>A recent chart from Family Studies shows fertility rates by county political leaning, with the most Republican counties averaging 1.76 children per woman and the most Democratic counties averaging 1.37. While that already shows a gap, it's actually understating the difference. Even in the most Republican counties, about 30 to 40 percent of residents are still liberal. That means liberals are dragging down the average fertility rate in red counties. If we isolate the conservative portion using a weighted estimate, and assume liberals have a fertility rate of around 1.25 (which is likely, once you account for conservatives inflating the average in blue areas), then the true fertility rate for conservatives is probably closer to 2.10 or even higher-above replacement level. This also means the real fertility rate for committed liberals is likely well below 1.37, possibly in the low 1.2s or even high 1.1s. So while the chart suggests conservatives have more children, the corrected analysis shows the ideological fertility gap is even wider than it appears. Conservatives are likely sustaining their population or growing it, while liberals are on a path of steep demographic decline.
Thoughts on this?

>>511108335 (OP)
>conservatives birth more yet the youth is overwhelmingly left-leaning

>>511108335 (OP)
Look up the IQ shredder concept from Nick Land. Conservatives are livestock, progressives harvest the top 50% or so every generation.

>>511108688
Because of the media and typical teenage rebellion against their parents. A lot grow out of it.

>>511108688
>>511108843
This articles address that. Basically they are admitting to being a suicide cult that must recruit new blood to sustain their ideology.