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

[Virginiá]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/can-millennials-save-the-democratic-party/518523/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Polls show college educated and non-college Millennials diverged sharply from 2012:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump approvals among non-college Millennials at a solid 50%, per Gallup

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are some other good parts to this article. It's not particularly data-heavy, or at least on data most of us aren't already privy to, but I like articles like this that put it all together in a semi-comprehensive look at the situation as a whole.

It's worth a read, imo. At least for those not generally immersed in this kind of data.

[LLR]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would suggest that WWC millennials in IA, MI, WI, and PA sunk Clinton big time.

I would bet, if you looked at data, that these "WWC millennials" are really the offspring of the older WWC folks who were directly impacted by things like NAFTA.  These voters grew up in households that were often Democratic and Unionized, but they have not been union members themselves and have not had the kind of tie to the Democratic Party, personally, that active union members have.  In What's The Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Frank shows how union membership "inoculates" folks against appeals to militaristic patriotism, religious and moral values, and the "wedge issues" of the GOP and focuses these voters on their economic interests.  "Union membership" is not likely a fact of life for young millennials in WI, MI, and PA, and some of these states that represented the heart of the labor movement in many ways (MI, WI, IN, IA, WV) are now right to work states.  In some of these states, most notably IN, Republican governors (Mitch Daniels, in particular) rammed through right to work laws after explicitly promising not to, so fewer millennials will have, over time, the experience of being unionized.

[heatcharger]

Just based on what I've seen in Virginia and in some recent polls of the state (Quinnipiac poll showing Trump at -43 with the 18-34 age range), the generation who will vote for the first time in 2020 (or 2018) will be a strongly Democratic demographic thanks to Trump. However, Virginia's youngs are more diverse than the nation, and the article accurately points out that there is a big split between non-college and college whites in the generation. It remains to be seen how much that will matter.

The problem of course for Democrats, as always, is getting young people to turnout. For some reason, there's a selfish feeling among many young people that politicians have to earn their vote, so we'll see if the anti-Trump fervor, coupled with a likable Democratic candidate, will fuel young people to the polls. On the contrary, it will be interesting to see if the youngs who supported Trump show up again in 2020 if he's not the Reagan we expect him not to be.

[Sumner 1868]

Obama won every generation but Silents in 2008 and 2012. Clinton won just Millennials. There are four other generations and Millennials are not going to be "young" in the near future.

Hispanics gave Trump more votes than Gerald Ford.

[Devils30]

Dems definitely did not perform well with young voters in the midwest. On the other hand, they had very impressive numbers in GA, NC, FL, AZ, TX

[NOVA Green]

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.

[Virginiá]

Obama won every generation but Silents in 2008 and 2012. Clinton won just Millennials. There are four other generations and Millennials are not going to be "young" in the near future.

The Silent generation's electoral power has been on the downswing for years now and within a decade it will be, for a lack of a better term, marginal (no disrespect of course).

Millennials equaled Boomers in eligible voters and within a decade they will be indisputably the dominant generation in America. Democrats currently crush Republicans with this group of voters. Further, Democrats do not perform that bad with Generation X voters. Democrats tend to do pretty well with the younger half, which is the part that skews the 40-49 bloc towards Democrats (even if coming short a little)

My point is that performing well "only" with Millennials and younger gen X is highly misleading if used as a negative point and in fact the current Democratic coalition, age-wise, is still ascendant.

The problem of course for Democrats, as always, is getting young people to turnout.

To be fair, young voters have almost always had a turnout issue, at least since the 20th century. I don't expect any party to really be able to solve this issue without somehow fundamentally changing the way Americans value elections, which I don't think can be done with the way politicians currently behave. That, or maybe if they had half a billion dollar yearly budget to build a massive, permanent organizing infrastructure, though in the end you still need people to inspire them.

Outside of that, the only solution is to wait until they grow up. As generations before them, they will start voting more and more with time.

[Lord Admirale]

Lol no

[NOVA Green]

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...

Damn....freaking out a bit are we tonight???

Apologies for hurting your feelings, I am assuming I caught you on a bad night....

Not quite sure why are you accusing me of being a troll, simply because I fundamentally disagree with you on major substantive political policy issues.

Also your references to "blaming circumstances on illegal immigration" is quite frankly extremely bizarre and bewildering, since I have never once, nor have any of my family ever supported that racist crap.

I'm assuming that in your final paragraph you are talking about some of your family members?

NonSwingVoter--- not sure where all this is coming from, and I'll shoot you a PM so we can chat offline, since your response had very little to do with the original topic, and appeared to be more of an emotional response for whatever reason.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Sumner 1868]

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.

They spent money in AZ and GA. Nothing happened.

[Beet]

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.

Well yeah, they should spend money in Idaho, because it elects two Senators. Yeah, they should spend money in Texas, because it elects 36 House members. Further, it governs tens of millions of people. We're not talking about one election here, we're talking about party building for the long haul. I was on board with the presidency-only strategy actually, but now it's failed, and the best opportunity is at the lower level now.

[Virginiá]

The goal for the Democratic Party should be to try and stabilize their performance among white working class voters at somewhere slightly above 2012 levels.

