Why is The USA shifting leftward

[Virginiá]

most country, when young = liberal, getting older = become conservative

That's been disproved several times, hasn't it?  For example, Bush 41 ran better with the youth vote than the senior vote, and seniors voted to the left of the general electorate in 2000.  Most studies find that people make their partisan decisions based on who was in power when they were around 18.  Older voters now remember the Eisenhower years and are very Republican ... but their parents weren't.

You're right. This is largely a myth. Some people get a bit more conservative on some issues, while others may get more liberal on others. There is no real way of telling which way it will go unless you can predict future events.

What there is evidence of is that people largely lean towards the ideology/political party that they favored when coming of age. Kids that grew up during Reagan were more conservative, while kids that grew up during Clinton/Bush/Obama were a lot more liberal. These people (Millennials) will likely continue voting Democratic as they age just like the others. (I can't post my source due to new account, but search "pewresearch the politics of american generations")

I think the reason some think people get more conservative as they age is because for the past 20 - 25 years, the younger generation has skewed much more Democratic/liberal whereas the generation before them were conservative. The result is all those GenX'ers/some boomers who are now old are still conservative and it leaves that impression. However, it only leaves an impression and is not a trend.

In addition, generational replacement theories also explain why Democrats have a presidential election advantage and Republicans have a midterm advantage. Older people constitute a lot more of the midterm electorate and because those people grew up during the Carter/Reagan years (along with some boomers and the silent generation), they lean Republican. Once the Millennial generation gets older and minorities continue to move out of urban areas, Democrats will once again have the advantage in midterms. Likewise, young voters and minorities show up in far greater numbers in presidential elections, and thus the Democratic advantage.

It's funny because Republicans had a lock on presidential elections from 1968 - 1988, holding the White House for 20 of those 24 years, yet they never controlled all of Congress once during that time. Reagan's wave got him the Senate for 3 cycles, which was actually a preview of their upcoming Congressional dominance. I think what happens is the dominant parties first dominate presidential elections, then their coalition grows older and begins to dominate midterms as well. However, by this time, they most likely have lost their lock on the presidency and the cycle restarts in favor of the other party -- Unless the dominant party manages to "restart" their cycle (like the 1896 McKinley alignment).

[Virginiá]

Totally agree with this sentiment. There's also a theory that if a rising generation votes 3 times in a row for one party, they'll be mostly locked into supporting that party. Hence why many say the Millennials are staunchly in the Dem camp now.

Yes, I've read about this. I always wondered why it is, but now I think it might just be the "symptom" of an ideological shift in a newer generation. Basically, a young person votes for the party whose platform/ideals are closest to theirs. After 3 elections (either 6 years, or more like 12 years if you just go by presidential elections), if they are still voting for the same party, then that means that both that party's platform is still relevant to that person and that the person's ideals have not changed significantly either. This could lead them to conclude that the other party(s) are not for them, thus locking them in. Though, "locked in" seems less appropriate. Maybe "heavily leans towards", as we all saw the GOP's Southern Strategy convert large swathes of Southern Democrats to Republicans over a period of decades.

[Virginiá]

Again, maybe from a macro-level it's too simplified, but:

1) The electorate keeps getting younger
2) Most Gen Yers seem to care far more about social issues than fiscal ones.  That being said, many of my Co-Gen Yers have absolutely no clue what fiscal responsibility is and thus, charge up the credit cards thinking it will be society's problem to pay it off when they can't.
3) The average American (their fault or not) continues to get poorer and thus, more reliance on the gov't is needed year after year.

As I understand it, the youth share of the actual electorate hasn't changed much. It went to 19% from 2008-2012, which is good but pretty consistent, historically anyway. The damaging part is that is Millennials are heavily skewed towards Democrats and they are growing up and voting more and more. By 2016 they are expected to make up a full quarter of the electorate. All those young people who voted in 2008 are now going to be 8 years older, vote much more Democratic than the older generations, and are steadily replacing those people as the older generation "ages out" of the electorate.

