Millennials Up For Grabs?

[Never]

In an article by the City Journal, Matthew Hennessey argues that there is clear evidence Millennials could be an up for grabs age group in coming presidential elections. Among other things, Hennessey comments that Millennials hold views that don't necessarily align them completely with one political group or the other, making them a potentially competitive age group in the future.

The following quote sums up the article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultimately, I found this piece to be a useful read, even though some of the information synthesized in it was not new to me. Simply put, like Hennessey I suspect that Millennials will have to be strenuously fought for by both political parties in the future.

[Never]

^ Yes, the Young Outsiders you are referring to were outlined by Pew Research for their annual political typology test. This group, with its economic conservatism and socially liberal views, seems to represent the Millennial generation to an extent.

[Never]

Haven't read the article yet, but will after this. I've read things that seem to touch on the same premise, though.

Millennials 25 and up are lost to Republicans - there's just no way that this segment ever becomes pro-Republican after what they saw, much like the solid core of the Silent Generation remained staunchly Democratic into their old years. The Republicans should completely abandon any outreach efforts they have going on for those who are currently between 25 and 34 years of age.

Counter that with younger Millennials, who may view politics through the lens of Obama's administration instead of Bush's. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that current 18-25 year-olds are much more malleable, but I don't think the same polarity will exist in them. Republicans will be able to win them at times (there was some talk that 18 and 19 year-olds actually voted went for Romney in 2012), but I highly doubt that unless we have an economic 2008-redux that they'll ever fall lock-step into the Republicans like their older cohorts.

Unfortunately, the article might be old news to you, considering how your conclusions were apparently related to the author's from the get-go.

I think you have made a solid analysis on this subject. The Millennials above 25 are going to be much tougher customers for the Republican party, while those of us under that threshold will probably be more receptive to GOP outreach.

[Never]

So what is everyone's definition of the Millennial Generation? Just so we know each other's viewpoint.


I personally ascribe to the 1982 starting point view, but think the end year is more 2000 - 2005.

And what are we calling the generation after?

I feel that the Millennial generation began in the early 80's (so 1982 is definitely a good year to start) and between the late-90's and 9/11.

Some are referring to the generation after the Millennials as the Homeland generation (from the Strauss-Howe theory) or Generation Z. Either one would work.

[Never]

So what is everyone's definition of the Millennial Generation? Just so we know each other's viewpoint.


I personally ascribe to the 1982 starting point view, but think the end year is more 2000 - 2005.

And what are we calling the generation after?

I feel that the Millennial generation began in the early 80's (so 1982 is definitely a good year to start) and between the late-90's and 9/11.

Some are referring to the generation after the Millennials as the Homeland generation (from the Strauss-Howe theory) or Generation Z. Either one would work.

I'll generally agree with a start date of 1982, and suggest 2001 as an end-date.

With that in mind, the Reagan/Bush cohorts (1982-1991) are almost certain to be at least leaning Democratic for the foreseeable future. These are the "young voters" that are so often referenced as being heavily Democratic. Despite being born under the most popular Republican administrations in the modern era, the major political figures of their childhood were President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Assuming that most people start to became politically aware and political active in their teenage years, this would mean that the first election that many Reagan/Bush cohorts truly paid attention to was the election of 2000. Indeed, some of the oldest '80s children would have been eligible to vote in 2000. The animosity that the controversy of that election generated towards George W. Bush in the minds of many younger voters was then certainly only exacerbated by the rest of his administration, which proved exceptionally unpopular.

The combination of the Early Millennials entering their teenage years - their first politically active years - with the unpopular Bush administration ultimately led most of them to vote strongly for then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008, an election in which nearly all of them were eligible to vote. This, along with Obama's successful re-election campaign in 2012, probably sealed the Democratic lock on these voters.

So then comes the matter of the Late Millennials, or the Clinton cohorts (1992-2001). I am actually one of them, so my analysis of them may be biased slightly towards my own experience. However, based on their political history, I have to agree that they'll probably end up being politically malleable compared to their older counterparts. The Late Millennials were born either under the last days of President George H. W. Bush, or during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, and in all likelihood, they don't have many memories of either president. The first election that most of them were old enough to experience in a politically aware context was the election of 2008, when Barack Obama won in a wave of popular support. In 2012, most of them seem to have voted for Barack Obama - it's difficult to tell, as most sources only display the data for 18-24 year olds, or 18-29 year olds. However, considering Barack Obama's declining popularity, and the current ineffectiveness of congress and government in general, they are probably more politically independent than other age groups that have already been won over. We must also remember that the majority of the Late Millennials haven't even voted in a Presidential election yet. Those born from 1995-1998 will be voting for a Presidential candidate for the first time in 2016.

The first election in which all of the Late Millennials will be eligible to vote will be 2020 - we'll probably be able to make a more concrete statement as to party preferences after that election. But the Republicans will almost certainly not win them over if they continue to nominate socially conservative candidates who appeal to their base. They need to find a moderate candidate, who can unite swing voters and independents under a conservative message, without getting bogged down in the culture war issues of yesteryear. If they do this, they'll have a good shot at uniting the Late Millennials into a new, electable GOP coalition.

The "New Silents" or "Homelanders" - those born after 2001 - will be entering their teenage years over the next couple of political cycles. If the GOP were to become a little more forward-thinking, they could begin winning over the youth vote of the 2020's. If any group is up for grabs, it's this generation, and considering the current antics of the GOP, it may be too late to fight for the Late Millennials.

Looking at the present political climate that the Late Millennials are becoming politically aware in, we (I am a Late Millennial) could very well be politically independent as a group. Neither party is at a particularly strong point, which should definitely affect the voting habits of new voters. The Late Millennials will probably be to the right of the earlier Millennials, but it is difficult to predict the extent of this shift. It will surely depend on how much Republicans are willing to appeal to younger people going forward.

The Homelanders are probably an easier demographic for the GOP to target, but it will depend on how the coming elections play out. For instance, the Democrats winning in 2016 could prove a Pyrrhic victory if it causes the Republican party to be viewed as outsiders that should be given another chance, similar to how Clinton managed to win the presidency in 1992 after twelve years of Republican presidents in the White House. Granted, this will only work if the GOP is actively trying to expand its support, but both parties have been in far dire straits in the past than the current Republican party, so that is not out of the question.  

Odysseus, I generally agree with your conclusions and your post was very insightful. I thought I would just add my two cents on the subject.

[Never]

As a 20 year old born in 1994, I personally lean towards the growing Libertarian wing within the GOP, and I also know several other people in my age group who are also leaning in that direction. On the other hand, I live in suburban Georgia, which is currently a GOP stronghold as is.

Nationally, I agree that those born after 1993 will be more pro-GOP than the 1982 - 1992 crowd. However, the Republicans must become moderate to liberal on social issues. People in my age group are less keen about the Democrat Party's view on fiscal matters, but we're as socially liberal as those who were born in the 80's. An evangelical, socially conservative GOP cannot survive.

If the Republicans become Moderate to Liberal on social issues they could make Michigan and maybe Wisconsin competitive and even make inroads in Illinois, Connecticut, and Maine. At the same time their base in the Deep South would be very upset if the party moderated on social issues.

What are they going to do, vote Democrat?

No, but a new third party catering to these upset voters could very well pop up, and while that party might not have a prayer of winning nationally, it would throw a wrench in the GOP's strength.