It's an interesting analysis. The conclusion is spot on, but I think the argument is too ignorant/dismissive of history. There are gaps. The fact that, as we age, we tend to get more conservative, on average. When we are young, we are more idealistic.
And it's not about old vs. young, millennials vs. everybody else, liberal vs. conservative, or even white vs. non-white. These are the divisions that certain people want to talk about. And it's not about olive branches and kumbaya, though that's a very liberal way of looking at it.
It is truly about monied interests rigging the political process for themselves. Buying judiciaries, politicians, and whoever else needs to be bought. Shifting the tax burden onto the working class. Locking the poor kids into an educational system that fails to educate (this includes charter, since charter schools fail at the same rate as public schools). Political insiders are that way because the big-money donors want them there. There's just more big money on the right because greed as a human condition is easier to find in a conservative mindset.
The wealthy want to extract as much wealth as they can from the poor and middle class. And to do that, they need these kinds of assessments that ignore history while looking at data.
Realize that there are Trumps around the world that are doing better than ever in recent years (Austria nearly elected a Fascist/Nationalist). It is because the poor are fed up with the elites and the promise of a better life from a Fascist sounds pretty good. If a liberal offered them the same, they'd choose that (look at Britain).
There are three options left for all sane people:
Accept it.
Struggle to change from within.
Revolution.
Which will you choose/
= new reply since forum marked as read
