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.

[Free Bird]

Id say the hypothesis that the 98ers will swing right due to not catching Obamamania and not fully grasping what was going on in the Bush years is worth observing in 2016. The older ones can blame Republicans because they remember them, and I think the same will happen with my kind and Democrats. Or we could give rise to more Libertarian influence, as we ARE still socially liberal. I think they're  called Young Outsiders.

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Yeah, I felt pretty clairvoyant after reading it.

[Del Tachi]

I think that the Millennial cohort (1977 to 1992 births) will be solidly in the Democratic column for quite some time to come, but the post-1993 cohort will probably lean right. 

[MATTROSE94]

I think that the Millennial cohort (1977 to 1992 births) will be solidly in the Democratic column for quite some time to come, but the post-1993 cohort will probably lean right. 

I agree with you for the most part about the voting patterns of different generations. I noticed that most Millennials that I know who remember the Reagan era seem to vote Republican more often than not, while the Millennials that remember the Clinton era seem to vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In addition, several of my co-workers that were born in the mid-1990s expressed support for Libertarian Republicans such as Ron and Rand Paul and Justin Amash.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

[Beet]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

Unless the Republicans actually ... *gasp* ... reach out to minorities.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Ben Carson/Herman Cain will allow Republicans to win the black vote !

[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.

[Dr. Liberty]

Millennials are mostly libertarian, it seems. Still liberal-leaning as they are young. Yet, they are more libertarian than past young generations.

[Penelope]

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.

[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.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The people who "came of age" during the Clinton years or slightly before have the culture war on their minds; they see the GOP as the party of intolerance, clinging to the past and distrust of science/enlightenment.  They're lost.  However, the people who are coming of age now are quite impressionable: there's a real opportunity for the GOP to brand itself as the "Get Off My Back" party, embracing a sort of libertarianism, while painting the Democrats as a party that wants full authority to mess with your paycheck (which, let's be honest, they are).

[sg0508]

I think the Republicans do have a big opportunity with those Americans who are getting stick and tired of freeloaders in society, and that includes those that simply play the system and are lazy, as well as those who were just born into brutal circumstances.  There is a growing population that is getting tired of the perception of the Democratic Party being the "Welfare Party". That's the consequence of a declining society, but seeing almost 50 million on food stamps, but with cell phones, expensive clothes, etc. roaming the streets and nothing putting anything in the system is getting to a lot of people.  That's a group the GOP has to hit on.  The problem is, Romney's "47%" comment essentially pointed that out, but in a very abrasive, elitist fashion.  

[Indy Texas]

I'm 26. My brother is 18 and will be voting for the first time in 2016 (he could vote this year too but I'm not sure he will since he's not particularly interested in politics or current events).

I have voted for a few Republicans for statewide and local office (mainly people like Kay Bailey Hutchison and pre-2012 David Dewhurst), but do not see myself voting for any of the potential Republican presidential candidates in 2016. And I say that as someone who strongly dislikes Hillary Clinton and would probably just vote for a third-party candidate before I voted for her.

I was just a wee lad when Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan of Sacramento, Defender of Capitalist Freedom and Eternal Spiritual Leader of the Republic, left office and muddled into an Alzheimer's induced fog. My only substantive experience with what happens when Republicans have full run of the place is the long national nightmare that ensued from 2001 to 2009 - complete with multiple foreign wars, inappropriate executive branch conduct and the sort of nasty, lowest-common-denominator rhetoric on things like abortion and gay marriage that make people avoid talking about politics altogether.

So it will take a lot for me to vote for a Republican for president. I can't think of G-O-P without thinking of I-R-A-Q.

My brother, by contrast, wasn't really old enough to remember most of that.

[Sol]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

Unless the Republicans actually ... *gasp* ... reach out to minorities.

They won't. It's much easier for them to become the white party.

[Beet]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

Unless the Republicans actually ... *gasp* ... reach out to minorities.

They won't. It's much easier for them to become the white party.

