DVD Talk
How the GOP can capture the Youth Vote [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : How the GOP can capture the Youth Vote


MartinBlank
01-24-08, 07:46 PM
<embed width="425" height="373" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sSeW1LozDgs&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

Not really sure what sort of discussion is to be had, just sharing.

Numanoid
01-24-08, 08:40 PM
What a tool. :lol:

Locomocha
01-24-08, 08:41 PM
I don't know what it is about that guy, but I inherently distrust him. He's got a major used-car-salesman vibe happening.

Tracer Bullet
01-24-08, 09:06 PM
I don't know that I want to listen to a foundation that has a gramatically incorrect name.

hahn
01-25-08, 01:35 AM
This guy is a total moron if he actually believes the current conservative administration is practicing "small" government. He probably also believes that they don't spend a lot of money either. If the GOP wants someone to get youths to actually consider voting for them, they maybe wanna find someone a little less stupid. Actually, a lot less stupid.

Tracer Bullet
01-25-08, 06:34 AM
Why does he talk like a first-grade teacher reading a scary story to his class?

bhk
01-25-08, 10:37 AM
Excellent message. The guy makes some nice points.
This guy is a total moron if he actually believes the current conservative administration is practicing "small" government. He probably also believes that they don't spend a lot of money either.
He never said anything like that at all.
If the GOP wants someone to get youths to actually consider voting for them, they maybe wanna find someone a little less stupid. Actually, a lot less stupid.
He didn't come across as stupid at all.

dick_grayson
01-25-08, 10:38 AM
Excellent message. The guy makes some nice points.

He never said anything like that at all.

He didn't come across as stupid at all.


beauty is in the eye of the beholder

bhk
01-25-08, 10:40 AM
beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I don't see why someone trying to get young conservatives more involved in the political process is wrong. Judging by some of the comments, people seem threatened. I was right in that he never said anything about this current admin.

Jason
01-25-08, 10:41 AM
OMFG teh terrorism! OMFG teh welfare state! OMFG teh George Soros!

What a douche.

dick_grayson
01-25-08, 10:42 AM
Judging by some of the comments, people seem threatened.


:lol: whatever

Red Dog
01-25-08, 10:43 AM
I wasn't aware that there was a 'youth vote' to capture. ;)

bhk
01-25-08, 10:45 AM
I wasn't aware that there was a 'youth vote' to capture. ;)

He said that the youth vote could account for around 25% of the electorate in 2008. I'm not sure about that stat, but seems important if true.

Red Dog
01-25-08, 10:50 AM
This guy talks as is if he is cross between a young Howard Cosell and a white rapper.

Conservatives oppose government intervention in music and the internet? :hscratch: Since when? :lol:

wendersfan
01-25-08, 10:53 AM
The reason why a higher percentage of young people voted in the primaries is because they are energized <i>against</i> the values of the Republican Party. While I have severe doubts that this energy will extend to November, if it does you can rest assured that young people will voter overwhelmingly Democratic this fall. Given that a 18- or 19-year old has experienced little else but the failures of the Bush administration since they were in elementary school, how could anyone expect them to support another Republican?

classicman2
01-25-08, 11:20 AM
Young voters seem to like Ron Paul pretty good - I should say young people. I don't know whether they vote or not.

btw: When has any administration in the last 70 or so years practiced small government - whether Republican or Democrat?

The closest thing to it - maybe the Clinton Administration? Maybe not.

wendersfan
01-25-08, 11:44 AM
btw: When has any administration in the last 70 or so years practiced small government - whether Republican or Democrat?

The closest thing to it - maybe the Clinton Administration? Maybe not.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2130/2219203608_83a4d3488a.jpg
Looks like Clinton and Carter reduced the size of the Federal government. I guess the conclusion to be drawn is that if you want smaller government, vote for Democrats.

:shrug:

Oh, and before anyone thinks to bring it up, defense spending went up while Carter was president.

orangecrush
01-25-08, 11:54 AM
This guy talks as is if he is cross between a young Howard Cosell and a white rapper.

