Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Wisconsin] no longer ascribes to representational democracy

1848586878890»

Posts

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The problem is this argument has been around for 30+ years. "Oh, the Republicans are going to lose because their main demographic is dying off". Seriously, I heard it in the Clinton presidency.

    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. I have no factual basis for this. The 18-25 year old people that were bright eyed liberals voting for Bill Clinton? I'm not saying a majority are now Republican, but I would bet every cent I have that more from that age bracket today vote Republican (as a percentage of their peers) now, than they did then.

    I wouldn't count on an aged out demographic before most of the people here have passed on. And I would remember that Trump is still managing to get a decent portion of the youth vote from disaffected whites. Not everyone at his rallies are in retirement.

    Relying on his voter base dying off to win could work. But it's not going to happen soon. Better off on focusing on messaging and policy. And trying to fix the rigged system.

    MorganV on
    Gnome-InterruptusYoutubeLabelA Kobold's KoboldHeir
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The demographics are pretty much what they are country wide. Rural populations are getting older and whiter while most of the younger folks are starting to migrate to the cities because that is where the jobs are . On the plus side at least the suburbs are starting to switch more to blue so that over time should regain at least a few seats but given the way the districts are even if there are a handful of voters left those few remaining will still have the whip hand unless something forces massive redistricting.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The problem is this argument has been around for 30+ years. "Oh, the Republicans are going to lose because their main demographic is dying off". Seriously, I heard it in the Clinton presidency.

    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. The 18-25 year old people that were bright eyed liberals voting for Bill Clinton? I'm not saying a majority are now Republican, but I would bet every cent I have that more from that age bracket today vote Republican (as a percentage of their peers) now, than they did then.

    I wouldn't count on an aged out demographic before most of the people here have passed on. And I would remember that Trump is still managing to get a decent portion of the youth vote from disaffected whites. Not everyone at his rallies are in retirement.

    Relying on his voter base dying off to win could work. But it's not going to happen soon. Better off on focusing on messaging and policy. And trying to fix the rigged system.

    People become more likely to vote Republican as they age is a myth. People's moral choices are pretty much locked in at 30. The boomers have always been right wing.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    PhillisheremonikershrykeAegisMartini_PhilosopherJaysonFourGnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsAistanGiggles_FunsworthFencingsaxJragghenA Kobold's Kobolddispatch.odavidsdurionselectricitylikesmeKamarThe DeliveratorVeagle
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Eventually demographic shifting should help but the obscene amount of gerrymandering combined with the areas that have these votes have so few jobs there is nothing to really get more dems to move to those areas to swing elections. It is one major problem of the self sorting as more and more people move to smaller urban areas where emplyoment is available while vast swaths are basically retieress/ family farmers/rural poor farm workers.

    Gnome-InterruptusOrca
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    There is a strong familial relationship with voting republican in Wisconsin. For one, it was founded in Wisconsin and GOP wisconsinites are incredibly proud of that, which leads to number 2, their families have always voted republican so they will continue to always vote republican.

    monikershryke
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The problem is this argument has been around for 30+ years. "Oh, the Republicans are going to lose because their main demographic is dying off". Seriously, I heard it in the Clinton presidency.

    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. The 18-25 year old people that were bright eyed liberals voting for Bill Clinton? I'm not saying a majority are now Republican, but I would bet every cent I have that more from that age bracket today vote Republican (as a percentage of their peers) now, than they did then.

    I wouldn't count on an aged out demographic before most of the people here have passed on. And I would remember that Trump is still managing to get a decent portion of the youth vote from disaffected whites. Not everyone at his rallies are in retirement.

    Relying on his voter base dying off to win could work. But it's not going to happen soon. Better off on focusing on messaging and policy. And trying to fix the rigged system.

    People become more likely to vote Republican as they age is a myth. People's moral choices are pretty much locked in at 30. The boomers have always been right wing.

    I think the fact I've seen thrown around here in the past is if you vote for one party in three elections in a row, you're probably set with that party for life.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • I ZimbraI Zimbra Registered User regular
    Wisconsin is also overwhelmingly white and thinly-coded racial resentment drives a lot GOP messaging in the state.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative.

    This may be a truism, but is is not actually true. In reality, most people develop their political identity in their 20s, and barring a major shock will keep to it for their life. Now, age cohorts do get more conservative with time, but this is purely a function of survivor bias - the wealthier you are, the more likely you will survive to old age,and the more conservative you are on average.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    QanamilmonikershrykeIncenjucarVishNubMan in the MistsOremLKFencingsaxJragghenMillA Kobold's Kobolddispatch.oBlackDragon480KamarThe DeliveratorGennenalyse Rueben
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. I have no factual basis for this.

