Is the Democratic Party doomed (long term)

[Col. Roosevelt]

Right now, we stand in a good position. We have in office a pretty popular and successful two term President; we stand a good chance of winning next year as well, holding office for at least 12 years.

However, look at that Democratic Debate podium. The main stars in the party are elderly people, and the younger people like O'Malley and the Castros are no-names. The moderate wing is rapidly disappearing, as well. The only liberal voices are those of Sanders and Warren, one who is old and the other a middle aged woman who has no desire for the Presidency.

Now, look at the GOP. Right now, they're where they were in 1964. Divided, tugged far to the right, too far to win. But, they do have some moderate voices who might emerge in 2020 as potential big names like Rubio and Jindal, for instance. They have a lot of young minds and voices for Conservatism as well.

Long term, does the Democratic Party face an issue of lacking fresher faces and younger voices?

[Ebsy]

No.

[Zache]

Rubio and Jindal are moderates?

[Kingpoleon]

Yes. People like you and me think Biden has a better chance of winning than Kasich and so would support Biden if he runs. In 2020, I think I could see a Rubio-Murkowski ticket a lot easier than a Booker-Heinrich ticket.

Prediction: By 2028, the young vote is Republican and the Democrats rely on old voters' higher turnout.

[hurricanehink]

It isn't so much that the Democrats don't have any big young names. It's that so much oxygen is taken by Obama, Biden, and Hillary (and now Sanders). If GOP wins in 2016, expect people like Gillibrand, Booker, Murphy (CT) to become as well-known as Christie, Kasich, and Rubio are now. When there is a chance people might be running for president, their clout becomes much bigger, they get themselves known to the public, and they do stunts like filibustering. If Hillary or Sanders and announces they'll be a one-termer, that would create the same situation as 2008, when both parties had a long list of superstars.

[Xing]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

[Kingpoleon]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

[Ebsy]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

Not every generation gets progressively more liberal.  If so, our country wouldn't be in a much more conservative place today than in 1970.  In fact, there is some evidence that today's college students are much more conservative than those of five years ago.

There was an interesting article today about how the Democrats are doomed:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

[Ebsy]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

Not every generation gets progressively more liberal.  If so, our country wouldn't be in a much more conservative place today than in 1970.  In fact, there is some evidence that today's college students are much more conservative than those of five years ago.

There was an interesting article today about how the Democrats are doomed:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9565119/democrats-in-deep-trouble

Read the article, and that was not what it said.

[Bojack Horseman]

The only way we're ever going to win the House again is to lose the Presidency. Until that happens, enjoy the insanity coming from Capitol Hill.

[Blue3]

Col. Roosevelt, you've been going on an anti-Democratic thread creation lately.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The only way we're ever going to win the House again is to lose the Presidency. Until that happens, enjoy the insanity coming from Capitol Hill.

This doesn't make any sense.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

No they arent for two reason :

Everyone thought the boomers and late silents were the most liberal generation in history when they were young during the 1960s, and then guess what happened, they were the ones who swept the Republicans into power during the 1970s and 1980s

I would say the Greatest Generation were much more liberal  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, as in the long-term the earth will be swallowed by the sun.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

I would say based on polling demographics that most generations become more Conservative as they get older, and younger people are more liberal.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

https://www.quora.com/Do-people-become-more-conservative-as-they-age-Why

No they arent for two reason :

Everyone thought the boomers and late silents were the most liberal generation in history when they were young during the 1960s, and then guess what happened, they were the ones who swept the Republicans into power during the 1970s and 1980s

I would say the Greatest Generation were much more liberal  

[henster]

The field would look completely different had Hillary never run.

[eric82oslo]

Now, look at the GOP. Right now, they're where they were in 1964. Divided, tugged far to the right, too far to win. But, they do have some moderate voices who might emerge in 2020 as potential big names like Rubio and Jindal, for instance. They have a lot of young minds and voices for Conservatism as well.

