Any research on how people's political leanings change as they get older?

I've never seen where Gen X had a strong GOP lean. No doubting you but do you have a link?

My google search turned this up but not an exact correlation. It seems like nearly all articles are focused on Boomers or Millennials so Gen X is staying on brand :)

That's just it, for the most part, people don't change. It's really a myth that you get more conservative as you age. I think it just appears that way as each new generation has been more socially liberal. Hippies today seem socially retrograde in comparison to the average H.S. student.

It isn't perfect, but look at the 50-64 age group in polling. That group tends to be more GOP friendly right now than any other age group outside of the Silent Generation.

That's interesting to know. I have found with myself, as I get older and wiser, I'm leaning more liberal.

Chance for Chile to forge new path in vote to scrap Pinochet-era constitution | World news | The Guardian

Note the part about Friedman. Go too right for too long and there might eventually be backlash.

Not going to lie. With my medical situation and my financial situation, I am going more liberal. Dont tell my friends.

Most of that age group is Boomers though.

My reasons for leaning more liberal mostly have nothing to do with me. I think certain people should be able to get more help. If I was worried about myself, I wouldn't lean liberal that's for sure.

All the research I've seen indicates JPhillips is correct - people just don't change much. Some do, and results are mixed on whether that's an even split or more people slide to the conservative side, but it's definitely not a big factor either way.

I've seen it in generational polling as well, but there seems to be less of that. Most of the breakdowns I've seen are age and 50-64 seems to be a common split with the next group 31-49. Neither age group is a perfect fit.

I'll see if I can find any of the generational polling.

Here's one. I should have said that with Trump it just means a smaller Biden margin.

Morning Consult Poll

The image was too big, so I went with a link.

So civility and integrity are officially dead in American politics?

I think history books will all have 10/26/20 as the beginning of the end of the American republic. I can't think of anything more egregious done by any party, ever.

So I was thinking that the Dems can safely expand the court by 1 and, due to Mitch's hypocrisy, nominate and push through Merrick Garland without much blow back at all. I think they can sell that 'since mitch went back on his word, here's where we reverse the hypocrisy with Merrick. More than that and I think the Dems could lose the middle. An even court would be interesting and Roberts probably starts aligning more with the Conservatives as he likes to play the balancing act.

If the Dems do it, they need to do it big.

Taking the political heat of expanding the Court just so you can be in a 6-4 minority instead of a 6-3 minority seems foolish.

Do it, or don't do it. But if you do it, I think the politically feasible number is 13. You justify it by that being the number of federal circuits and to "flip" the two "stolen" seats.

It's all politics, but that seems like two arguments that would at least let you go on the Sunday shows and pass the laugh test.

And while you are doing it, expand the seats on all the federal courts. May as well take the entire political hit at once.

No. I am sort of aligned with Brian Swartz's thinking that we have been going that way for a while and that this (lack of civility and integrity) is what we want from our politicians. I would also add that we do expect civility and integrity from whichever side we believe to be the opposition. Those are seen as weaknesses in the fight.

The present day Dems remind me of the classic version of the wrestling babyface.

1.They are showing up to a Bunkhouse match in their normal wrestling attire.

2. They are trying to use arm drags and fireman carrys to win the match.

3.They are demanding a restart of the match after their opponent knocks himself out on the turnbuckle that the opponent removed himself, help the opponent up, then get thrown into the same turnbuckle and loses the match.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I was far more bothered by the Garland situation than Barrett's confirmation.

As far as politics-as-you-age, I was always on the socially moderate/fiscally conservative side of "conservative," so I've gotten more liberal over the years but that's probably more a function of how society and politics/government has changed than me. I've been voting Libertarian for President for 3 elections (this year, Biden) - once I understood that both parties spend too much and it's just a matter of what they spend it on, I found less of a reason to stick with the GOP for fiscal conservatism. I also believe reasonable regulation is necessary - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I'm just too moderate for these times, I think.

