TheAtlantic: Can Millennials Save the Democratic Party? (2016 analysis)

[hopper]

Well now new analysis is tending to show that Clinton won white college educated voters (overall, not just millennials)... which I have argued on this forum for months and was attacked quite vigorously by a certain poster or two.  The fact is that the trendlines are clear, there is one party that has a coalition that will swamp the other party in 10 years.  Hint - "white working class voters" or whatever PC term they are referred to as now, are not growing as a segment of the population... they decline every single election cycle... yet Republicans are doubling down on this group... this is not a sustainable long term strategy... at all...  Republicans just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "but they're in swing states" need to realize that Iowa and Ohio won't be swing states forever and Democrats certainly won't need those states anyways.

The Democrats shouldn't write off any states that they "won't need", especially not states like Iowa and Ohio that have until very recently been receptive, and without which the Democrats have never won a majority. I mean, they have already written off the entire Plains, the entire Rockies except one or two states, half the South, and now you want them to write off half the Midwest as well?

I am sick of Democrats who are always like, "well we need to write off this group, we need to write off that group. Let's eject the x/y/z/d/e/f/j/k from the coalition."

You do realize that the Senate, the House, state legislatures, and the presidency are all stacked against us, right?

You do realize that shooting for a 51% majority means that you have no room for error, right?

I want the minority party, which lost the president, SCOTUS, governorships, state legislaturs, the House, and the Senate to expand our coalition, not shrink it.

Why must we shrink further? What is the point of being a political party if we are never in the majority?

I am sick of the racist demographic argument. Minorities deserve a national politics where they can pick and choose which party to go to based on ideas and policies, not the color of their skin. Whites deserve this as well. The whole "we're going to build a majority on identity politics" is as offensive when coming from Democrats as from Republicans. It is not something that was ever even embraced by the grassroots, it was a corporate media creation from the start. The corporate media needs us divided by ethnicity so they can continue to monopolize their markets and grow revenue without regulation. They have been race baiting for a long time.

Should the Democrats also spend millions of dollars competing in Idaho?  How about Texas?  It was as close as Ohio was.  The point is, you don't have unlimited resources, you pick and choose your battles.  Hillary Clinton spending millions in Ohio rather than focusing it on Georgia and Arizona was a misstep.  If someone said she should spent $10 mil in Texas this cycle, they'd call that a misstep.  But, Ohio was viable because it's "been receptive."  So was West Virginia a few cycles ago.  They need to focus their message not play to states that are long gone and wholly unnecessary to amass 270.  Ohio wasn't even remotely close to being the tipping point state.

Ohio Is different from Texas. The winner of the Presidential Election has carried Ohio in every Presidential Election since 1964. Texas was last a swing state in a Presidential Election in either 1992 or 1996 so it hasn't been a swing state in 20-25 years.

[hopper]

Well now new analysis is tending to show that Clinton won white college educated voters (overall, not just millennials)... which I have argued on this forum for months and was attacked quite vigorously by a certain poster or two.  The fact is that the trendlines are clear, there is one party that has a coalition that will swamp the other party in 10 years.  Hint - "white working class voters" or whatever PC term they are referred to as now, are not growing as a segment of the population... they decline every single election cycle... yet Republicans are doubling down on this group... this is not a sustainable long term strategy... at all...  Republicans just sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "but they're in swing states" need to realize that Iowa and Ohio won't be swing states forever and Democrats certainly won't need those states anyways.

Respectfully Sir, Clinton performing extremely well among White College Educated Voters (Is this a 4 year degree or a 2 year associates degree?) is in no way shape or form, a substitute for the dramatic collapse of WWC voters nationally....

There are a lot more working and middle-class White folk, many of whom voted for Obama once or twice, than there are wealthy people that swung heavily for Clinton between '12 and '16.

As Bill Clinton famously said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-wonk-in-chief/?utm_term=.d266db2d8084

Millennials are currently a sliver of a much bigger pie.... We have yet to see the largest living generation in American History push the Football over the Goal Line on a 4th down.

I for one am not counting on the fickle attitudes of a future generation to deliver short and medium term results in any meaningful manner at the ballot boxes of America....

The Baby Boom generation thought they were "hot C**P" as well, and voted for Donald Trump by 5% Margins....