Do you really call Jindal a moderate of all things? He is one of the most far right there is. Economically, he's the most far right by a long mile of any of the 23 presidential candidates who have been running this year (though Rand Paul is pretty far right there as well, especially on taxes). Socially, he's also one of the most far right of all the candidates (though not quite as far right as Huckabee). Cruz is more of an obstructionist (more than he is far right) who doesn't really care about policy like most other candidates, but mostly/only to secure that there will be no progress what so ever for the Democratic agenda. Thus, for me personally, candidates like Jindal and Huckabee (and Brownback in Kansas) are in many ways more far right than even Ted Cruz.

[eric82oslo]

Prediction: By 2028, the young vote is Republican and the Democrats rely on old voters' higher turnout.

So young voters will suddenly become socially intolerant and extreme, stop caring about income inequality and free higher education, and suddenly become 80% white again? Hmmm, something just doesn't match up there.

[YaBoyNY]

Looking at the way that those under 30 vote, I don't see how you could argue that it's the Democrats who are doomed. I don't buy the whole "mid-90s kids will vote Republican." It's not really backed up by any evidence.

In the short term, the real argument is 1997-2005 kids will vote 55% Republican.

Yes, the most diverse and liberal generation in history is going to vote 55% Republican. Definitely.

This generation is only more socially liberal, but not even in the progressive sense. Only in the libertarian sense. In some ways, this generation is more conservative than the last generation. They lean more republican than most people think. I for one see it because I am a millenial.

I don't see it at all. You're basically saying that Millennials are more libertarian (a laughable notion at best) because you, as one Millennial, happen to have anecdotal evidence that since you're a libertarian, our generation as a whole is more so.

This is simply incorrect and doesn't align with the actual polls and ground facts on the matter. There's no rising tide of libertarianism coming from this generation.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'd be curious to see actual polls, but my anecdotal experience has given me the impression that older millennials (let's say 25 and up now) are much more loyal to Democrats than younger ones (let's say under 22?), who definitely seem to be more split.

[YaBoyNY]

I'd be curious to see actual polls, but my anecdotal experience has given me the impression that older millennials (let's say 25 and up now) are much more loyal to Democrats than younger ones (let's say under 22?), who definitely seem to be more split.

I wouldn't say that this bit in particular is anecdotal - those who came of age during the Bush years and very early Obama years are far more Democratic leaning than those who came of age after, say, 2011/12.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'd be curious to see actual polls, but my anecdotal experience has given me the impression that older millennials (let's say 25 and up now) are much more loyal to Democrats than younger ones (let's say under 22?), who definitely seem to be more split.

I wouldn't say that this bit in particular is anecdotal - those who came of age during the Bush years and very early Obama years are far more Democratic leaning than those who came of age after, say, 2011/12.

I have been consistently maintaining that 2016 is going to see a huge gap between the 18-24 vote and the 25-29 vote.  Probably something like a tie in 18-24 and 60-38-ish in 25-29.

[eric82oslo]

I'd be curious to see actual polls, but my anecdotal experience has given me the impression that older millennials (let's say 25 and up now) are much more loyal to Democrats than younger ones (let's say under 22?), who definitely seem to be more split.

I wouldn't say that this bit in particular is anecdotal - those who came of age during the Bush years and very early Obama years are far more Democratic leaning than those who came of age after, say, 2011/12.

And you know why the reason for that is? Ignorance. These young voters who know next to nothing about politics, only know that they don't like the political situation in the US currently, and give Obama most of the blame for him. However, they know NeXT to nothing at all about all of the atrocities from the Bush years of government. That's why they're still not giving Republicans the hard, cold shoulder that they deserve. YET. That's most definitely gonna chance once they learn more though. It might happen before the 2016 election already, although they might need a few more years in order to get to grips with all of the facts and details. However, the Bernie presence is changing the dynamics of this race already, and probably will make sure that the 18-24 age group will be at least as Democratic as any other age group in the end.

[Illiniwek]

Overall, yes I think. They probably have an advantage moving forward for presidential elections, but Congressionally and at the state level it is and will be a disaster. There are so few good Democrats climbing the ranks. I believe qualified and insane Republicans will more often than not beat under-qualified, sane Democrats.