Of course, this is a long-term goal. 2012 levels of WWC voters itself isn't going to cut it downballot, and it needs to supplemented with other groups. Democrats can't ignore this demographic. They just can't. It will take too long for other groups to be able to fill the gap. The geographic distribution of them is most efficient for our prospects in the House and Senate.

I agree with Swing and Beet in different ways. We shouldn't ignore certain groups, but like Swing said, we have limited resources and it might not actually be possible messaging/platform-wise to just get all these groups together. It's a tricky situation, but it is important that the party consider what kind of support it needs downballot and not just in terms of the White House.

---------------------

I would recommend these two pages - They are interactive maps of the US showing concentrations of people by race / age (first link) and education attainment / other factors (second link):

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/diversity-explosion-the-cultural-generation-gap-mapped/

http://graphics.wsj.com/americamapped/


Look at how they are concentrated. Racial and college/non-college demographics are not consistently spread out over the US, and for the Democratic Party, it presents challenges in state legislatures / Congress if they focus too much on one group.

[Technocracy Timmy]

One of the most fascinating things I've seen in conversations concerning where the Democratic Party is headed and what kind of the coalition they should form is this: The same people who say that working class whites are too culturally conservative to bring into the democratic fold are the same people who somehow think that secular, socially liberal, fiscally centrist college whites can come together and form a reliable political coalition with socially conservarive, religious, fiscally liberal minority groups.

In their minds, this kind of coalition is more feasible than a working class coalition of all races. If the Democratic Party tries to target college educated suburbanite moderates in 2020 then their share of the working class white demographic will stay the same or decrease and most of those surburbanites they tried to court will spit in their face come Election Day.

[Technocracy Timmy]

One of the most fascinating things I've seen in conversations concerning where the Democratic Party is headed and what kind of the coalition they should form is this: The same people who say that working class whites are too culturally conservative to bring into the democratic fold are the same people who somehow think that secular, socially liberal, fiscally centrist college whites can come together and form a reliable political coalition with socially conservarive, religious, fiscally liberal minority groups.

In their minds, this kind of coalition is more feasible than a working class coalition of all races. If the Democratic Party tries to target college educated suburbanite moderates in 2020 then their share of the working class white demographic will stay the same or decrease and most of those surburbanites they tried to court will spit in their face come Election Day.

This is the reason why I think the Democrats are going to lose come 2020. They considered targeting WWC for, like, a week after the election. Then they decided to double-down on the bourgeois politics.

I think it's more likely than not at this point that they'll lose in 2020; a lot of it will come down to if we have a recession and how it's timed. If it's early on then Trump can blame it on Obama and if the economy starts to rebound by 2019/2020 then he can take credit for the upswing.

The data people within the Party are too fixated on those demographic numbers. They see that the Obama coalition is growing and will continue to grow, especially millennials and Hispanics. They don't want to court working class whites if that requires an economically populist message because that'll scare away big money donors.

So they'll probably run somebody who's more like Obama than Clinton to reassemble his coalition. My guess is that it'll be a younger, more charismatic candidate, preferably a racial minority or a woman. A Hispanic person will be either on the top or bottom of the ticket. They'll court Hispanics, millennials, and college educated whites with a strong emphasis on social justice, possibly foreign justice (depending on Trumps foreign policy agenda), and a fiscally moderate, sound economic agenda.

Will it work? Unless there's a perfectly timed recession...I don't think so.

[Ronnie]

Technocratic Timmy, if I hadn't known any better, after reading your post, I would think that the same party elites that elected Tom Perez to be the DNC chair will choose the Democratic nominee in 2020.  They may very well prefer a centrist economic agenda and "identity politics", but as we've seen in 2016, the base does not necessarily always listen to party elites.  In addition, there are many factors that the elites will not be able to control in the 2020 presidential primary process, such as the ratio of "establishment" to "Berniecrat" candidates, as well as the candidates themselves.

I think the grassroots will shape the discourse over the next four years that will ultimately decide the party's fate.  Top-down thinking from the establishment just won't work in this kind of heated environment, especially when the establishment's choice this past election let us down in a big way.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[Ronnie]

I don't think the populist left movement can be seen as a direct analogue to the tea party because they already have a framework for their political ideology and grassroots mobilization in Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, whereas the tea party had to build everything from scratch.  A more obvious point is that there is no Democratic parallel to Mitt Romney, who was a pretty clear frontrunner even before the primaries began.  If there's a similar figure around which the Democratic base can consolidate early in the process, I really don't see one right now.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I don't think the populist left movement can be seen as a direct analogue to the tea party because they already have a framework for their political ideology and grassroots mobilization in Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, whereas the tea party had to build everything from scratch.  A more obvious point is that there is no Democratic parallel to Mitt Romney, who was a pretty clear frontrunner even before the primaries began.  If there's a similar figure around which the Democratic base can consolidate early in the process, I really don't see one right now.

True, I guess we'll have to wait and see just how successful the grassroots movement is going into and after the 2018 midterms.