If you want to wait 20 years for the blooming of the Millennial generation, as part of a fictitious coalition of Millennials/ Wealthy White/ Latinos/Asians/African-American voters, to somehow win House/Senate/Gubernatorial and even Presidential races, there will be a ton of damage done....

There are a ton of White voters out there, that don't have four year degrees, many of whom don't have associates degrees, and quite a few as well that only have a High School Diploma.

If I understand your argument, then four out of my five daughters, four out of five partners/spouses are somehow ineligible for inclusion into your secret society of the "New Democratic Party" coalition.....

What about my grandchildren, one of whom is now 15, and Walter is only a few years away from graduating from High School, and regardless of his grades will likely face the choice of working for minimum wage, or going through the application and hopefully acceptance into Community College to learn some skills that can hopefully get him an entry level job competing against older workers with much more job experience?

Now--- you are absolutely correct that Iowa and Ohio are not Republican country forever, regardless of massive swings towards Trump in '16.

Quite frankly, I am a bit puzzled with your argument that Dems need to abandon OH and IA.... it also sounds like the Party should abandon Michigan, Wisconsin, and even places like New Hampshire and Maine..... Not even going to go into how the Democrats could lose two House seats in Oregon if your strategic plan is implemented in full.

WWC voters are part of the core of the Democratic Coalition, and if the Democratic Party chooses to abandon the roots of the Labor Movement and the New Deal Coalition, I will likely move to another Party that actually believes in fighting back against Corporate Greed, Wall Street speculation, Union-Busting, and ultimately a protection of all of the benefits that originated under FDR/New Deal/Great Recession and various Democratic Administrations over the years that fought to keep their promises to the working folks of America.

To put it bluntly, I'd prefer if you just not respond to my posts anymore... You have vigorously made your point about white working class voters, I do not in any way shape or form agree with it and I am getting sick of your trollish obsession with this group, as if their interests somehow matter more than anyone elses and your innuendo that the Democratic party needs to continually placate these voters at the expense of others (and in fact, your assertion that WWC voters are the core of the party is no longer even close to true simply by looking at raw vote totals).  If you feel uncomfortable in a party that has changed from a largely union based lower income white party to a diverse college educated party then adieu.

Also, WWC's are no more "working folks" than the rest of us who go into work every day and often pay far more in taxes, so stop acting holier than thou.  Just because some of us believe in free trade does not mean we aren't also "working folks."  Indeed, many of us grew up in humble means and worked far harder than the people you refer to, to get to where we are now and don't blame our circumstances on illegal immigration... so I don't really care for your "secret society" nonsense...

But the focus on WWC voters is something that made the Democratic Party the party of ordinary working folks and something that made the issues of ordinary working folks an issue.

The shift to a focus on social issues has made the Democratic Party a different sort of party; a party that is more concerned about the variety of choices available to middle class women (e. g. abortion, upward mobility into high management positions) then they are about the process that brought about the destruction of manufacturing jobs and how to reverse that.  The Democrats mirrored the GOP; while the GOP focused on how comfortable people could "keep their doctor", Democrats focused on things like how women could "shatter glass ceilings".  The rest of their passion was spent on issues such as those that are the focus of BLM, while GOP passions were spent on cake bakers and those who want to Make Restrooms Great Again (while Democrats wanted to Make Restrooms Great For The First Time, I suppose).

This is how Americans were robbed of their choices in politics.  This is how working class Americans woke up one day to find that the "party of the people" wasn't really interested in addressing the issues that would keep them in the middle class; they were interested in social issues advocated by folks who are donors.  The WWC were not wrong in believing that neither party was truly on their side.  Trump gave them the time of day, and then some.  Whether he was pulling the wool over their eyes or not remains to be seen.  But the WWC needed a Democratic Party whose focus was their economic welfare and not whether a small minority of folks could get an abortion or switch between bathrooms as their comfort level dictated.

Regarding the restroom topic having to do with the Transgender Community its a big deal I think if you are under the age of 35 because LGBT  issues are popular with that particular age group. If you are over the age of 35 like me I am 37 you don't care about the restroom issue.

As far as the abortion issue is concerned both political parties talk about it too much I think.

