When did Generation X outliberal the Baby Boomers?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2000, I believe, when Gore almost won Florida, eventhough he was suppose to have lost the election.

Younger latinos started to vote differently than their older generation parents, and Florida was a good example.

[Reaganfan]

Radicalization of the left.

In 1992 and 1996, it was acceptable for older voters to vote for Bill Clinton. After all, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", and said in his SOTU address in 1996, "The era of big Government is over."

In 2000, it was possible for both George Bush and Al Gore to persuade both young and old voters. Yes, Gore leaned left and Bush leaned right, but both were moderate enough to be all-American Presidents acceptable to young and old.

Now, you have a President who seems to have ventured into the far-left territory. He would never say half the things that Bill Clinton said in the 90s. He supports everything from Government run healthcare to same-sex marriage. This may play well with young but older folks are completely disillusioned by it. He's crossed a metaphorical line. Had Bill Clinton done that in 1996, Bob Dole would have been swept into office.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Radicalization of the left.

In 1992 and 1996, it was acceptable for older voters to vote for Bill Clinton. After all, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", and said in his SOTU address in 1996, "The era of big Government is over."

In 2000, it was possible for both George Bush and Al Gore to persuade both young and old voters. Yes, Gore leaned left and Bush leaned right, but both were moderate enough to be all-American Presidents acceptable to young and old.

Now, you have a President who seems to have ventured into the far-left territory. He would never say half the things that Bill Clinton said in the 90s. He supports everything from Government run healthcare to same-sex marriage. This may play well with young but older folks are completely disillusioned by it. He's crossed a metaphorical line. Had Bill Clinton done that in 1996, Bob Dole would have been swept into office.

And Lyndon Johnson supported everything from government run healthcare to interracial marriage.

And FDR supported everything from...government run healthcare...to making booze legal again.

Your delusions do not an analysis make.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Much of this does support Strauss and Howes political theory of general cycles in society that tend to last about 80 years (one human lifetime) and when you are born in that cycle has a huge impact on your voting habits.

The cycle of crisis-stable high-spiritual awakening-unraveling and then the next crisis period represents a broad reorganization of society to a new system of institutions that are then challenged by the children of those that built them.

They predicted Millennials to be the next generation to play the big part in reorganizing society and building new institutions.  This is and has been happening despite all the hemming and hawing by skeptics.  Millennials are rewriting the social code with quiet determination and action...a far cry from the vocal, but ineffective protesters of the idealistic boomer generation.

They theorize that idealist generations like the boomers or the generation that preceded the lost generation (literally the post civil war baby boomers) protest current institutions and seek change through social behavior and protest.  Our baby boomers were famous for filling the ranks of anti war protests and the early ones played a role in demanding civil rights for blacks..the latter part for many other disadvantaged groups.

Id imagine the previous boomeresque generation was born after the American revolution...came of age during the era of good feelings...and then went on a rampage protesting for change (temperance, abolition) until the country split into two.

The next idealist generation was born after the civil war and they protested for womens suffrage and temperance and better factory conditions.  TR was their Reagan.

It was the next generation (the lost generation or today's Xers) who had to sift through the crap and keep the good (women voting) and chuck out the bad (prohibition).  They also tend to lead during the crisis and,pull us through it.

But if you follow this the crisis tends to build, come to a head, and resolve in a 20 year period.  This would be ~1765-85, 1845-65, 1925-45...and presumably ~2005-2025.

This is why the authors were wary to say 9/11 was the main crisis.  It was the opening Salvo of what would be expected to be a period of crisis that we haven't even seen the worst of yet.  And don't tell me the world isn't going to sh**t...or that its not plausible that this means we could be headed towards war that will be largely resolved by 2025.  And that the world will be in a different paradigm after that.

The broad basis of accepting this theory is the argument that things happen not due to random events but due to the psychological development of a human lifetime looping time and again with different gemerations playing different roles in this depending on the timing.

It makes sense.  We fought for independence not because England was really being that horrid to us...but because we wanted change and we found justification and a way for change by declaring independence.

The people in 1860 had gotten tired of arguing about slavery and people decided to do something about it...either by nullifying federal laws or seceding or signing up to go fight the barbaric slave owners who didn't believe in a United States.

By 1939 the UK was ready for war.  So was the Soviet Union and the US and obviously Germany.

