What does the GOP offer to appeal to "Millennial" voters? (born post-1980)

[Meursault]

No, it isn't.

They prefer the "War on Coal", to pander to obsolescent miners.

Or the "War on Christmas", to pander to monotheists with a martyr complex.

[Never]

No, it isn't.

They prefer the "War on Coal", to pander to obsolescent miners.

Or the "War on Christmas", to pander to monotheists with a martyr complex.

Whatever. It seems like since I pointed out that Democrats lost voters younger than twenty in 2012, people pulled out one part of my post and laughed my entire argument off. Hey, that's the Internet. No big deal.

[Meursault]

Are late-90s kids more Republican than my own 1989 cohort?

Of course. But this will not save the Reagan Coalition - late-wave Silents were more Democratic than their earlier counterparts; it did not save Roosevelt's.

[Never]

Are late-90s kids more Republican than my own 1989 cohort?

Of course. But this will not save the Reagan Coalition - late-wave Silents were more Democratic than their earlier counterparts; it did not save Roosevelt's.

Well, us late-90's kids seem Republican, if you want to rely on the available data here, here and here (last one is a blog, but a well-written one FWIW.)

Late-wave Millennials might be like late-wave Silents, but the Millennials as a whole are a much larger population than the Silents, and we probably haven't even seen the full impact of the tail end of the Millennials yet. We could see the implications of this youth trend towards Republicans in 2016.

Wouldn't it be something if the Republican nominee in 2016 wins the 18-24 demographic and the Democrat win the 25-29 cohort?

[eric82oslo]

No, it isn't.

They prefer the "War on Coal", to pander to obsolescent miners.

Or the "War on Christmas", to pander to monotheists with a martyr complex.

Or the Class War.
Even the War on Guns I'm sure they must have used on several occasions.

[Simfan34]

http://generationopportunity.org/#axzz33LTptS7n

This is a pretty decent website trying to attract the youth to the GOP.  Clearly libertarianism is appealing to some of the youth.

Also, I've posted this before, and it bears repeating.  Romney won the 18-20 year old demographic.  You read that correctly.  Now, the poll may not be perfect, but it seems to line up well with other analyses and it was cited by Nate Silver as evidence of generational changes in voting.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0328/Young-voters-more-Democratic-That-s-not-the-whole-story


Richer millenials(at this point, mostly engineers and members of a few other select occupations) are almost certainly more conservative than the poorer ones.  To those who do make a comfortable living of $80,000-$90,000/year (a decent number of engineers fit this description), the argument for lower taxes (which is definitely a draw at STATE-level races) would be fairly enticing. 


The GOP's biggest problems with millenials overall are as follows:
1) They're poorer/browner(more minorities) than average.
2) Many of them turned 18 when Bush 2 was President
3) They're socially liberal.

However, Romney's 18-20 year old performance proves that this isn't insurmountable. 

I personally think that millenials would in their best interests vote Democratic on average, but for some of the wealthier ones, that would probably not be the case.

Is this true? I mean, the part about Romney winning 18-20 year olds in particular? Really?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Is this true? I mean, the part about Romney winning 18-20 year olds in particular? Really?

No. It's from a poll that had a sample size of approximately 3 people.

[Adam Griffin]

It's pretty simple: the youngs who weren't old enough to remember Bush and who have entered an economy as young adults that

a) is in slightly better shape than it was a few years ago but
b) still has problems that many will associate that with the only President they remember - Obama

are naturally going to be a bit more Republican. I sincerely doubt that a majority of them are truly Republican, however; that'd defy the trends of the past thirty years and the Republican brand hasn't had the time to repair itself to the extent that is necessary. Even clueless youngs would still be turned off somewhat to it, particularly due to the social issues.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

One thing that does help the GOP a little bit among the youngest voters though is this: Didn't Quiverfull really take off in the mid-'90s?

I remember seeing an article about 10 years ago that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals. I don't know if this was true before that era, and I don't know if it's still true today, but that was certainly the trend 10 or 20 years ago. That was really the entire point of Quiverfull.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media scapegoats poor welfare recipients for having 1 or 2 kids, while praising right-wing Quiverfull types who have 15 or 20.

[Never]

One thing that does help the GOP a little bit among the youngest voters though is this: Didn't Quiverfull really take off in the mid-'90s?

I remember seeing an article about 10 years ago that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals. I don't know if this was true before that era, and I don't know if it's still true today, but that was certainly the trend 10 or 20 years ago. That was really the entire point of Quiverfull.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media scapegoats poor welfare recipients for having 1 or 2 kids, while praising right-wing Quiverfull types who have 15 or 20.

I wonder how much the Quiverfull movement could really have impacted the birth rate. It's always seemed to be a relatively small group, but it is possible that the movement could shape the political leanings of younger voters.

Still, you probably have a point about the conservative birthrate being higher than that of liberals. There seems to be a correlation between more religious people (conservatives) having more children and the more secular (liberals) putting off childbirth. It's easier to deliberately not have kids now than it was in previous generations with contraceptives and, ahem, abortion. I suspect that liberals have been more apt to take advantage of those methods.

[Person Man]

One thing that does help the GOP a little bit among the youngest voters though is this: Didn't Quiverfull really take off in the mid-'90s?

I remember seeing an article about 10 years ago that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals. I don't know if this was true before that era, and I don't know if it's still true today, but that was certainly the trend 10 or 20 years ago. That was really the entire point of Quiverfull.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media scapegoats poor welfare recipients for having 1 or 2 kids, while praising right-wing Quiverfull types who have 15 or 20.

It was probably always this way since at least WW1. My grandmother's mother was really religious and had 12 kids but that doesn't mean that sort of phenomenon dominates the discourse.

[Simfan34]

One thing that does help the GOP a little bit among the youngest voters though is this: Didn't Quiverfull really take off in the mid-'90s?

I remember seeing an article about 10 years ago that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals. I don't know if this was true before that era, and I don't know if it's still true today, but that was certainly the trend 10 or 20 years ago. That was really the entire point of Quiverfull.

Unfortunately, the right-wing media scapegoats poor welfare recipients for having 1 or 2 kids, while praising right-wing Quiverfull types who have 15 or 20.

But how many people are having five, not to mention fifteen children? The number is insignificantly small.

[Heimdal]

What have the Democrats to offer? Other than unemployment and the so called "social issues"?

Not hating the poor, minorities, and gays, not wanting to go to war at every provocation, and generally not acting nearly as dickish as the other side.

Yes, my impression is also that the only thing the Democrats have to offer is that they aren't Republicans.

[sg0508]

I don't know what the numbers show, but many people seem to complain that the ones having children in this country are the people with no money and who obviously don't know much about birth control. Thus, you have children you can't care for or who are brought up in broken households and then the middle class has to care for them and the family.  Ridiculous.  Then again, which party do most poor people in America vote for?

[Person Man]

Most poor people don't vote.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Most poor people don't vote.

Except me, of course.

[Non Swing Voter]

What have the Democrats to offer? Other than unemployment and the so called "social issues"?

Not hating the poor, minorities, and gays, not wanting to go to war at every provocation, and generally not acting nearly as dickish as the other side.

Yes, my impression is also that the only thing the Democrats have to offer is that they aren't Republicans.

Many people vote for the lesser of two evils so this is enough.  There are lots of third parties with good platforms, but people need a choice that can actually win, so voting for Democrats simply to not have horrible Republicans in office is a wise choice.