[hopper]

So the answer to the topic is the Democratic Party doesn't need saving it needs a new message and policies that fulfill  peoples answers to problems that is going to resonate with people that live in "Flyover Country"(i.e. Upper Midwest). Barring a new message and new policies the Dems will be stuck at the Presidential Level where they were from 1969-1992 because apart from being against Trump they have nothing to offer at the current time in terms of fresh policies and a fresh message. I doubt they will be out of power at the Presidential Level for a long time like they were from 1969-1976 or  1981-1992(apart from Carters single term from 1977-1980) but if they continue down their current path....

[hopper]

I mean, we've always known the Trumpist "revolution" was based on olds (mostly). Any movement with such low support among youngs is not sustainable long-term. While, of course, if Trump is a good  president, these people amy become conservative with age, I doubt Trump is the Reagan-esque figure they need in that regard. Give it ten years and, if Millennials and my generation continue voting like this, the Democrats will look very strong.

Well people over the age of 45 yes.

[Virginiá]

Barring a new message and new policies the Dems will be stuck at the Presidential Level where they were from 1969-1992 because apart from being against Trump they have nothing to offer at the current time in terms of fresh policies and a fresh message. I doubt they will be out of power at the Presidential Level for a long time like they were from 1969-1976 or  1981-1992(apart from Carters single term from 1977-1980) but if they continue down their current path....

What kind of fresh policies are needed? Many policies being pushed for by Democrats have in many cases broad public support, and elections don't always mean rejection of said policies. In fact, in 2016 the only policy that really seemed to be on trial was immigration, and the results are mixed. From a partisan perspective, the Democrats pushing so hard for liberal immigration policy doesn't seem to be helping them much.

But as for things like paid family leave, taxes on the wealthy, reigning in corporations, etc? All popular, more or less.

[hopper]

So the answer to the topic is the Democratic Party doesn't need saving it needs a new message and policies that fulfill  peoples answers to problems that is going to resonate with people that live in "Flyover Country"(i.e. Upper Midwest). Barring a new message and new policies the Dems will be stuck at the Presidential Level where they were from 1969-1992 because apart from being against Trump they have nothing to offer at the current time in terms of fresh policies and a fresh message. I doubt they will be out of power at the Presidential Level for a long time like they were from 1969-1976 or  1981-1992(apart from Carters single term from 1977-1980) but if they continue down their current path....

I hope they're enjoying their last hoorah.  But if Democrats start winning Georgia, Arizona, Florida... they will hardly need "Flyover Country." 

I wouldn't bet on those states going D in Presidential Election on a consistent basis. I just wouldn't want to count on those 3 states in every Presidential Election going D.

[NOVA Green]

Demographics are not nor have ever been destiny.

Political coalitions and partisan affiliations constantly shift.

Where will Millennial voters be 10-20 years from now politically speaking?

Imagine a scenario where this same question was posed back in 1968 or 1970 regarding the Baby Boomers?

What happened in 1984 among voters of that Generation?

Sure, it's pretty clear right now sitting in 2017 America, that Republican policies on a wide variety of issues is not especially popular with Millennial voters at large....

I'm still a bit skeptical on the concept that Millennials overall will really dramatically change the partisan political landscape 10-20 years down the line.

Sure on many social issues (Abortion and Guns excepted) we will likely see some benefits for the Democratic Party.

Foreign policy items, the Millennial generation appears to share more of classic isolationist platform when it comes to elective wars overseas (Totally understandable looking at the disproportionate burden placed as a result of the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq), but ate up the Iraq War II BS, because maybe it had something to do with 9/11 and the Twin Towers in NYC.

Economic Policy---- I don't have a ton of faith in Millennials. Overall, it appears, just like the Baby Boomers earlier, that they want to have their cake an eat it too....

They don't want to pay for national medical insurance, but expect to have comprehensive medical coverage. They are generally supportive of Free Trade and shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis because of the "cheap prices", while meanwhile friends and family members have and are losing jobs, as a direct result of unfair foreign competition that is killing the manufacturing sector.

Maybe I'm missing something, but at this point it appears that overall the Millennial Generation is extremely lacking in any type of comprehensive political paradigm that is easily translatable into a true Progressive Democratic Party Coalition....