Conservatives oppose government intervention in music and the internet? :hscratch: Since when? :lol:
Gore was the one questioning the musicians when the Parental Advisory stickers came out. It has been Leberman and Clinton that have sought to increase the government's oversight of violence in video games. The democrates have definatly been more to blame for intervention in music and video games (I don't know about the internet though. I think both parties are to be blamed for the DMCA.)

classicman2
01-25-08, 12:11 PM
[

Oh, and before anyone thinks to bring it up, defense spending went up while Carter was president.

It most assuredly did.

If my memory hasn't failed me - the last defense budget that Carter proposed was greater in money amount than the first one that Reagan proposed. Remember - a central part of Reagan's 'platform' was rebuilding the military.

Red Dog
01-25-08, 12:23 PM
Gore was the one questioning the musicians when the Parental Advisory stickers came out. It has been Leberman and Clinton that have sought to increase the government's oversight of violence in video games. The democrates have definatly been more to blame for intervention in music and video games (I don't know about the internet though. I think both parties are to be blamed for the DMCA.)


I knew somebody was going to bring this up.

Just because there are Democrats who are pro-censorship does not automatically make conservatives anti-censorship.

Both parties are guilty of taking pro-censorship positions. One of the reasons why I say there is little difference btwn them.

orangecrush
01-25-08, 12:39 PM
I knew somebody was going to bring this up.

Just because there are Democrats who are pro-censorship does not automatically make conservatives anti-censorship.

Both parties are guilty of taking pro-censorship positions. One of the reasons why I say there is little difference btwn them.
I would say that historically Democrats have been more pro-censorship relating to music, movies and videogames. More recently the GOP has been much more pro-censoship (McCain-Fiengold), just not as much in the area of music, movies and videogames.

dick_grayson
01-25-08, 12:41 PM
haven't there been similar threads of how the GOP can capture the hispanic or black vote and so on? the old white man vote seems to be a lock.

wendersfan
01-25-08, 12:46 PM
Just because there are Democrats who are pro-censorship does not automatically make conservatives anti-censorship.It's certainly not just Democrats:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11070
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11030

classicman2
01-25-08, 12:50 PM
haven't there been similar threads of how the GOP can capture the hispanic or black vote and so on? the old white man vote seems to be a lock.

Hmm!

And here I've thought all along that older Americans tend to vote Democratic.

Red Dog
01-25-08, 12:52 PM
I would say that historically Democrats have been more pro-censorship relating to music, movies and videogames. More recently the GOP has been much more pro-censoship (McCain-Fiengold), just not as much in the area of music, movies and videogames.


It only seems that way because more well-known Democrats (the ones you mentioned) have taken up the censorship cause with music and video games.

The fact remains, to say that conservatives oppose government intervention in music and the internet is a flat out lie.

MartinBlank
01-25-08, 12:59 PM
Excellent message. The guy makes some nice points.

He never said anything like that at all.

He didn't come across as stupid at all.

I was waiting for someone to kick this off. I find it interesting that off the bat everyone attacked the messenger, making no note of what he had to say.

Just that :)

wendersfan
01-25-08, 01:06 PM
I was waiting for someone to kick this off. I find it interesting that off the bat everyone attacked the messenger, making no note of what he had to say.At least five different posters responded to the comments the guy in the video made.

hahn
01-25-08, 01:08 PM
I was waiting for someone to kick this off. I find it interesting that off the bat everyone attacked the messenger, making no note of what he had to say.

Just that :)If he said something worthwhile or meaningful, there might be something worth mentioning. Instead he rehashes everything that Bush supporters here have said since 2003's invasion (terrorism, smaller government, terrorism, Soros, TERRORISM). He actually thinks that George Soros' money is why the GOP is lagging with the youth. rotfl It couldn't be because GWB totally fucked things up.

Since you seem to support what he had to say, let's hear what YOU think was noteworthy. Don't be saying that we don't have anything to say about the message when you've posted far less.

BTW, just to quote your original post: Not really sure what sort of discussion is to be had, just sharing. Likewise, we're just "sharing".

