Articles: Obama's Numbers
I think the numbers issue for Obama is interesting. I think the issues for elections that are direction changing are even more interesting.
Using the Census data for the 2008 election of voter participation by age (Census Publication P20-562 (May 2010)) and the IRS 2000CM mortality tables, I ran some rough projections on what happens to the voter population over time. Since the census source data did not break the data down by age, I purposefully did not do this by each incremental age. I then averaged the mortality rate (more accurately the survival rate) for each cohort. For younger ages, this made the mortality rate artificially high and for older ages, artificially low.
To simplify tracking specific cohorts of people, I grouped them by age. Group I is all voters under 35 in the 2008 election. Group II is voters between 35-55. Group III is voters over 55. Once assigned to a group in this analysis, a voter does not change groups as he ages.
What I found among persons that voted in 2008, 16.8% are dead by the 2020 presidential election. More significantly, those Group I voters are only two and a half percentile of the sample group, but through death alone become three and half percentile of those alive in 2020. Group II voters do not materially change through proportion of the 2008 voting group. Group III voters decline from three percentile of the voters in 2008 to only two percentile of the 2008 voters still alive in 2020.
The effect on voting is that the thinking of the voting population moves from older, established philosophies to newer philosophies among prior voters by about 20% of the vote every twelve years, due to mortality alone.
Assuming that our population continues to grow and replenish each age group, particularly the younger voters, this effect can be increased by at least another percentile or more every twelve years.
Essentially without accounting for any other factor the age component accounts for over 30% of the change in voting patterns, all other things being equal.
Any political scientist will tell you that this analysis does very little to predict changes in voting patterns. I agree.
Due to the physiologic tendency of thinking patterns and philosophies to crystalize and not change in our latter years, what it does mean that over twelve years, nearly 30% of the population is going to be able to adopt a new voting philosophy. Older voters will try to avoid it. Younger voters will change philosophies most easily. Older voters are sticky. Younger voters are more fluid.
What this means for the 2012 election is that it can have significant long-term consequences for nearly a generation's long-term voting behavior.
An 18 year old voting for his first time in 2006 may come to hate the results of his Democratic vote by 2018. He is more likely to vote Republican from 2010 onward if Republican policies are implemented and that voter associates any success with those policies.
Simultaneously, those who came of age during FDR or LBJ die out rapidly even if they rarely vary from their party of choice.
The young voter who comes to be depressed about Democrats because of their votes in 2006 and 2008 leading to economic disaster. Votes in 2010 and 2012 for Republicans that result is desired impacts on society stand to make this voter a life-long Republican. As the voter naturally shifts from being a fluid voter to a sticky voter due to age, Obama's era will be a linchpin in the voter's thinking.
If that type of pattern is noticeable while 30% or more of the population that votes changes, long-term voting habits will shift throughout the electorate.
Consequently, Republicans need to consider going "all in" in the 2012 election for the clearest philosophical pitch they can. Succeed or fail in economics or taxes, 2013 to 2017 has a good chance to be a good economic period if even 15% of Obama's enactments are repealed. Republican office holding will give investors confidence of no more Socialism in big chunks.
If voters have a clear philosophy stated with this turn around, they will attach it to the Republicans' stated philosophy, right or wrong. Only through the course of several elections espousing this philosophy will political scientists be able to assess the accuracy of philosophical pronouncements versus actual practice versus actual results.
If Republicans go "all in" philosophically with a strong Conservative message, barring unforeseen circumstances like World War III or a volcanic eruption from Yellowstone's super-volcano, Republicans can push Democrats to the back benches for the next 12 to 20 years. The longer the economic success with a strong philosophical coherence the longer that position of power will be.
In practice, this will be extremely difficult. Success breeds many fathers. Each claimant to the mantle of father of the success will try to define the philosophy to serve his financial or political gains. Dilution of the philosophy becomes probable. Confusion among newer voters become equally more probable. The likelihood of a swing back the other direction becomes stronger in the next twelve-year cycle.
The key in the second cycle is whether the Conservative philosophy is articulately taught and empirically tested to persuade future generations of its truth. The least philosophically immersed will begin pushing Conservative doctrine as gospel truth and push away naysayers as if stupid or evil. Those tendencies to seek conformity to groupthink must always be undermined and deprived of credibility. Conservatism withstands empirical scrutiny. Avoid religious indoctrination and its prevalence can last for generations because each generation can perfect it.
The key today is to take the gamble of articulating the philosophy clearly, proudly, and courageously when electoral victory is most likely. Then prepare for the withering onslaught of the dying socialistic philosophy.