Race-based political parties are disgusting. Politics should be about ideas and policies. One shouldn't be forced to become a leftist or a rightist based on the genes of birth. There's something inherently racist about it. I'm still hoping against hope that there is a place for all races in both parties...

[Person Man]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

Unless the Republicans actually ... *gasp* ... reach out to minorities.

They won't. It's much easier for them to become the white party.

Race-based political parties are disgusting. Politics should be about ideas and policies. One shouldn't be forced to become a leftist or a rightist based on the genes of birth. There's something inherently racist about it. I'm still hoping against hope that there is a place for all races in both parties...

Yes. I think it was pretty ed up how 60% of white voted for Romney and that non-whites voted 80% for Obama. The exit polls made us all look like racists.

[IceSpear]

Let's not forget that the demographic explosion of minorities skews heavily young and thus more likely to be Democratic. Minority births reached a majority in 2011 , and around 55-60% of today's under 18 group is minority. It is projected that the under 18 cohort will reach minority majority status later this decade.

The young vote will be skewing even more black and brown each election cycle , furthering their Democratic lean.

Unless the Republicans actually ... *gasp* ... reach out to minorities.

They won't. It's much easier for them to become the white party.

Race-based political parties are disgusting. Politics should be about ideas and policies. One shouldn't be forced to become a leftist or a rightist based on the genes of birth. There's something inherently racist about it. I'm still hoping against hope that there is a place for all races in both parties...

That's basically how it already is in the Deep South. GOP template for the future?

[The Mikado]

All the usual caveats aside (generation theory is in large part bunk, there are people of all ideologies in all age groups, etc.)

I think the GOP does in fact have a chance with those voters who are coming into political consciousness under Obama (say, those born in 1998 or more recently), but only if they actually attempt to appeal to those voters.  As long as the Republican Party comes off as (sorry, but I'm going to be blunt) a party of rustic white hillbillies, it simply doesn't have a lot to offer to the most diverse, least rural generation in US history.  The GOP is going to have to adapt to the 21st century in order to chase those voters, because at the moment the Republican Party seems to speak a different language.

The absurd and somewhat frightening success of Ron Paul amongst younger people is a sign that the right GOP can and does win over the young voter, and a savvier, less fringey version of Ron Paul (say, his son Rand) could actually prove a very compelling candidate for that younger crowd.  The question is, could Rand Paul do that while not losing the more traditional Republican vote to apathy?

[Del Tachi]

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 operate under the Strauss-Howian definitions (while not fully ascribing to the theory), and the Civic generation in it's young adulthood right now I would describe as being born between 1977 and 1992.  Anyone post-1993 (like myself) should be part of the Adaptive "New Silent" Generation.  New Silents apparently lean right, as I think Romney won 18 year olds in 2012.

[memphis]

All the usual caveats aside (generation theory is in large part bunk, there are people of all ideologies in all age groups, etc.)

I think the GOP does in fact have a chance with those voters who are coming into political consciousness under Obama (say, those born in 1998 or more recently), but only if they actually attempt to appeal to those voters.  As long as the Republican Party comes off as (sorry, but I'm going to be blunt) a party of rustic white hillbillies, it simply doesn't have a lot to offer to the most diverse, least rural generation in US history.  The GOP is going to have to adapt to the 21st century in order to chase those voters, because at the moment the Republican Party seems to speak a different language.

The absurd and somewhat frightening success of Ron Paul amongst younger people is a sign that the right GOP can and does win over the young voter, and a savvier, less fringey version of Ron Paul (say, his son Rand) could actually prove a very compelling candidate for that younger crowd.  The question is, could Rand Paul do that while not losing the more traditional Republican vote to apathy?

Ron Paul has an extremely narrow base of very loud supporters. Even among young people, there are far more Social Conservatives and NeoConservatives than Paulite Anarcho-Utopiaists. In any case, Paul carries the same racial problems as every other Republican.  Probably even more so, as this is an ideology that is openly hostile to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.