Skip to main content

Election and party affiliation a reflection of old vs. new America

Many media pundits and talking heads like to talk about how divided we are as a nation. They tend to classify the divisions as: Liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, red vs. blue, urban vs. rural, but I see the division in a different manner and feel it's become more evident every four years - that's old vs. new.

When looking at the exit polls from last week's election, with what demographics did Republican candidate Mitt Romney succeed? The old and the white - men, in particular, along with evangelicals. Where did President Obama succeed? With young voters, minorities, and women. 

The country is becoming more diverse by the year, not only with regard to race, but also with regard to people in power - women and minorities now standing alongside white males with growing numbers. Each and every new generation of voters appears to be more liberal than the last, largely due to social issues - gay rights, in particular. Women and minorities are voting in larger numbers of Democratic candidates, largely due to unfair and inaccurate stereotypes which have been cast upon them by some Republican leaders. Latino- and Asian-Americans are the two fastest growing groups of people in this country and both supported President Obama over Mitt Romney quite quite substantial margins. Gays overwhelmingly support the Democratic candidates because of their typically more liberal stance on gay rights - marriage, in particular. 

With women becoming increasingly more powerful; minorities becoming more populated; gays improving their image, acceptance, and attaining more rights in the process; and young voters become more accepting of the Democratic than the Republican platform, the Republican Party better start adjusting to the new America. Otherwise, they'll go extinct just like the old America will in the coming years. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"