And like Spleen, I am seeing more of a big picture and less worried about how things directly affect me. I would like to see some re-prioritization and efficient cost-cutting, but given where we are, we need to raise taxes and I would support that even if if hurts me personally. I'm also voting against my business interests by gambling on something like Elizabeth Warren taking over the CFPB. That would be a worst-case scenario for business.

I totally agree with this. The idea of expanding the court without taking over the majority makes no sense to me.

The question is whether you want it to be revenge or a corrective. If you make it a corrective, you balance out the two seats that Trump shouldn't have (Barrett and Gorsuch), and go up to 11. Going beyond that is revenge and raises it another tier, meaning that the next time the GOP is in power even if there's a public demand for a return to balance (not seeing that happen, but it's the only hope for a return to sanity) they will still need to add more on as a corrective of their own, and the cycle continues.

The most likely outcome is Dems do nothing but tweet.

Next is Dems ask for two, but end with zero.

Third is Dems ask for four and bargain down to two.

I don't see any way Dems get more than two.

You underestimate the Dems, JPhillips. They will do much more than tweet. They will establish a commission that will review the situation. Then, when the commission issues its recommendation, they will INSIST that it be read into the Congressional Record. That'll show the GOP.

Ah, I forgot about Gorsuch as a replacement for garland, I'm good with this and this is what I meant if I hadn't forgotten about him.

And if the roles were reversed the question would be if the Republicans will settle for adding 4 seats or will they push for 6.

Why 2 seats that Trump shouldn't have gotten? If Obama got Garland, then seems Trump should have gotten this one.

This is why, politically, the Dems can't get too in the weeds with "fair" or "right."

They just have to assert that 13 is the right number and make it happen. They could even permanently tag it to the number of Circuits to make it seem more reasonable.

At the end of the day, it is a political power play. And they need to learn from the GOP. If you are going to do it, then do it, and don't worry about trying to make it "right."

The other option is to do nothing (which is what I predict will happen).

I just don't agree with this at all. There is no bargaining with the GOP here. The Dems get it done or not. The only bargaining is with public opinion. If they shoot for 4 or more, public opinion will quickly turn against them and Dems will quickly run scared.

They're going to be too worried about trying to keep the contrast between them and GOP as the party who plays fair. Their supporters have too much invested in pushing back against "whataboutism" to force them to play defense on that issue.

If Dems got Garland and then Trump replaced Kennedy and Ginsburg, the court makeup would be 5-4 in favor of the GOP. Right now it is 6-3. 2 more justices make it 6-5, the same balance it would be if norms had been followed.

Dems will probably do nothing but after the ACA is overturned, and it will be overturned, the political opinion may shift towards reforming the courts. Dems could pass the ACA again with a public option but the current court will just strike it down again. Then they'll just have to give medicare to everyone unless that gets struck down too.

Do you really think Garland and Barrett are at all similar outside of them both happening in an election year?

The Dems should move more quickly than that. They have two years until mid-terms. If they are going to do something, they need to do it soon enough so that people will be focused on other things by 2022. For the last 12 years, the Dems have been hurt by our ultra-short attention spans. They need to start using that to their advantage.

I actually agree with this too.

If Obama got Garland than Trump should get Barret, Kennedy would not apply as that seemed normal.

Garland seems like the perfect place to start if you're going court packing because of the circumstances. However, he's not going to be nearly as reliably left as Barrett will be reliably right. If you really want to balance it out, the 11th jurist should be non-white, gay, anti-corporation, and super liberal. But we all know that's never going to happen (and it would still just be 1 vote out of 11).

SI

Even if Biden wins, are we just on a guardrail-less roller coaster for at least the next 3 months, completely dependent on governors to have the courage to re-institute restrictions - and actually enforce them this time, if necessary? Does Trump actively attempt to make the pandemic even worse on his way out (slow down aid, vaccine progress, etc.)?