They *wanted* war.  FDR wanted in badly...and knew an attack on Hawaii was likely.  Why prevent a dramatic loss if it means popular support for the war you want into to solve this thing once and for all (or at least a little while).

In the four generation archetype then...the idealist generations (Boomers) draw the battle lines.  The reactive generations lead the soldiers in battle (Lost generation/generation x), the civic generation are the soldiers (GI generation, presumably Millennials)... And the adaptive generations (silent generation, todays young kids) quietly and fervently help implement the next societal order.

So the crisis and subsequent new order/stability occur in young adulthood and middle age for the civic generation, adaptive generations are born into crisis and are yojg adults in the post crisis high.  The reactive generations dont get a break until old age...and the idealists generations get a split...prosperity and stability in childhood and a slow decent into crisis in old age.

Ultimately the luckiest are the adaptive generations.  They dont have to fight the battles and they tend to be gone by the time the next crisis comes around.  That is why the alternative name for the silent generation is 'the lucky few'.

Tying this into this thread...I think Gen Xers will be much more fondly respected in their old age.  Some of our best respected presidents were from the previous reactive generation...FDR, Truman, Eisenhower...

Then we had a long string of GI presidents... Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.  Then we skipped the silents completely (Dukakis and McCain have been the only two nominees) and went right to Boomers and then Obama who is right on the cusp.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

[Brittain33]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

I think there's a difference emerging between the Millennials who started voting in the mid-to-late 2000s, when antipathy to Bush and support for Obama pulled many into the Democratic column, and the very youngest who came of age after Obama failed to change Washington and aren't political active for either side (but aren't into paleoconservatism or social conservatism.)

[hopper]

Here's a nice chart.

Very cool!

American whites born 1937-1947 and then 1955-1978 have been consistently Republican.  Only the blip from 1949-53 and especially after 1981 have been majority Dem.  

The most Republican year cohort are whites born in 1964.  They were 14 in 1978 and 24 in 1988.  They became politically aware during Carter's presidency, saw the transition to Reagan and then cast their first presidential votes in 1984.

But those born from 1961-1975 are the most Republican.  After 1975, GOP falls to parity around 1980 and Dem support grows dramatically before plateauing from 1981-1986.  The most Democratic whites alive today were born in 1986 and 1987 with Dem support at least 52% from 1983 to the last year available in 1994.

Not surprisingly, the rate holds at 53% from 1983-1993 but falls for 1994ites.  Political consciousness often doesn't begin to form until 14 according to them.. They were 14 in 2008 and have little politically oriented memory of the all GOP rule from 2003-2007. (Really from 2001-2007)

To those born after 1994.... Trust me...there was nothing good about those times.  Iraq, the axis of evil, skyrocketing food and energy prices while Bush and co lie through their teeth saying things are better than ever...just look at the housing market......................

I literally couldn't watch Bush speak after 2005.  It made me cringe so bad that I actually couldn't listen to the man say a word.  By the time Katrina happened...

Did you forget how high gas prices were from 2010-mid 2014 under Obama? I don't notice food prices vary or going up more under Bush W. than under Obama's tenure.

[hopper]

2000, I believe, when Gore almost won Florida, eventhough he was suppose to have lost the election.

Younger latinos started to vote differently than their older generation parents, and Florida was a good example.

Younger Cubans you mean in Florida.

Most Hispanics are of Mexican descent in the US and they vote strongly Dem yes.

[hopper]

Radicalization of the left.

In 1992 and 1996, it was acceptable for older voters to vote for Bill Clinton. After all, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", and said in his SOTU address in 1996, "The era of big Government is over."

In 2000, it was possible for both George Bush and Al Gore to persuade both young and old voters. Yes, Gore leaned left and Bush leaned right, but both were moderate enough to be all-American Presidents acceptable to young and old.

Now, you have a President who seems to have ventured into the far-left territory. He would never say half the things that Bill Clinton said in the 90s. He supports everything from Government run healthcare to same-sex marriage. This may play well with young but older folks are completely disillusioned by it. He's crossed a metaphorical line. Had Bill Clinton done that in 1996, Bob Dole would have been swept into office.

Gay Marriage-Some Republicans support Same-Sex Marriage like Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, and Rob Portman.

Government Run Health Care-I don't care for that except for Medicare but Medicare still gas its problems like paying doctors appropriately for their services.