I can't tell from his accent if he's a suburban frat boy, or street gangsta. :lol: What a poser.

Birrman54
01-25-08, 01:38 PM
If the GOP were actually interested in capturing a youth vote, they might honestly examine why large numbers of young people happen to support the candidate that the rest of the GOP establishment hates.

GreenMonkey
01-25-08, 01:44 PM
It's certainly not just Democrats:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11070
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11030

Agreed. Hillary and Joe L. are certainly big ones, but there's plenty of it on the Republican side, if not more so.

MartinBlank
01-25-08, 01:50 PM
If he said something worthwhile or meaningful, there might be something worth mentioning. Instead he rehashes everything that Bush supporters here have said since 2003's invasion (terrorism, smaller government, terrorism, Soros, TERRORISM). He actually thinks that George Soros' money is why the GOP is lagging with the youth. rotfl It couldn't be because GWB totally fucked things up.

Since you seem to support what he had to say, let's hear what YOU think was noteworthy. Don't be saying that we don't have anything to say about the message when you've posted far less.

BTW, just to quote your original post: Likewise, we're just "sharing".

I can't tell from his accent if he's a suburban frat boy, or street gangsta. :lol: What a poser.

Nice edit ;)

Ok, I get it....terrorism isn't real, it's just another damned lie from that evil Bush administration :rolleyes:

And yes, I gave no opinion at the onset because I'm was certain of what the reaction would be: Huh, huh. This guy looks stoopid!

Does it really matter what the messenger's accent is relative to the message?

If I had given my own opinion right off the bat, my theory would have been shot to shit. :wave:

hahn
01-25-08, 02:14 PM
Ok, I get it....terrorism isn't real, it's just another damned lie from that evil Bush administration :rolleyes:No, see, this is why I have such disregard for your opinions. You refuse to see anything other than black and white. That is exactly NOT what I said or suggested. Terrorism is real, but does not justify an invasion of Iraq or the loss of thousands of American soldiers. It does not justify warrantless wiretapping. It does not justify torture. It does not justify the indefinite holding of people without due process. IOW, it does not justify the suspension of civil liberties. Do you go to sleep at night worried about dying from a terrorist attack? I'd like you to point out someone who does. And unless you think terrorists are incapable of flying, or are somehow forced to stay in Iraq, don't tell me you think that all the terrorists are Iraq fighting American soldiers. Because that WOULD be stupid. In other words, even YOU don't really believe that the threat of terrorism is real enough to change any aspect of how you personally live. And YET, you pretend to actually care enough that you would demand that the American military put themselves into an unwinnable situation. Why? So you can justify how great you feel about your American citizenship? That's what infuriates me about people who continue to support the war. The vast majority are posers and hypocrites.

And yes, I gave no opinion at the onset because I'm was certain of what the reaction would be: Huh, huh. This guy looks stoopid! If you were certain what the reaction would be, then may I suggest that some part of you also thinks he sounds ridiculous and that his message is garbage. But hey, you didn't pay any attention either when most of us were screaming our heads off about how big a mistake the Iraq invasion was. You did seem to enjoy thumbing your noses at liberals for futilely protesting the war. I wouldn't expect you to change your mind now, even when a moron is vocalizing your agenda.

Does it really matter what the messenger's accent is relative to the message?Does it really matter that George W. Bush sounds like he's brain damaged when he gives public speeches? Yes. Yes, it does. It is indicative, if not completely damning, about the mentality of the speaker. In this case, it's just suggestive since we don't know much about the guy speaking. But that he feels it to be necessary to sound like he's going to break out into rap in order to reach the youth, indicates that he cares more about appearances, than substance.

Jason
01-25-08, 02:21 PM
I was waiting for someone to kick this off. I find it interesting that off the bat everyone attacked the messenger, making no note of what he had to say.

Just that :)

But he was just spouting off the same tired talking points that excite the base and piss off everyone else. If the GOP wants to attract new voters, the first thing to do is stop telling them that they're brainwashed fools.

Chrisedge
01-25-08, 02:44 PM
I like the "hotair.com" logo on the clip...

