Quote:Trends in the opinions of America's youngest voters are often a barometer of shifting political winds. And that appears to be the case in 2008. The current generation of young voters, who came of age during the George W. Bush years, is leading the way in giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification, just as the previous generation of young people who grew up in the Reagan years -- Generation X -- fueled the Republican surge of the mid-1990's.

In surveys conducted between October 2007 and March 2008, 58% of voters under age 30 identified or leaned toward the Democratic Party, compared with 33% who identified or leaned toward the GOP. The Democratic Party's current lead in party identification among young voters has more than doubled since the 2004 campaign, from 11 points to 25 points.

Quote:In fact, the Democrats' advantage among the young is now so broad-based that younger men as well as younger women favor the Democrats over the GOP -- making their age category the only one in the electorate in which men are significantly more inclined to self-identify as Democrats rather than as Republicans.

While more women voters in every age group affiliate with the Democratic Party rather than the GOP, the gap is particularly striking among young women voters; more than twice as many women voters under age 30 identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party as favor the Republican Party (63% vs. 28%).

This analysis is part of a series of reports on changes in the balance of party identification in the electorate. On March 20, the Center released breakdown of trends in party identification in Republican "red" states, Democratic "blue" states, and politically contested swing states.

Quote:The Democratic Party has not always held an edge among the young. In 1992, young voters divided their partisan loyalties roughly evenly (46% Democratic, 47% Republican). By 1996, young voters were more Democratic than Republican, and the Democratic advantage increased slightly in 2000 and 2004.

Age differences in party affiliation are a result of a variety of influences, including the circumstances of individuals at different points in the life cycle as well as generational differences that reflect the political climate at the time when individuals were forming their political identity and loyalties. As the data from 1992 clearly show, young people are not necessarily more liberal or Democratic by virtue of their age alone.

The youngest voters in 1992 -- the members of Generation X -- were more Republican than most other age groups, in part reflecting the fact that they had come of age politically during a time in which conservative ideas were ascendant and the presidency was held by a popular Republican, Ronald Reagan.

In addition, those in the latter half of the Baby Boom generation, who were in their late 20s to mid-30s in 1992, also were more Republican than average; many of these individuals developed their political leanings in the late 1970s, during the troubled presidency of Jimmy Carter. By contrast, older Baby Boomers, who came of age politically during the turbulent and unpopular presidency of Richard Nixon, were more Democratic than most other age groups. Among older Americans in 1992, most of those then in their 50s -- also known as the "Silent" generation -- had come of age during the Eisenhower administration. Those ages 60 and older reached adulthood during the Democratic presidencies of Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of this generation is known as the "Greatest Generation," in honor of the sacrifices many made during World War I

Composer of Requiems Wrote:It's probably not going to affect the local opinion of western society much =/

Composer of Requiems Wrote:It's probably not going to affect the local opinion of western society much =/

Artie Wrote:

Composer of Requiems Wrote:It's probably not going to affect the local opinion of western society much =/

Is the USA not very popular in Singapore?

Funny, a lot of the world loved us under Bill Clinton, but Bush has totally reversed that.

Composer of Requiems Wrote:

Artie Wrote:

Composer of Requiems Wrote:It's probably not going to affect the local opinion of western society much =/

Is the USA not very popular in Singapore?

Funny, a lot of the world loved us under Bill Clinton, but Bush has totally reversed that.

To be honest, most Asians don't really have a very good impression of Americans, or Western society in general. Most of us Asians like individual Westerners, but not Western society as a whole, which strikes me as rather weird.

It isn't just Bush. The effects of Bush are mainly on a more political level; the cultural level of unpopularity already existed before this. Many people here think along the lines of "It's good that Bush is going to be gone, but whoever becomes the next president, Americans are still going to be the same." These people generally don't need to look at politics since its something happening to a far-away country and don't really connect the politics to the local changes e.g. price of food and so on. Many Asians seen Westerns as overly outgoing and bumbling; I suppose many Westerners have an Asian stereotype as cunning and untrustworthy?

In the end, it all boils down to racial stereotypes I suppose.

Artie Wrote:

Composer of Requiems Wrote:

Artie Wrote:

Composer of Requiems Wrote:It's probably not going to affect the local opinion of western society much =/

Is the USA not very popular in Singapore?

Funny, a lot of the world loved us under Bill Clinton, but Bush has totally reversed that.

To be honest, most Asians don't really have a very good impression of Americans, or Western society in general. Most of us Asians like individual Westerners, but not Western society as a whole, which strikes me as rather weird.

It isn't just Bush. The effects of Bush are mainly on a more political level; the cultural level of unpopularity already existed before this. Many people here think along the lines of "It's good that Bush is going to be gone, but whoever becomes the next president, Americans are still going to be the same." These people generally don't need to look at politics since its something happening to a far-away country and don't really connect the politics to the local changes e.g. price of food and so on. Many Asians seen Westerns as overly outgoing and bumbling; I suppose many Westerners have an Asian stereotype as cunning and untrustworthy?

In the end, it all boils down to racial stereotypes I suppose.

My question is whether these stereotypes were more or less prevalent before Bush took office.

Pichuscute Wrote:Ugh, I hate this topic. It makes me wanna argue about this but I can't..... This sux.

Pichuscute Wrote:Well, its not the data, its the part where America is better since its not republican, I am independent, or would be, but I lean Republican, I just don't really agree with some of the things that Obama or Clinton want to do. (I don't completely agree with McCain either, but I agree the most with him, so oh well.)Btw, I can't really argue either since I don't know much about the candidates, I just remember which one I wanted vote for ( I did I project on it). But, ya , its more opinion than anything else. I also was thinking of bringing Global Warmning( which was mainly what I was gonna argue about) but I won't because its not worth it anymore.

Pichuscute Wrote:First of all, Christians don't want gays to marry because being gay is wrong to them/us. I'm Christian and I never really liked the idea of them marrying but I don't really care (cuz they're going to hell anyways, hehe, naw jk).

Pichuscute Wrote:If I knew what propensity and Evangicals was/were than I could answer that post, lol. I never heard of those words sorry. But, i'll try. First of all, Christians don't want gays to marry because being gay is wrong to them/us. I'm Christian and I never really liked the idea of them marrying but I don't really care (cuz they're going to hell anyways, hehe, naw jk). I completely agree with you on abortion, tho. But when has the church and state not been seperated? Only thing I know about that should be seperated from each other are science and politics (global warming. many ppl bring politics into it, wtf).

Artie Wrote:

Pichuscute Wrote:If I knew what propensity and Evangicals was/were than I could answer that post, lol. I never heard of those words sorry. But, i'll try. First of all, Christians don't want gays to marry because being gay is wrong to them/us. I'm Christian and I never really liked the idea of them marrying but I don't really care. I completely agree with you on abortion, tho. But when has the church and state not been seperated? Only thing I know about that should be seperated from each other are science and politics (global warming. many ppl bring politics into it, wtf).

If you're not going to even make an effort to look up words, then don't even bother.

Christians don't want gays to marry? Why? I study theology every day and I have NEVER seen this in the Bible, nor in the commentaries. In fact, your savior preaches equality for everyone. Why can't you follow the same example?

And your last argument (or lack thereof) makes absolutely no sense. Do you know what separation of church and state is? If you did, you would see they have NOT been separated during the Bush Administration (like on abortion or gay marriage legislation). Science and politics shouldn't be separated? Global warming isn't political? Someone that affects the economy as great as it possibly can?

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about here.