Sure, maybe I sound a bit harsh, especially on a Forum overwhelmingly dominated by Millennials (Although most of y'all are totally awesome and political Geeks that make me wish I had the ability to go back to Grad school!).

[McGovernForPrez]

Economic Policy---- I don't have a ton of faith in Millennials. Overall, it appears, just like the Baby Boomers earlier, that they want to have their cake an eat it too....

They don't want to pay for national medical insurance, but expect to have comprehensive medical coverage. They are generally supportive of Free Trade and shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis because of the "cheap prices", while meanwhile friends and family members have and are losing jobs, as a direct result of unfair foreign competition that is killing the manufacturing sector.

Maybe I'm missing something, but at this point it appears that overall the Millennial Generation is extremely lacking in any type of comprehensive political paradigm that is easily translatable into a true Progressive Democratic Party Coalition....

Sure, maybe I sound a bit harsh, especially on a Forum overwhelmingly dominated by Millennials (Although most of y'all are totally awesome and political Geeks that make me wish I had the ability to go back to Grad school!).

Didn't millennials just break large for the socialist Jew from Vermont promising them single payer healthcare and rail against free trade agreements? I think you might be letting your age color your views here. I think Millennials are gonna be much more supportive progressive economic policies just based on their current economic situation. We're the least entrepreneurial generation in decades, we have less savings and more debt than past generations, our average earnings are much lower. All of this is despite the fact that we're the most educated generation in history. We're the group who felt the brunt of the great recession. I feel like we deserve a little more credit than this.

[Reaganfan]

Non Swing Voter, 42% of African Americans support gay marriage and 39% of Black mainline Protestants do. Those numbers are still noticeably lower than Democrats as a whole (70%) and lower than Americans as a whole at 55%. The AME churches are still an integral part of the black community and they aren't going anywhere. (http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/)

Now it's also true those numbers have been rising but that has been more as a result of younger African American and younger Hispanic Americans. Those two groups also disproportionately supported Sanders over Hillary when compared to their older counterparts.

As for Obama, well he actually won a fairly large portion of white working class voters in 2008, and he won in an election that was defined by a failing republican administration and a financial crisis. Obama and McCain were actually neck and neck in the polls until the crisis hit.

EDIT: I should clarify that I don't think it's impossible for democrats to form a coalition between college educated whites and minorities. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who, on one hand, say that it is impossible for democrats to win working class whites because they're too socially/culturally conservative but on the other hand say that the differences between minorities and college educated whites on social and economic issues are perfectly reconcilable. Although I still maintain that a working class coalition of all races would be more feasible and longer lasting.

Ronnie, I would prefer that the Democratic Party move towards a direction that looks more like Sanders vision of the Party. I was explaining what I thought the democratic leadership was gonna do going into 2020. The populist left movement will likely be very successful in their goals but getting their preferred choice of candidate in 2020 is gonna be hard. Even the Tea Party, as successful as they were in 2010, still got stuck with Mitt Romney as the nominee 2 years later.

White rural conservatives clash with liberals on many other issues besides gay marriage... particularly gun control, abortion, and foreign policy, as well as civil rights (e.g., BLM)... "conservative" minorities are more open to abortion, gun control, are more anti-war, and obviously more supportive of civil rights.  So, I think it's very arguable that their interests are better aligned. 

Black Lives Matter is not Civil Rights.

[NOVA Green]

Economic Policy---- I don't have a ton of faith in Millennials. Overall, it appears, just like the Baby Boomers earlier, that they want to have their cake an eat it too....

They don't want to pay for national medical insurance, but expect to have comprehensive medical coverage. They are generally supportive of Free Trade and shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis because of the "cheap prices", while meanwhile friends and family members have and are losing jobs, as a direct result of unfair foreign competition that is killing the manufacturing sector.

Maybe I'm missing something, but at this point it appears that overall the Millennial Generation is extremely lacking in any type of comprehensive political paradigm that is easily translatable into a true Progressive Democratic Party Coalition....

Sure, maybe I sound a bit harsh, especially on a Forum overwhelmingly dominated by Millennials (Although most of y'all are totally awesome and political Geeks that make me wish I had the ability to go back to Grad school!).