1996-The Country was different demographically different then. Latinos were probably 6% of the electorate back then. Now they were 11% in 2012 and will be 13% of the electorate in 2016. On Top of that Non-Hispanic Whites keep on dropping off at a 2% clip turnout-wise in each presidential election since 1972. It doesn't help the GOP keeps on making Moderate White Voters mad in the Northeast and The Upper Midwest.

[hopper]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

Social Issues-Its more of a generational thing with the exception of Blacks who are mostly socially conservative no matter where they live or whites who live in the Deep South who are mostly evangelical.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

Social Issues-Its more of a generational thing with the exception of Blacks who are mostly socially conservative no matter where they live or whites who live in the Deep South who are mostly evangelical.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure 'socially conservative' is quite the right way to describe the way cultural issues are approached in the black community, it's very much a generational thing within those groups too.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

You must realize that doesn't work like that.  Non-hispanic white births dropped in the 90s as minority births skyrocketed.  2/3 of Millennials voted for Obama while Baby Boomers were split 50/50...(Or 3/5 and fairly even in 2012).  Remember that infograph is whites only.  The overall trend in higher minority births and their fondness of Dems means those born in 1994 probably are the most Dem friendly overall, even if the overall Dem vote drops from 54% to 52% among whites.

We'll see in 2016 much more clearly if the trend turns more GOP after the 1994 cohort. But by using the age old method of extrapolating past trends onto your forecasts with a bit of wiggle matching here and there, it would be prudent to presume there will be at least moderation as the young increasingly have no memory of Clinton or even Bush's presidency.

[Brittain33]

Radicalization of the left.

In 1992 and 1996, it was acceptable for older voters to vote for Bill Clinton. After all, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", and said in his SOTU address in 1996, "The era of big Government is over."

So your argument is, seniors were safe to vote for him on his economically liberal platform in 1992 because they knew he would course correct in 1994 after the Republicans took over Congress.

[King]

The Boomers voted for Reagan. They were anti-government because of combo Vietnam/Watergate angst and their parents were mostly New Deal pro-union generation.

So the boomers were McGovern/Reagan voters?

There's no evidence anyone voted for McGovern.

[hopper]

Radicalization of the left.

In 1992 and 1996, it was acceptable for older voters to vote for Bill Clinton. After all, he signed the "Defense of Marriage Act", and said in his SOTU address in 1996, "The era of big Government is over."

So your argument is, seniors were safe to vote for him on his economically liberal platform in 1992 because they knew he would course correct in 1994 after the Republicans took over Congress.

Clinton ran as a "Centrist" not as a liberal in 1992. He ran on "Welfare Reform". I can't imagine a Democrat running on "Welfare Reform" now.

[hopper]

The Boomers voted for Reagan. They were anti-government because of combo Vietnam/Watergate angst and their parents were mostly New Deal pro-union generation.

So the boomers were McGovern/Reagan voters?

There's no evidence anyone voted for McGovern.

That's funny. Wasn't there a lady in NYC in 1972-1973(I read about this) that said I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon.

[hopper]

There's been some speculation that the very youngest Millennials might not be quite as liberal as the older Millennials. I've said before that this might be because of Quiverfull-style thinking taking off in the mid-'90s. Once, maybe 12 years ago, I saw an article that said the birth rate among conservatives was much, much higher than among liberals.

But I think the most recent exit polls showed that the younger Millennials actually are at least as liberal than the older Millennials, at least in some states.

You must realize that doesn't work like that.  Non-hispanic white births dropped in the 90s as minority births skyrocketed.  2/3 of Millennials voted for Obama while Baby Boomers were split 50/50...(Or 3/5 and fairly even in 2012).  Remember that infograph is whites only.  The overall trend in higher minority births and their fondness of Dems means those born in 1994 probably are the most Dem friendly overall, even if the overall Dem vote drops from 54% to 52% among whites.

We'll see in 2016 much more clearly if the trend turns more GOP after the 1994 cohort. But by using the age old method of extrapolating past trends onto your forecasts with a bit of wiggle matching here and there, it would be prudent to presume there will be at least moderation as the young increasingly have no memory of Clinton or even Bush's presidency.

Hispanic Births you mean. The Black and Asian Populations are not booming like the Hispanic Population is.