    This may be a truism, but is is not actually true. In reality, most people develop their political identity in their 20s, and barring a major shock will keep to it for their life. Now, age cohorts do get more conservative with time, but this is purely a function of survivor bias - the wealthier you are, the more likely you will survive to old age,and the more conservative you are on average.

    Apologies. Tried finding data to back up my assertion, and ran into a wall. All I have is personal anecdote (the only people I know who have changed political affiliation have been from left to right), and I'm fully aware that's useless for statistical evaluation.

    Doesn't help that they keep changing the age brackets (was 18-29 and then by 15's in Clinton's second term, and then 18-24, 25-29 and by 10's in Obama's second term). Meaning that the people in the first bracket from Clinton are split across two in Obama's).

    But without any actual evidence, I retract my declarative statement.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    The more demographics turn against Republicans, the more effective their voter disenfranchisement tactics have become.

    We keep saying that it isn't sustainable. We do keep saying that, for many years.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
    XaquinYoutubeJragghenIncenjucarOrcaMrVyngaardLoisLaneDac
  • PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    What qualifies for politically liberal also changes over time. If I voted based on the mainstream Democratic platform from 20 years ago I'd be out of touch.

    Because progress requires change, but facism is forever.

    Gnome-InterruptusYoutubeAistanMan in the MistsCauldA Kobold's KoboldBlackDragon480Gennenalyse RuebenLoisLanevalhalla130RickRude
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The problem is this argument has been around for 30+ years. "Oh, the Republicans are going to lose because their main demographic is dying off". Seriously, I heard it in the Clinton presidency.

    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. The 18-25 year old people that were bright eyed liberals voting for Bill Clinton? I'm not saying a majority are now Republican, but I would bet every cent I have that more from that age bracket today vote Republican (as a percentage of their peers) now, than they did then.

    I wouldn't count on an aged out demographic before most of the people here have passed on. And I would remember that Trump is still managing to get a decent portion of the youth vote from disaffected whites. Not everyone at his rallies are in retirement.

    Relying on his voter base dying off to win could work. But it's not going to happen soon. Better off on focusing on messaging and policy. And trying to fix the rigged system.

    People become more likely to vote Republican as they age is a myth. People's moral choices are pretty much locked in at 30. The boomers have always been right wing.

    Yes... but no

    People’s politics have been locked in but the boomers were indeed once liberal.

    The problem is that the “old people die off” assumption is backwards. Old people are around because they haven’t died off. They haven’t died off because they are rich, the more successful people in the generation with the retirement and children to sustain themselves into old age.

    The poor people die off sooner. They don’t have retirements or kids in order to keep them going. And the poor people are the liberals on net.

    Now maybe we do better because of the boom ending (IE the larger boomer population ends faster than the liberal gen x’ers dying off does)

    wbBv3fj.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    I wonder what the age demographics are for Rs/Ds in Wisconsin. Is it possible the gerrymandered R districts are full of older people, and the grim specter of death eventually shifts the state to a more even electoral field?

    E: Which is to say, their stranglehold is untenable long term if they're not actually growing the party with converts to their ideology.

    The problem is this argument has been around for 30+ years. "Oh, the Republicans are going to lose because their main demographic is dying off". Seriously, I heard it in the Clinton presidency.

    While it's true Democrats skew younger, and Republicans skew older, it's also true that as people age, they tend to get more conservative. The 18-25 year old people that were bright eyed liberals voting for Bill Clinton? I'm not saying a majority are now Republican, but I would bet every cent I have that more from that age bracket today vote Republican (as a percentage of their peers) now, than they did then.

    I wouldn't count on an aged out demographic before most of the people here have passed on. And I would remember that Trump is still managing to get a decent portion of the youth vote from disaffected whites. Not everyone at his rallies are in retirement.

    Relying on his voter base dying off to win could work. But it's not going to happen soon. Better off on focusing on messaging and policy. And trying to fix the rigged system.

    People become more likely to vote Republican as they age is a myth. People's moral choices are pretty much locked in at 30. The boomers have always been right wing.

    Yes... but no

    People’s politics have been locked in but the boomers were indeed once liberal.

    The problem is that the “old people die off” assumption is backwards. Old people are around because they haven’t died off. They haven’t died off because they are rich, the more successful people in the generation with the retirement and children to sustain themselves into old age.

    The poor people die off sooner. They don’t have retirements or kids in order to keep them going. And the poor people are the liberals on net.

    Now maybe we do better because of the boom ending (IE the larger boomer population ends faster than the liberal gen x’ers dying off does)

    You also cannot handwave the effect of living through the 80s. It was a long, sustained period of conservative propaganda that, despite the 90s backlash, didn't really break down until the reality of the Iraq War broke through at the beginning of the second Bush II term.