JUST IN: New cases of COVID-19 are up 26% week-over-week in the U.S., while deaths have increased by 15%, according to an HHS memo obtained by @ABC News.

40 U.S. states and territories are in an upward trajectory of new infections, the memo says. https://t.co/EHimtQ3VyA

— ABC News (@ABC) October 27, 2020

Finally, the Dems figured out their migrant caravan to scare voters /s

SI

I have no doubt that Trump is going to piss all over every thing the next 3 months after he loses a landslide on Tuesday. He is going to turn it all to shit so that the Repubs can blame the Dems as Biden tries to dig out of the pile of shit.

My 9th grade Government students - Biden 61%, Trump 19%
They think their parents are voting - Biden 58%, Trump 23%

This is in a very suburban area in GA.

I'm talking about bargaining within the Dem caucus. Manchin and other moderates aren't going to agree with four, ever. I think they will water down whatever is proposed, so if the ask is four, they'll reduce it to two.

I actually think the selling point would end up being that the court's balance isn't changed.

But then, I'm cynical enough that I don't think they'll get rid of the legislative filibuster either.

I think he's going to fire Fauci, Hahn, Redfield, anybody he thinks wasn't 100% loyal.

This.

I respect those who are closer to the conservative's way of thinking than I am. However, nothing I have seen over the last 20(?) years leads me to believe that adding two judges would seen in any other way as an assault on their country.

This is a really good podcast that looks at the election from a betting standpoint. I really like it because while everyone politic are going to somewhat bleed through, it really looks at it from a purely numbers/betting standpoint.

They had a year in the first case. The second was just a couple months before the election. There's a huge difference there. You can make an argument that it's only one, but there's a line after which the next president should make the appointment. One can debate where that line should be, but unquestionably a year out is plenty of time. I think it's reasonable to say that post-conventions or something similar is an appropriate line for being too close to the election due to the needs of campaigning then, the fact that being one justice short isn't a crisis, etc.

So the irony is if the SCOTUS strikes down the ACA, then that just provides an incentive to expand Medicare to All - because Medicare has already been judged Constitutional.

I agree, and this is what I don't understand given that Dems may control it all. Four years ago the GOP could have very easily done exactly what they campaigned on, except they forgot one tiny thing - a viable replacement plan. So they did nothing. Now, they likely have the SCOTUS votes to strike ACA at the very moment the Dems are likely to take over, which should earn the GOP a double whammy - clearly being responsible for millions losing health coverage AND paving the way for a Dem administration and majority Congress to do whatever the hell they want. It makes not one damn bit of sense.

Just in time for the new conservative majority to come up with some bs reason to strike that down

SI

Regarding the Supreme Court, I think they have it backwards...screw increasing its size, reduce it by 2. With the 2 most recent appointees getting the boot.

I remain convinced that the ACA remains because Mitch McConnell wants it that way. You can't tell me that the most ruthlessly effective politician in recent memory, given a Republican Congress and WH just fumbled the ball on this. The vote failed because he wanted it to fail, probably because it's easier to run against the ACA than the come up with something better.

Unless they passed an Amendment, the way that would almost certainly work is that no one gets the boot, but when the next two justices step down, there won't be an empty spot to nominate a replacement.

I don't disagree, but it didn't help that Trump was talking about his health plan shortly after taking over, the "big beautiful" healthcare plan that was going to have pre-existing condition coverage, cheap prescriptions, better coverage than you have now, gold-plated toilet seats, etc., at less cost than anyone was paying now. It was all obviously BS the moment he said it, but that made it virtually impossible for Congress to replace ACA without coming off as doing far less than Trump had promised. Better that nothing happens than do something that falls far short of expectations Chief Loudmouth placed at an absurdly high and unattainable bar.

And now.. is Trump trying to destroy ACA at SCOTUS against McConnell's wishes? What's the strategy behind this?

Or they can kill it in the lame duck session, then yell that the Dems had no backup plan.