There is also more to #3. It's not just people looking to the government but also the view that the wealthy and corporations are gaming the system, and Republicans are fully defending those people's inequality-widening actions and even trying to expand their ability to game the system. This issue is becoming the equivalent of the anti-government sentiment that shaped the GOP coalition from the 80s-now. Except this time, its the Republicans on the wrong side of the issue.

If Republican politicians changed with the times, they wouldn't be in this rut. But they continue to cling to their outdated views amid a growing electorate of people who do not think that way.

edited for clarification

[Virginiá]

Republicans are defending corporations?

It's not the act of defending corporations in general. They aren't all evil all the time. It's the act of defending policies that exacerbate inequality - Especially policies that are visibly associated with it. Perhaps I poorly worded what I was trying to convey.

Also, I'm not painting all Republicans as actively & specifically working towards padding their donors wallets. It's not like that. A lot are just wedded to policies that happen to create/worsen inequality. Is a politician purposefully trying to jail black people when he/she pushes "tough on crime" drug crime policies? No, but the indirect effect of those policies heavily affects black people. It's the unwillingness to recognize this and adapt that is going to hurt them with voters on the issue of inequality. Look at the GOP candidate's tax plans. They would all make things far worse while also running up quite a lot of debt. So as of right now, they aren't even trying to address the public's concern on this issue. They are avoiding it as best they can because they know they have no real standing to talk about it at this point in time with their current platform.

[Virginiá]

Weird you mention that since Mike Lee and Rand Paul have been working have been working with Cory Booker(D-NJ) on "Criminal Justice Reform". Yes I agree the US's Criminal Justice Policy should be reformed.

I specifically said "politician" though since I know some Republicans are working towards overhauling bad CJ policies. This is one thing I respect about Rand Paul, actually. He's willing to buck the recent trend of pushing policies to make voting less convenient for partisan advantage, and that's pretty big to me (in reference to allowing felons full voting rights).

As far as the tax plans go - They are horrendous in my opinion. However, when talking about deficits and debt, it wouldn't be fair to only single out Republicans. Democratic policies would also expand the deficit. The differences I find is that Democratic policies expand the deficit for the benefit of workers/average people, while these tax policies shower the most benefits on people/entities with the most money. I'd prefer that if we did either, they be paid for, of course. This "dynamic growth" theory behind tax cuts just doesn't work for me. Maybe if the top tax rate now was like 80% and we cut it in half, but that isn't the case anymore.

I feel I should say I'm not anti-Republican for the sake of being anti-Republican. I don't support a lot of their policies and their efforts towards campaign finance deregulation & rolling back voting rights is the last straw for me. So please don't think I'm just bashing them wholesale for no good reason(s).

[Virginiá]

Its not like the RNC went in front of the Supreme Court and asked for "Campaign Finance Deregulation".

They have been using the budget to loosen restrictions and ban new ones for 2 years now. They also opposed the DISCLOSE Act in 2010. Every single Republican Senator.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sec-disclosure-political-spending_56717f55e4b0648fe301a84c?04b73nmi
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html

Great strategy though, I guess. Tack on tons of toxic riders, stall negotiations until literally the last week/days, then back down on most riders. McConnell must have had a nice smile after this, seeing how staunchly anti-campaign finance reform he is/has been.

States have been busy with this as well. The GOP-controlled Michigan legislature just celebrated the beginning of a new election year by basically removing campaign finance restrictions on the state/local level while also removing straight-ticket voting to increase their chances of taking the remaining Democratic-held state offices. This will also slow lines down for people used to using that option. You can say what you want about that, but their motive is pretty obvious.

How did Republicans roll back voting rights?

Seriously? Where have you been? Ever since, and even somewhat before Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court, they have been introducing additional restrictions or hurdles to voting to slow down non-white voter strength. Voter ID despite the fact that voter fraud is practically non-existent and the most prevelant abuse comes from absentee ballots, something not even relevant to photo IDs. It's just a partisan measure meant to impact voters who lack IDs in higher numbers than others - minorities. Pick a GOP-controlled state. Chances are they have either passed this, or are trying to pass it.

Ending basically anything that makes voter registration easier, including restrictions on registration drives, ending election-day registration - Which has been shown to increase turnout by anywhere from 7% - 15% and most impacts Democratic voters. North Carolina passed a massive wave of restrictions and/or repeals of pro-voter regulations literally months after the VRA was gutted. It's not a coincidence and it has nothing to do with fraud. They passed it the first chance they got.