Jason
01-25-08, 02:49 PM
I like the "hotair.com" logo on the clip...

The actual clip was posted by michele malkin, so it's a very appropriate logo.

Red Dog
01-25-08, 02:50 PM
The actual clip was posted by michele malkin, so it's a very appropriate logo.


The whole thing - the clip, logo, web-host - now makes sense. ;)

wewantflair
01-25-08, 06:34 PM
Looking at this from a purely aesthetic viewpoint: if you want to appeal to young voters, you need to identify with them. The irony of a tool like this talking about appealing to young voters cannot be understated, since the video itself appeals ONLY to older people. I can't conceive of a young person (and I work with 16 year olds all day) who would identify with this guy on any level.

That's not even taking anything he said into consideration. Does the writer of this piece expect young people to sympathize with Repubs because they have less money to spend on activism?

TimJS
01-25-08, 08:54 PM
It only seems that way because more well-known Democrats (the ones you mentioned) have taken up the censorship cause with music and video games.

Bit of a threadcrap, but which party gets credit for addressing Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction by handing out draconian fines directed at broadcasters who would show Saving Pvt Ryan or stations who would play unedited versions of many popular songs?

As far as I can tell, the GOP likes to rant on this topic (mapplethorpe grants, whatever) but generally doesn't do much to correct it.

NCMojo
01-26-08, 07:10 AM
I always consider it amazingly dumb when some old stodgy tries to pass themselves off as "hip" by "talkin' the kids language" -- whether it's Quaker Oatmeal or Dannon Yogurt or the GOP. :lol:

mosquitobite
01-26-08, 09:09 AM
If the GOP were actually interested in capturing a youth vote, they might honestly examine why large numbers of young people happen to support the candidate that the rest of the GOP establishment hates.

;)

It's too bad it's mainly the young that can see what's wrong with this country. The rest would rather maintain the status quo. :shrug:

classicman2
01-26-08, 10:04 AM
The young may have a different perspective as to what is wrong with this country than what the older folks do; but, that certainly doesn't mean that many of those older folks can't see the problems this country faces and don't want to fix them. Many of them want real change.

J.J.A. Sabadoz
01-26-08, 11:02 AM
This guy talks as is if he is cross between a young Howard Cosell and a white rapper.


He reminds me of Kenneth from 30 Rock.

creekdipper
01-27-08, 04:08 PM
I always consider it amazingly dumb when some old stodgy tries to pass themselves off as "hip" by "talkin' the kids language" -- whether it's Quaker Oatmeal or Dannon Yogurt or the GOP. :lol:

You mean like when Hillary Clinton used that "get-down-with-the-sistas" accent at the black church last year?

creekdipper
01-27-08, 04:09 PM
He reminds me of Kenneth from 30 Rock.

Kenneth is the King of Cool, daddy-o...a real hep-cat!

Palpadious
01-27-08, 05:58 PM
Guys, I think the GOP have the black vote locked.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

MartinBlank
01-27-08, 08:56 PM
You mean like when Hillary Clinton used that "get-down-with-the-sistas" accent at the black church last year?

<embed width="425" height="355" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Pu9TQq0C3Ac&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed>

orangecrush
01-28-08, 08:45 AM
The fact remains, to say that conservatives oppose government intervention in music and the internet is a flat out lie.
That is a completely ridiculous over generalization. Traditional conservatism favors less government involvement in our daily lives. Just because some social conservatives want to control how people live their lives, it does not mean that all conservatives want that.

Red Dog
01-28-08, 08:58 AM
Are you sure you aren't confusing conservatism with libertarianism?

True conservatives to me are folks who take conservative viewpoint on fiscal and social issues.

classicman2
01-28-08, 09:00 AM
That's just what I was about to post.

I don't know what he means by 'traditional conservatism.'

Would he consider Sen. John Stennis (and those southerners of his ilk) to be traditional conservatives?

