Millennials Up For Grabs?

[Person Man]

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.

That doesn't mean it will try. Or maybe the Republican party will do well this year only to get its butt kicked in 2016, by 2020, they will have established a dynasty in Congress  and will have won with a moderate conservative who oversteps and loses congress and is forced to be pushed to the center. Hey. It could happen.

[GOON]

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.

Despite living in Virginia, I'm the same age as you and I lean towards the same wing of the GOP.  I also share the same experience with people in my age group.  The friends that I have who are politically inclined--this also includes a few minorities--are drifting more and more towards voting for Rand Paul in 2016.  Most of them--much like myself--supported Obama in 2008, and have felt betrayed by him and his abandonment of the principals that gave us so much hope five years ago.

Whilst some still support Obama, most of them were die-hard Democrats to begin with.  For people born post-1993, Obama is the first President that our generation has "grown-up with," so to speak.  We also grew up under Clinton and Bush II, but Clinton was out of office by the time we were out of the first grade.  As for Bush II, our only real experience of him was the end of his second term, since I doubt most of us were studying/following politics to a serious degree during his first-term and the beginning of his second.  We knew about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina, etc, but they were just events to us.  We knew we were at war and the alleged reasons as to why, but that was the extent of our knowledge.

In comparison, Obama took office whilst our generation started high school, so we lived through and experienced his administration whilst our interest in politics began.  Hell, I would be willing to bet that Obama's 2008 campaign sparked the interest in politics that my generation currently has.  He promoted himself as offering "Hope and Change," and we bought that.  When he was sworn-in in 2009, we were elated that we were relieved of the Bush Years, and we were going to grow up under Barack Obama. 

However, the next four years led some of us to explore other options in 2012.  I remember going to a Ron Paul rally in 2012 in Northern Virginia, and I recall seeing tons of people around my age (I was 17 at the time).  Well, perhaps not exactly my age, but within the 17-21 age group.  As the years progressed, I've seen more and more people around my age supporting Rand Paul.  Perhaps some of this has to do with the disillusionment and sense of betrayal that a lot of people born post-1993 feel about Barack Obama.  The NSA, the continued meddling in the Middle East, etc, have probably played a factor in this. 

Another thing: I've found that a lot of people born post-1993 aren't necessarily loyal to one party in the way most of their elders are.  I've seen tons of people say, when confronted with a choice between two candidates, say to vote for "the Democrat," or "the Republican."  I don't find this mindset within my generation.  They're more inclined to vote for a person who represents an idea, rather than a person who represents a political party.  Another one of my friends--who is pretty far to the left--says that he'd consider voting for Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton, if only because of his foreign policy (and yes, his first choice would be Cory Booker and/or Elizabeth Warren).  Perhaps this feeling is prevalent because they've felt the failure of both major parties before they could legally drink an alcoholic beverage. 

Tl;dr summary: It's wrong to assume that Democrats have a stranglehold on the youth vote, and those who think Hillary is a shoe-in to be President of the United States are misguided.  They're also misguided if they think a guy like Rand Paul--who is able to blur the lines between Red vs. Blue--won't be able to draw the youth vote over to the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. 

[Person Man]

How Republicans like Gardner do this year will be very indicative. Can the Republicans put lipstick on the pig to solve their problems by claiming to be "New Republicans"?  

Democrats were having trouble with getting kids to vote for them in the late 90s/early 00s. It was very tough for them to find "green shoots" after their poor performance in 2004. They managed to quickly rebuild their party after GOP fatigue set in and it was enough to nearly eradicate the Republicans in 2008. 2014-2020 may be 1998-2004 all over again. This may be how things are until we find "The Next Big Thing".

[Bigby]

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.

That doesn't mean it will try. Or maybe the Republican party will do well this year only to get its butt kicked in 2016, by 2020, they will have established a dynasty in Congress  and will have won with a moderate conservative who oversteps and loses congress and is forced to be pushed to the center. Hey. It could happen.

This is all speculation on my part. For all we know, young people could suddenly become more socially conservative due to a string of events or one singular event. (Look at how people are becoming more interventionist thanks to this whole ISIS ordeal.) All I can do is speculate with the data that currently exists. But I do agree the GOP will have to change on some issues.

[New_Conservative]

Do you think a pro-SSM candidate like Rob Portman could challenge Hilary for the youth vote in 2016?

[Person Man]

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.

That doesn't mean it will try. Or maybe the Republican party will do well this year only to get its butt kicked in 2016, by 2020, they will have established a dynasty in Congress  and will have won with a moderate conservative who oversteps and loses congress and is forced to be pushed to the center. Hey. It could happen.

This is all speculation on my part. For all we know, young people could suddenly become more socially conservative due to a string of events or one singular event. (Look at how people are becoming more interventionist thanks to this whole ISIS ordeal.) All I can do is speculate with the data that currently exists. But I do agree the GOP will have to change on some issues.

I can see the pro-life movement having a streak of really good news cycles in a row (like a celebrity "having mercy" on a deformed fetus or after being raped and/or botched abortion scandals or a sudden breakthrough in medicine that is spun poorly) or a new disease or research that "proves" there is negative consequences for being gay or for healthy adults who smoke marijuana....or a terrorist attack..especially one that is stopped by gun owners.