Pew Research had an infograph  from November of 2011 on how people 18-28 who grew up on both Bush W.'s and Obama's presidential(the infograph covers most of his first term):

2004: 14 points more Dem than the the national average.
2006:   6 more points Dem than the national average(People who grew up during Clinton's Presidency were 13 points more Dem at 19 points more Dem than the national average.)
2008:  26 points more Dem than the national averag
2010:  14 points more Dem than the national average(This is interesting people who grew up during Clinton who were 29-36 years old in 2011 voted the exact same average.)

[Brittain33]

That's funny. Wasn't there a lady in NYC in 1972-1973(I read about this) that said I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon.

Pauline Kael

[politicus]

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure 'socially conservative' is quite the right way to describe the way cultural issues are approached in the black community

How would you describe it then?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure 'socially conservative' is quite the right way to describe the way cultural issues are approached in the black community

How would you describe it then?

That's the thing, I'm not sure. Conservative with respect to gender, maybe, but for one thing I don't think that's the only common or necessary element of 'social conservatism' in the American context. For example, black America, even middle-class black America, is vastly less receptive than white America, even indigent white America, to law-and-order politics, for reasons that should be extremely obvious. For another thing traditional gender role expectations differ somewhat between white America and black America anyway. For example, part of the historical (but recently decreasing) black animus against male homosexuality is the sensibility that it indicates some sort of lack of respect for women, which doesn't really enter into white social conservative thinking on the subject (although, weirdly, some cultures within classical antiquity might find it very familiar).

[hopper]

Intermoderate and Madeleine broadly get it right. First off, the first wave of actual boomers (even if we don't call them so) were born in the 1940’s. They are essentially in their late 60’s and 70’s now and were in their 30’s during Watergate, during the oil crisis and during the ‘come down’ from the 60’s. As a cohort (and why these sorts of generational splits should be looked at with more care) the ‘boomers’ also include the children of ‘boomers’ (those born in the 60’s). Their economic security allowed them to settle young and start a family young. The big dividing line in America is the Depression/New Deal. You can see that in the older exit polls even during the Reagan years. If people experienced that as young adults or children it made a huge difference in how they aligned themselves politically until their dying day.

It is also worth noting that the boomers (both waves) fashioned the ‘bride of the GOP’; the religious right which as a movement was very much born from the boomers (and the reasons should be self-evident, as should the reasons why it’s now starting to fall apart) Over the past 30 years that’s probably shifted maybe 10-15% of the electorate towards the GOP and against voters economic self-interest.

Now it appears at this moment, that Millennials/Gen Y are disproportionately Dem voters. If you take cohorts now in their mid 30’s, they’ve voted in four presidential cycles (all relatively close in terms of vote share) and have generally voted Democratic from Gore through to Obama. They’ve lived through ‘the stolen election’, Iraq, economic downturn and huge changes in social attitudes. That electorate is also a lot less white and lot more connected than older generations. It’s a difficult nut for the GOP to crack.

Pew has done research that’s quite interesting. If you turned 18 under Roosevelt (and would now be in your late 80’s and beyond) compared with the national average since 1994, you voted more Democratic right through until you were too small to count. The ‘Silent’ generation, the first wave of post war  boomers who turned 18 under Truman/Eisenhower (actual ‘hippies’) have been generally been more Republican except in 2000.

Boomers ‘fracture’ internally depending on your age. Those who turned 18 during Kennedy/Johnson (and are now in their 60’) are more Democratic until 2000 and then shift to the GOP. Those who turned 18 under Nixon do something completely different. They are more Republican in 1994, but that’s it. They are more Democratic than the nation and indeed could be considered to follow the average of what the entire electorate did (2004 excluded) However those who reach 18 under Ford/Carter (and therefore start their families under Reagan) are solidly GOP as are the first wave of ‘X-ers’ who reach 18 under Reagan/Bush. Those who turn 18 under Clinton, the last wave of X-ers are solidly Democratic (except the 9/11 effect  in 2004) and those who turned 18 under Bush/Obama even more solidly.

So part of the reason why the Democrats have struggled to win national elections since the 60’s (Clinton was helped by a split vote) until Obama is precisely because there wasn’t a consistent block of voters who would stick with Dems year on year to replace those who lived during the Depression who were dying off. Now there may be.

I wonder why people who turned 18 during Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon kinda switched parties. What were the reasons behind this?