GOP - but it sure in heck doesn't favor the Democrats, and I contend it does favor the GOP...and if you think those Catholic hispanic voters will remain loyal to a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-Christian Democratic party, then you've got another thing coming.
-by Mark Noonan
High abortion ratesA study by Overbrook Research noted that in their survey the younger the person questioned (especially women) the less likely they were to support abortion. The reason why? Because people who supported abortion were less likely to have children and thus result in young people who are more likely to be influenced by parents who do so.
District of Columbia (Gore by 76.2%)
New Jersey (Gore by 15.8%)
New York (Gore by 25.0%)
Maryland (Gore by 16.2%)
California (Gore by 11.7%)
Nevada (Bush by 3.5%)
Low abortion rates
Utah (Bush by 40.5%)
South Dakota (Bush by 22.7%)
Kentucky (Bush by 15.1%)
North Dakota (Bush by 27.6%)
A USA Today article pointed out that in 2006, Republican congressmen had more kids in their districts than Democratic ones.
GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district.With the shift in power, these numbers have changed, but the point made is pretty profound: Democrat voters tend not to have traditional families and have fewer kids. Another USA Today article pointed out the difference with census statistics:
• Democrats represent 59 districts in which less than half of adults are married. Republicans represent only two.
• Democrats represent 30 districts in which less than half of children live with married parents. Republicans represent none.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.At The Back of the Envelope, Donald looked at this grim statement of history:
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
Approximately 40 percent of American women under 45 have had at least one abortion. Twenty-five percent of all pregnancies end in abortion. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 40 million abortions have taken place.He took this block of statistics and plugged it in to the populations of various states, finding out what they likely would have been, had these abortions not happened. The result? President Bush still wins the 2000 election, but by an even narrower electoral college margin. Those killed babies were worth a theoretical 8 electoral college votes.
Those people who are killing their children for convenience, or out of fear, or out of a desire to have fewer children are paying a price beyond the simple murder of an infant, of their own baby. They are seeing their ideology take a hit. Compound that with the inclination to stay single among many on the left and the tendency to have no or fewer children, and they're simply dying out.
But what about the 60's, could those children not turn against their parents, rebel, reject the ideology they were raised with? Certainly, they could. They could on both sides, and evidence suggests that children today tend to be more conservative than their parents. There's a difference today, however. First, there's no draft to push kids away from the establishment. Second, the Baby Boom took place in a time when almost everyone followed the traditional model of family and had many children following the World War. Leftists and conservatives both had families and kids, which they aren't doing now.
The effect of changing sides and radicalizing was increased by an unchecked influence of academic radicalism and the media being controlled by people who leaned more left. That's simply not true any more: the radicalism and lean is still there, but it's checked by new influences on the right.
Putting it simply: if things keep going the way they are, radical leftist thought - experiencing a boom right now - is doomed to wane and fade away as they deliberately cause their own extinction.