    SleepGnome-InterruptusIncenjucarMartini_Philosopherdispatch.oSo It GoesYoutubeMrVyngaardThe DeliveratorGennenalyse RuebenLoisLanevalhalla130RickRude
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The lesson here is we gotta take the courts way more seriously. Only race we lost in Michigan was one of the two supreme court spots.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    shrykemonikerIncenjucarA Kobold's KoboldJaysonFourGennenalyse RuebenLoisLane
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The boomers were not as liberal as is commonly believed, even back in the day. Not unlike the old meme about how everyone claims they were at Woodstock, we get the impression that all the Boomers were at Berkley protesting or some such. But the majority were just doing the standard thing, being part of the culture that the counter-culture types were against. It's just that no one spends a lot of time focusing on the person who just grows up in a small town ormedium size city or whatever and gets a job and just maintains the status quo of the culture.

    YoutubeYamiB.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited December 7
    shryke wrote: »
    The boomers were not as liberal as is commonly believed, even back in the day. Not unlike the old meme about how everyone claims they were at Woodstock, we get the impression that all the Boomers were at Berkley protesting or some such. But the majority were just doing the standard thing, being part of the culture that the counter-culture types were against. It's just that no one spends a lot of time focusing on the person who just grows up in a small town ormedium size city or whatever and gets a job and just maintains the status quo of the culture.

    Nixonland goes into this. The media portrayed the generation as all being hippies - because hippy shit sold even to non-hippies - but most young people were still mentally living in the '50s.

    That also doesn't get into the extreme levels of sexism, sexual assault, and racism in the counterculture. The organized left, especially, was not a great place to be if you weren't white, male, and at least middle class.

    Phillishere on
    shrykedispatch.oYoutubeLoisLane
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    ... and this concludes our off-topic foray into generational demographics.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    DracomicronA Kobold's KoboldMartini_Philosopher
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    edit: Always read to the end for mod edicts before posting.

    Inkstain82 on
    ElJeffe
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    So I lived in Wisconsin for a bit back in the mid 00's and while I was in a suburb of Milwaukee I never got the impression there were many politically active people. I had moved there from California and maybe I didn't know what to look for, I definitely didn't have a good grasp of the state government situation.

    Politics just weren't a thing that came up in conversation. Is that changing? Is there a way we measure the overall importance or footprint of thought that stuff has in people's lives? I'd be really curious what that trendline looks like side-by-side with the gerrymandering and abuse of power stuff.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited December 8
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    So I lived in Wisconsin for a bit back in the mid 00's and while I was in a suburb of Milwaukee I never got the impression there were many politically active people. I had moved there from California and maybe I didn't know what to look for, I definitely didn't have a good grasp of the state government situation.

    Politics just weren't a thing that came up in conversation. Is that changing? Is there a way we measure the overall importance or footprint of thought that stuff has in people's lives? I'd be really curious what that trendline looks like side-by-side with the gerrymandering and abuse of power stuff.

    Milwaukee suburbs are white flight central. It's not polite to talk politics there because you either agree with them so why bring it up, or they don't want to hear what you have to say because they don't want to confront the racism that surrounds them and their beliefs.

    In Madison, just about every conversation I have includes at least 1 comment about politics.

    Veevee on
    VeagleYoutubeAtlas in Chainsmoniker
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 8
    Veevee wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    So I lived in Wisconsin for a bit back in the mid 00's and while I was in a suburb of Milwaukee I never got the impression there were many politically active people. I had moved there from California and maybe I didn't know what to look for, I definitely didn't have a good grasp of the state government situation.

    Politics just weren't a thing that came up in conversation. Is that changing? Is there a way we measure the overall importance or footprint of thought that stuff has in people's lives? I'd be really curious what that trendline looks like side-by-side with the gerrymandering and abuse of power stuff.

    Milwaukee suburbs are white flight central. It's not polite to talk politics there because you either agree with them so why bring it up, or they don't want to hear what you have to say because they don't want to confront the racism that surrounds them and their beliefs.

    In Madison, just about every conversation I have includes at least 1 comment about politics.

    I figured as much, was it this way 15 years ago though? I was under the impression that it was only the last two election cycles where the weird evacuation of whiteness and hyper gerrymandered districts really took hold and started deciding representation. While I was there it wasn't all that polarized, people had opinions but it's not like MAGA was a thing. That "style" of political misanthropy built on a with/against attitude only really surfaced with mid - Bush Jr which coincided with when I left the area so I never really got to see how that all went down.

    The Madison comment is funny because everyone told me I'd probably really like Madison better and I should probably just move there. I was a 21 year old from liberal California at the time.


    Edit: I was in Hales Corners and worked at a gas station, so I had an above average number of people interactions a day I think. Thinking about it, it would have been late 90's early 00's and not mid. I remember the Sept 11th attacks happening right around when I moved away.

    dispatch.o on
Sign In or Register to comment.