JasonF
01-28-08, 09:42 AM
"Traditional conservatism" = "I don't like that the term 'conservatism' means something different from my own views, so I'm going to redefine it."

orangecrush
01-28-08, 09:56 AM
"Traditional conservatism" = "I don't like that the term 'conservatism' means something different from my own views, so I'm going to redefine it."
Traditional conservatism (generally) = less government intervention. I would say that the libertarians are the "traditional conservatives" of today.

wendersfan
01-28-08, 10:07 AM
Traditional conservatism (generally) = less government intervention.No.

orangecrush
01-28-08, 11:30 AM
No.
What is the generally accepted definition of conservatism in this country then?

Groucho
01-28-08, 11:34 AM
I would say that the libertarians are the "traditional conservatives" of today.Not when it comes to social issues!

Also, I think that economically libertarians with their "let the free market decide" approach to everything differs greatly from any mainstream conservative moment of the past.

Red Dog
01-28-08, 11:35 AM
The one I gave several posts ago, with a helping of neo-conism as well. That's how I would define a present-day conservative.

VinVega
01-28-08, 11:57 AM
I don't think the GOP or the Democrats need to worry too much about the youth vote. They simply don't vote.

classicman2
01-28-08, 12:08 PM
Both parties need to be concerned with the dental adhesive vote - not the youth vote.

JasonF
01-28-08, 12:24 PM
What is the generally accepted definition of conservatism in this country then?

The modern conservative is socially conservative, pro-corporate, anti-tax, and authoritarian on issues of national security.

Note that "pro-corporate, anti-tax" is not the same as "fiscally conservative."

mosquitobite
01-28-08, 01:59 PM
Note that "pro-corporate, anti-tax" is not the same as "fiscally conservative."
:lol: AMEN!!! :lol:

wendersfan
01-28-08, 03:20 PM
What is the generally accepted definition of conservatism in this country then?There probably isn't a "generally accepted" one, but the one JasonF gave will do. Basically, conservatism is the use of government to promote the interests of business and traditional moral values. There's also something of an agrarian, anti-urban strain in it too.

orangecrush
01-29-08, 09:04 AM
There probably isn't a "generally accepted" one, but the one JasonF gave will do. Basically, conservatism is the use of government to promote the interests of business and traditional moral values. There's also something of an agrarian, anti-urban strain in it too.
So, basically what I was taught of as conservatism in high school (smaller government except for military; basically the government should have a roll more like it did "before") would now be considered libertarianism (except for the big military)?

wendersfan
01-29-08, 09:31 AM
So, basically what I was taught of as conservatism in high school (smaller government except for military; basically the government should have a roll more like it did "before") would now be considered libertarianism (except for the big military)?I think that possibly what you were taught is erroneous or maybe even revisionist history. "Before", when we had "small" government, we had laws preventing people of different races from marrying. We had laws prohibiting businesses from opening on Sundays. Oral sex between married adults was (and I guess maybe still is in some places) illegal. This is "small" government?

There are several problems we encounter when defining what we mean by small government, and what we mean by conservatism. Allow me to expound for a bit on each, in turn.

Small government. One way to define the size of government, and in fact, the most common way when comparing government "size" across countries, is by calculating the percentage of the GDP accounted for by either government revenues or government expenditures. This is fine when you are mainly interested in the impact of the government on the economy. It also helps if you have a unitary, rather than federal, system of government. Historically, most of the governing that has happened in the US has gone on at the state level. All those morality laws I listed above: state laws. So, when we talk about conservatives advocating small government, do we mean they want a limited government in general, or just a limited Federal government? There's a big difference between the two. And often when you hear conservatives advocating small government, they are referring specifically to the Federal government. They're fine with all sorts of state laws prohibiting all sorts of activities they consider wrong or immoral. Also, and not to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, there seems to be a strong correlation between advocacy of Federal power to control the behavior of individuals by a party and that party's level of control of the Federal government. Odd, that...