Didn't millennials just break large for the socialist Jew from Vermont promising them single payer healthcare and rail against free trade agreements? I think you might be letting your age color your views here. I think Millennials are gonna be much more supportive progressive economic policies just based on their current economic situation. We're the least entrepreneurial generation in decades, we have less savings and more debt than past generations, our average earnings are much lower. All of this is despite the fact that we're the most educated generation in history. We're the group who felt the brunt of the great recession. I feel like we deserve a little more credit than this.

Welcome to the Forum!

Bolded your initial point....

It is true that Democratic Millennials and "true independent" Millennials broke heavily for Bernie during the Democratic Primaries, as well as to a lesser extent Republican leaning Millennials.

Although there is no question that was a core base of support for Bernie in the Democratic Primaries that either allowed open primaries, or easy ability to shift voter party affiliation to vote in the Democratic Primaries, this was actually an overall relatively small sliver of the Sanders Coalition, despite all of the associated media hype.

The core base of the Bernie primary coalition was a combination of rural, small-town, and Blue Collar Democrats, in areas outside of the Deep South the vast majority of whom were Middle-Aged Democrats (35-55).

Now, you do raise some extremely important points in your subsequent statements:

"I think Millennials are gonna be much more supportive progressive economic policies just based on their current economic situation. We're the least entrepreneurial generation in decades, we have less savings and more debt than past generations, our average earnings are much lower. All of this is despite the fact that we're the most educated generation in history. We're the group who felt the brunt of the great recession. I feel like we deserve a little more credit than this."

I absolutely agree that in many ways the Millennials face the worst short-term economic outlook of just about any Generation in modern American Political History....

It is true that Generational attitudes are frequently heavily shaped by the direct economic & foreign policy environment that they experienced in their younger years (Look at the Greatest Generation of my Grandparents dealing with the Great Depression and WW II back-to-back). The "Silent Generation"/"Baby Boomers" like my parents lived through the Vietnam War & Civil Rights Movement at a time of general economic prosperity and upwards mobility.

Me and my wife are both "Gen-Exers", which is essentially now a loosely discombobulation of what used to known as Gen-X and Gen-Y....  In terms of Social Issues, we were at the forefront of extremely Liberal attitudes towards sexuality, attended racially integrated public schools, experienced the downfall of the Soviet empire as the young generation, dealt with massive cutbacks to governmental funded social programs as part of the "Reagan Revolution", in an era where the divorce rate was hitting 50% and many of us grew up in single-parent households, explosion of the AIDS epidemic, where a number of Americans thought it was either "God's plan" or somehow communicable from sitting on public toilet seats. The War on Drugs was kicking in, that essentially meant a massive rate of imprisonment for non-violent drug offenses, including simply growing or selling small amounts of marijuana.

Also, as the "No Future" generation, we did create some pretty cool music in the form of Punk Rock, Hip-Hop, Heavy Metal, and other items as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

Still, my fundamental point had less to do with Millennials in general, and more about *where this generation will be in 10-20 years*....

I am still not convinced that the Millennial Generation will save the Democratic Party in the short, medium, nor long-term, although there are obviously some hopeful signs on certain issues.

[Shadows]

Until Texas becomes blue, Dems have to cater to the WWC because otherwise they 0% chance of winning the WH without the result belt. MN & NH were within 2% odd & could swing Republican if Dems abandon the WWC. You can win FL, AZ & even GA & still lose the Electoral College.

Also, you can gain 1 Senator from FL, 2 from AZ, 2 from GA = 5 (Best possible scenario).

Currently Dem's have = 2 from MN, 2 from MI, 2 NH, 1 from WI, 1 from OH, 1 from PA = 9 Senators (Plus you can gain Iowa, PA, WI & Dems underperformed). Same for the house.

There are too many Senate & House seats in the rust belt & you just can't make up those numbers in the Sun Belt till you flip Texas which will take 10-12-15 years atleast.

Also this was vs Trump, a historically unpopular guy whom educated people shouldn't like, what if it was Kasich, the numbers wouldn't be this bad ! The Working Class has no party today & they are only turning to the GOP because the Dem party abandoned them. College educated Suburbans whites may trend Dem but will be a Swing vote depending on Candidates whereas the Working class can be a reliable voting bloc (Min Wage, Infra, Healthcare, Education, Organized Labor, Against Free Trade etc - These are historic left wing issues)