While there is no Democratic parallel to Mitt Romney right now, the dnc leaks showed just how far the democratic establishment is willing to go to tip the scales to favor one candidate over another. One tactic they might try is to split the populist left vote between multiple candidates (Warren, Brown, Franken, etc.) and rally behind one candidate early on (Cory Booker, Gavin Newsom, etc.) so that they ultimately win out over the others.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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. 

College educated whites are just not as supportive of higher taxes on high earners since they're the most likely demographic group to either be in or enter into high income earner status. That's probably why Hillary Clinton did so much better in high income areas compared to Sanders.

I should note that a lot of my analysis rests on the idea that the Democratic Party will start to go further leftwards on economic issues as the millenial generation comes of regular voting age. They're gonna push the Party leftwards on taxes, healthcare, government spending, etc. and if they haven't built a coalition of working class class people to unite behind them by then, they'll have to start soon.

College whites and upscale minorities are probably not gonna be supportive of a Party that increasingly embraces the ideals of social democracy and higher taxes to fund more governmental services. As time goes by, social conservatism will slowly lose power and shift the goalposts further and further left and the white working class will follow. I think by 2024/2028 an FDR style coalition could be formed behind an economic message that would be palatable to them, especially if they begin to prioritize economic issues over social issues. Democrats have always done better when elections are decided on kitchen table issues.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I am a "high income earner" and vote straight democrat every single election.  You'd be surprised how many people under 40 who have over a college degree and make over 100K vote Democrat.  Since the high income vote was almost split, I'd venture to guess that high income earners that have college or higher degrees voted overall for Clinton over Trump.  There are lots of blue collar high income earners (you can earn 6 figures as a plumber, or as a small business owner) that voted Trump.  If you look at zip codes where Clinton did well, it's clearly college educated high income earners... see Fairfax county.

Maybe that's the case in fairfax, I can't say since I know virtually nothing about the area. There's a lot of government related jobs in the area correct?

I run in circles that pretty much define this demographic quite well but I'm in Orange County so it might be different. There was a lot of hooplah about where I live because it was the first time we voted democrat as a county since the Great Depression. However, it wasn't because high income college whites, or even college whites as a whole voted for her. This county has been becoming increasingly more diverse and 2016 tipped it for her with high Hispanic turnout. There were lots of first time Latino voters and they were a staunchly anti Trump demographic.

The under 40 and over 40 college educated high income white crowd in this county are an interesting bunch. If you have ever taken the Pew Research Center's Typology Quiz, they have specific political categories for people which include: Next Generation Left, Business Conservatives, and Steadfast Conservatives.

-The over 40 crowd are typically either Steadfast Conservatives if they're more religious or Business Conservatives if they aren't.
-The under 40 crowd are typically either Business Conservatives if they're more right leaning or Next Generation Left if they're more left leaning.

Now the steadfast conservatives were gonna go hard for Trump either way.

The business conservatives were a bit more cautious, a good deal of these types among my social circle did end up voting for Trump but a few (generally the under 40 ones) voted third party or Clinton. They were concerned about how their 401K's and investments would hold up with Trump in office. They weren't sure if they could trust him to navigate the economy well. All in all everybody who's of this political stripe that I know is quite happy with him since the stock market has soared to record heights, military expenditures increasing will mean a pay raise for my buddies that work in the defense industry, and his tax cuts will disproportionately benefit them and their families.

The next generation left kinds were far more likely to vote for Clinton or Johnson in my experience, although a few broke for Trump. All in all they're somewhat content with Trump for the same reasons the business conservatives are.

There's one thing that unites all three groups though: they will not vote for a Sanders style Democratic Party. A handful of them will (they're usually bleeding heart liberal ideologues-my father for example). Even the next generation left under 40 crowd that loved Obama and Bill Clinton are not gonna be down with Sanders vision for the Party. They're fine with incremental progress to help the poor and working classes, but they generally like the status quo as it's worked out well for them. God forbid a President Sanders raises their top tax rates 10 percentage points or so.

That's why I still believe that an easier path forward for democrats is to target the working class of all colors and ages. Oddly enough the admittedly few people I know who came from working class backgrounds, even the self described conservative ones actually found Sanders economic populism to be quite admirable.

If the future of the Democratic Party is social democracy and Sanders style economic policies, then they're gonna have to rework their coalition back to its FDR roots.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Of course, Trump being unpopular as he is, will help the Dems recapture the Governor mansions and the House in 2018.  And in 2020, with the help of redistricting in MKE, DTW and Philly, the 279 blue wall, will help the Dems recapture the states, Hillary lost and win control of the US Senate. 

Dems could of won with a baggage free candidate like Bernie Sanders.  But, Dems can win back control of the legislature and have the presidency in 2020.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I don't think the populist left movement can be seen as a direct analogue to the tea party because they already have a framework for their political ideology and grassroots mobilization in Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, whereas the tea party had to build everything from scratch. A more obvious point is that there is no Democratic parallel to Mitt Romney, who was a pretty clear frontrunner even before the primaries began.  If there's a similar figure around which the Democratic base can consolidate early in the process, I really don't see one right now.

Sorry, but what I bolded there is simple not true.