Making lines long on purpose and challenging voters - Florida passed a bill shortly before the 2012 election that reduced early voting and introduced a host of other measures that caused massive lines and quite a lot of provisional ballots. This wasn't by accident. They were trying to keep Democratic-leaning groups away from the polls and it was bad enough that they ended up repealing the measures due to public backlash.

Really, how much more would you want? Go on Google and type in "Republicans voting restrictions" (without quotes). You could read for a week straight. There are way more examples/instances of this then the ones I mentioned

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/
http://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-passes-countrys-worst-voter-suppression-law/
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/12/michigan_gop_bill_looks_to_wri.html

How do the Democrats benefit the average worker even when they do add to the deficit?

Both parties push policies that add to the deficit and use flimsy methods to pay (or hope to pay) for them. Democrats focus on social programs while the GOP has mostly focused on tax breaks and deregulation. Pretty easy to see the contrast between who those policies benefit.

[Virginiá]

Dems make endroads in IL, WI, FL, ME & NM govs.

It's not even just those states. In terms of redistricting, Florida would be nice but the Fair Maps amendment will ultimately prevent rigged maps - Even if it takes literally 4 years to litigate. They desperately need to get a Democratic governor in WI, MI, OH and keep Wolf in office in PA. They will also need to win most likely 2 VA governors races (2017 & 2021) as the election timing gives the GOP the ability to either pass new maps in 2021 or stall until 2022. All those other states either have at least one Democratic chamber or are just a few seats short (Like Nevada's Senate, which is just 1 seat away from majority control and New Mexico's House will likely go back to Democrats by at most, 2020). Not to mention getting Rauner & Hogan out of IL & MD if they want to rig those maps themselves (yuck).

Pretty sh**tty situation. Their best shot to do that is to actually lose in 2016, but doing that with a GOP Congress would be terrible for the country.

[Virginiá]

Losing FL-GOV in 2018 means that a Republican will appoint replacements for 4 of the 5 justices who ruled for the plaintiffs in the congressional redistricting case due to the mandatory retirement age.

Oh, good point. If you ask me, they should go for round 2 and get some initiatives going for redistricting commissions for the 2020 election. We lost 2 cycles to bad maps while they spent years bickering over this.

Either way, I have good feelings about 2018. Both of Scott's elections were razor-thin wins and between 2010 - 2014, he lost a lot of Hispanic voters. The realignment of the Hispanic vote in Florida seems to be trickling down to state races as well (though I'm hesitant to say that for sure until after 2018).

Hopefully the next GOP candidate isn't also filthy rich and willing to spend half his fortune to get elected.

[Virginiá]

Sure Maybe Dems can get some Lean R districts to go their way but most of the GOP's Congressional House advantage is below the Mason-Dixon Line(VA to TX.) I don't see the Dems being hugely competitive in that region of the country in House Races.

Given enough time, I think they will be. The fastest growing Southern states seem to be experiencing the most growth in urban centers, with significant non-white growth in places like Georgia and Texas. North Carolina also has a fair bit of pro-Democratic growth going on. So new districts these states stand to gain would be favored as Democratic districts if they can just blunt the effect of gerrymandering somewhat. Meanwhile, as these states grow, ultra-conservative Southern states may continue to lose seats in the future (past 2020).

Point is, given the current demographic trends and population movement going on in the South, Democratic prospects in the South look positive long-term.

[Virginiá]

Discuss, Beyond just the fact that younger generations are more liberal, why is this?

It is not: it is shifting rightward. Unless, of course, you take the Latin American view that National Socialism is a leftwing ideology.

I wouldn't say young kids are trending full blown socialist. They are sick of capitalism running amuck and Sanders has helped reinforce the idea that unfettered capitalism isn't the only option.

However, the beliefs and political trends of American youth are definitely not conservative or trending right in any significant way ('right' and 'conservative' as defined in America). Of course we need more presidential elections to see how the very youngest adults continue to vote, but the right's agenda finds little common ground with Millennials.