...but just as likely there might be research that shows that there are fewer negative consequences  for mild drug use or perhaps someone does something really insensitive to women or if there is a sudden increased visibility of violent racism/sexism.

[OAM]

Do you think a pro-SSM candidate like Rob Portman could challenge Hilary for the youth vote in 2016?

Eventually, maybe, but I think by 2020 it's going to be an issue that's over and done with, thanks to a SCOTUS ruling.  It's currently the top issue, but there's many others only a bit behind.

[New_Conservative]

I wonder if the GOP will morph into a more Libertarian minded party later in my life (I'm 17 right now). I morph myself with the establishment, so I'm not in the mold but it seems a lot of young people I talk to and from here are into the Libertarian wing of the GOP right now.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The GOP becoming more libertarian won't help them win a generation that is poorer and less white than the older generations (not to mention the growing gender gap in both voting and partisanship) .

Though considering this forum's demographics, maybe this is all understandable.

[New_Conservative]

The GOP becoming more libertarian won't help them win a generation that is poorer and less white than the older generations (not to mention the growing gender gap in both voting and partisanship) .

Though considering this forum's demographics, maybe this is all understandable.

I didn't really suggest that it would help win millennials.

[DS0816]

… People in my age group are less keen about the Democrat Party.…

…Democratic.

[Person Man]

… People in my age group are less keen about the Democrat Party.…

…Democratic.

No one is keen about the Democrat Party.

[Chilltown]

I wonder if the GOP will morph into a more Libertarian minded party later in my life (I'm 17 right now). I morph myself with the establishment, so I'm not in the mold but it seems a lot of young people I talk to and from here are into the Libertarian wing of the GOP right now.

How is a 17 year old kid "morphed" into the Republican establishment?

[spacecoyote]

From the polling I've seen Millennials are simply more socially liberal than previous generations (this holds for Democratic and Republican Millennials too). On economic issues their about the same as past generations.

[Skill and Chance]

So as allegedly obsessed the likes of the Udall campaign are with social issues, its actually a good idea. Of course, with there being a 50/50 chance that Supreme Court will throw out the Right to Privacy in the next five years, it may be a good idea. The Republican Party has told libertarianesque moderates that they just say stuff to get people to vote and that they were unable to act on those things. With that gone, things will be different.

You think that Republicans will get to replace Ginsburg with someone pro-life?  They would have to get 60 seats or end the filibuster to do that.  And it would be very unwise for either side to end the Supreme Court filibuster with 2 justices on either side being over 75. 

That having been said, it's really perplexing to me that Ginsburg and Breyer didn't retire in 2013-14.  Wouldn't Scalia and Kennedy get out in 2017-18 if we had a Republican President/Senate?  There's now a real possibility of only 2 Democratic appointees being on the Court in 2021!

[m4567]

I don't really consider people in the late 90's/early 00's to be millennials.

[The Mikado]

I don't really consider people in the late 90's/early 00's to be millennials.

Yes, I've always seen the cutoff for the Millennial generation as born around 1995 or so.  Old enough to plausibly remember 9/11 might be another way of putting that.

[Skill and Chance]

I would say Millennial = 1985-1998 or so.  Basically anyone who will turn 18 between the beginning of the Iraq War and the end of Obama's 2nd term.  If people who turned 18 in 2012 count, I don't see why people turning 18 prior to 2017 shouldn't count.

[The Mikado]

The definition I always saw was something like 1982-1995.

[Citizen Hats]

I somewhat suspect that we'll simply end up with a more economically conservative Democratic Party if anything

[Person Man]

I somewhat suspect that we'll simply end up with a more economically conservative Democratic Party if anything

Maybe less aggressive on gun control?

[Boston Bread]

I somewhat suspect that we'll simply end up with a more economically conservative Democratic Party if anything

Maybe less aggressive on gun control?

Democrats are already economically conservative and non-aggressive on gun control though.
Also, I doubt that's the direction a less white, less well-off generation of youth want.

[Person Man]

I somewhat suspect that we'll simply end up with a more economically conservative Democratic Party if anything

Maybe less aggressive on gun control?

Democrats are already economically conservative and non-aggressive on gun control though.
Also, I doubt that's the direction a less white, less well-off generation of youth want.

At least from my perspective, it seems that people my age and younger just think of Abu Ghraib, Domestic Spying Katrina and Terri Schiavo when we think of Government intervention into things that aren't cut and dry guns and butter things.

[OAM]

I somewhat suspect that we'll simply end up with a more economically conservative Democratic Party if anything

Maybe less aggressive on gun control?

The polling I've conducted actually showed that Millennials are *more* aggressive on gun control, though unfortunately there weren't any indicators included that would answer the all important *why*.

[Person Man]

Basically, we might be heading towards a post-civil rights version of the late Gilded Age/Progressive Era and New Deal Era where the main hot-button issues were Coach vs. First Class-type issues. There were about 30 years from about 1894 to 1930 where the First Class folks got their way and from 1932 to 1968, the folks in Coach got their way. Maybe with millennials and the decline of Evangelicals, we will see a return to that narrative. This happened before in the 19th century when religious thinking dominated politics only for them to eventually overreach with William Jennings Bryan's various crusades and prohibition.