Conservatism. Many people like to argue that modern conservatism is descended from 19th century (or "classic") liberalism. This really isn't true, but to understand why you have to understand the classic conservative-liberal dichotomy in 19th century European politics. Conservatives favored the rights of landowners, moral values, the church, and trade policies that supported national power (as defined by the power of landowners.) Liberals favored the rights of capitalists, secularism, and trade policies that were, well, liberal, arguing that the gains from trade benefited everyone, except maybe those money-grubbing landowners, who got money from rents, surely the least ethical form of income (and I'm really not making that up.)

As we can see from the above paragraph, modern conservatism is an amalgamation of classic conservatism and classic liberalism. However, one thing that has carried over to the present day is conservatism's ties to religious values and its advocacy of the moral superiority of rural and small town life over that of cosmopolitan urbanism. The free trade issue comes and goes, so it's a bit of a wash, really.

Did that help?

classicman2
01-29-08, 09:47 AM
A good government to me is more important than a small government or a large government for that matter.

Tracer Bullet
01-29-08, 10:06 AM
Oral sex between married adults was (and I guess maybe still is in some places) illegal. This is "small" government?

May I direct your attention to Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas)?

orangecrush
01-29-08, 12:55 PM
I think that possibly what you were taught is erroneous or maybe even revisionist history. "Before", when we had "small" government, we had laws preventing people of different races from marrying. We had laws prohibiting businesses from opening on Sundays. Oral sex between married adults was (and I guess maybe still is in some places) illegal. This is "small" government?

There are several problems we encounter when defining what we mean by small government, and what we mean by conservatism. Allow me to expound for a bit on each, in turn.

Small government. One way to define the size of government, and in fact, the most common way when comparing government "size" across countries, is by calculating the percentage of the GDP accounted for by either government revenues or government expenditures. This is fine when you are mainly interested in the impact of the government on the economy. It also helps if you have a unitary, rather than federal, system of government. Historically, most of the governing that has happened in the US has gone on at the state level. All those morality laws I listed above: state laws. So, when we talk about conservatives advocating small government, do we mean they want a limited government in general, or just a limited Federal government? There's a big difference between the two. And often when you hear conservatives advocating small government, they are referring specifically to the Federal government. They're fine with all sorts of state laws prohibiting all sorts of activities they consider wrong or immoral. Also, and not to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, there seems to be a strong correlation between advocacy of Federal power to control the behavior of individuals by a party and that party's level of control of the Federal government. Odd, that...

Conservatism. Many people like to argue that modern conservatism is descended from 19th century (or "classic") liberalism. This really isn't true, but to understand why you have to understand the classic conservative-liberal dichotomy in 19th century European politics. Conservatives favored the rights of landowners, moral values, the church, and trade policies that supported national power (as defined by the power of landowners.) Liberals favored the rights of capitalists, secularism, and trade policies that were, well, liberal, arguing that the gains from trade benefited everyone, except maybe those money-grubbing landowners, who got money from rents, surely the least ethical form of income (and I'm really not making that up.)

As we can see from the above paragraph, modern conservatism is an amalgamation of classic conservatism and classic liberalism. However, one thing that has carried over to the present day is conservatism's ties to religious values and its advocacy of the moral superiority of rural and small town life over that of cosmopolitan urbanism. The free trade issue comes and goes, so it's a bit of a wash, really.

Did that help?
That was extreamly helpful. Thank you.

BKenn01
01-29-08, 10:32 PM
The reason why a higher percentage of young people voted in the primaries is because they are energized against the values of the Republican Party.

More likely that it is just the same old story. Its the Churchill quote about being a Liberal at 20 and a Conservative at 40.

I saw a quote the other day that probably accuratley describes it.

"There is nothing wrong with young people that time and paying taxes wont fix"

JMHO, this group of young people are primarily driven by the war. I can tell you I have one of them in my house. If the war front remains quite, they will be less enthused about voting.

But having said that, Obama can energize them. Hillary wont. I dont get the impression that they care for her anymore than Bush.

One positive for the GOP is that they seem to be very politically incorrect which is more favorable to Republicans

creekdipper
01-30-08, 12:22 AM
How the GOP Can Capture The Youth Vote?

Answer: Send Vanessa Hudgens & Zac Efron around the country with their vacation videos.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0