You seem to assume that when conservative evangelicals have more children, those children will also grow up to be conservative and evangelical. Neither is necessarily true. Children do not necessarily inherit the ideologies or religion of their parents, so “more babies raised by Republicans” does not mean more Republican voters in 18 years. Furthermore some people (Rev. Jim Wallis for one) say that some evangelicals may or should shift Left. The focus of evangelical politics could shift away from “fear the gays” to social justice.

Actually, I assumed nothing. The post mentions that about 75-80% of children grow up to embrace the religious and party affiliations of their parents.

Which is why Italian Americans are still overwhelmingly Catholic after 100 years of assimilation in a majority-Protestant country. And why small, often insular religious groups can survive in the marketplace of ideas.

Shifts can and do occur, but with glacial slowness. African-Americans, for instance, voted strongly Republican for decades, and then began a transition to Democrats from the 1920s-1950s. Party affiliation then stabilized, and their children tend to follow the voting patterns of their parents very closely.

Southerners are another example — children followed the voting patterns of their parents very closely, then transitioned from the 1950s-1990s, and are now strongly Republican. Now their children tend strongly to vote Republican.

I’ll certainly allow that many young people vote more liberally than their parents. The tendency is for this to swing back to their parents’ value system in their 20s. The gap in church attendance by 18-25 year olds is an example. It happens almost every generation.

It’s good to see you, btw.

Children grow up within families and social networks (churches, organizations, etc.) which continue into adulthood. Such forces shape the worldview of the child.

The decision to leave these social networks or reject the beliefs of the family usually has to be consciously made and is often traumatic.

“Furthermore some people (Rev. Jim Wallis for one) say that some evangelicals may or should shift Left. The focus of evangelical politics could shift away from “fear the gays” to social justice.”

The Left has been making such predictions for about a quarter century. How’s that working out for them?

When it comes to pumping out babies in America, Hispanics are the 800lb gorilla–and they vote mostly Democrat. Unless Republicans manage to make serious inroads among Hispanics (which will be difficult) or take measures to stem the flow of immigrants both legal and illegal (which few seem serious about doing), it seems the country in 20 years will belong to the Dems.

Missed that 2nd sentence, sorry. But the rest of your comment makes the point I was trying to make by bringing up Rev. Wallis - there can be really big shifts, and sometimes they occur very rapidly, like how LBJ “lost the south”.

Furthermore continuity in political party does not mean continuity in politics - as the politics of different generations evolve, the political parties follow them (or maybe its the other way around). So while New England has been Democrat for a while, what “Democrat” means has changed, become more socially liberal, etc. I see this “more babies” argument used a lot by conservatives who argue that in 20 years they will run the country. My argument is, not necessarily, for all these reasons (big swings, conservatism changes, etc.).

“The Left has been making such predictions for about a quarter century. How’s that working out for them?”

Duno, haven’t been around for a quarter of a century yet. ô¿ô

“like how LBJ “lost the south”.”

This actually supports my thesis. The South grew annoyed with the Democrats from the 1940s onward, and started voting Republican in presidential races in the 1950s. But it didn’t really trickle down to local and state races until the 80s and 90s. The Florida Senate, for example, went Republican for the first time in 150 years in 1992, if memory serves. . .

“My argument is, not necessarily, for all these reasons (big swings, conservatism changes, etc.).”

I totally agree. Causation is a slippery beast. Hopefully we’ll both live long, healthy lives and see how it pans out.

I’m really glad to have you on the site, btw.

Marc-

The Latino birth rate is definitely a factor as well. And I agree, Republicans need to be doing a lot of outreach to the Latino community. For this election cycle, at least, we’ve nominated the candidate best likely to win over Latino voters. The black-Latino tension between the Hillary and Obama campaigns won’t hurt either. . .

Intelligencer,

There’s a reason Latinos vote Democrat: Democrats have no compunctions about redistributing the nation’s wealth to underachieving minorities, which include Latinos. What can Republicans offer Latinos to get them to switch parties?

Marc-

Thanks so much for the comment. You’ve actually inspired me to do a three part series on Latinos and the GOP. I’m putting up Part I today. . .

[…] is Part II of an earlier post.  Here is some more data on the birth rates of conservatives versus liberals, Evangelicals […]