Generation Z begins to vote in 2020... how will that change things?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:22:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Generation Z begins to vote in 2020... how will that change things?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Generation Z begins to vote in 2020... how will that change things?  (Read 15071 times)
BuckeyeNut
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,458


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 04, 2017, 11:48:54 AM »

1. The absolute earliest that this generation will be defined as down the line will be the year 2000. 96ers and others like myself are definitely not members of Generation Z.
Gallup, among many others, disagrees.

I've been called a millennial my whole life. All of my friends (born in 96' or 97' usually) have been called millennials. We all remember the sh**t show that was George Bush, we came of age during the Obama administration, and as a result almost all of us are liberals in one form or another. We're just as liberal as our older siblings born in the 1980's and there's no reason to think we're any different. I share a lot in common with my 32 year old brother and there's no single event that separates us.

As for the start date, there's no agreed upon start date. But plenty of sources say 2000-onwards.
Being a Millennial isn't about being born near the millennium, it's about December 31st, 1999 being a defining moment in your life time. Similarly, being a member of Gen Z/the iGeneration is about coming up with smart devices and being a "neo-digital native." A lot of people are wrong, but that doesn't make them right.
9/11 was a far far more important event than people getting excessively hammered on one New Years Eve. Same goes for the Iraq war or the 2008 financial crisis.

Also by your logic even some elderly people who lived long enough to survive into the next century would consider that a defining moment in their lives. So how's that a cutoff?

This is why you aren't a Millennial.

Amend the statement to early life. Still stands. Gallup got around to defining Millennial/Gen Z before the Census Bureau, and their definition makes more sense.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 04, 2017, 01:46:31 PM »

1. The absolute earliest that this generation will be defined as down the line will be the year 2000. 96ers and others like myself are definitely not members of Generation Z.
Gallup, among many others, disagrees.

I've been called a millennial my whole life. All of my friends (born in 96' or 97' usually) have been called millennials. We all remember the sh**t show that was George Bush, we came of age during the Obama administration, and as a result almost all of us are liberals in one form or another. We're just as liberal as our older siblings born in the 1980's and there's no reason to think we're any different. I share a lot in common with my 32 year old brother and there's no single event that separates us.

As for the start date, there's no agreed upon start date. But plenty of sources say 2000-onwards.
Being a Millennial isn't about being born near the millennium, it's about December 31st, 1999 being a defining moment in your life time. Similarly, being a member of Gen Z/the iGeneration is about coming up with smart devices and being a "neo-digital native." A lot of people are wrong, but that doesn't make them right.
9/11 was a far far more important event than people getting excessively hammered on one New Years Eve. Same goes for the Iraq war or the 2008 financial crisis.

Also by your logic even some elderly people who lived long enough to survive into the next century would consider that a defining moment in their lives. So how's that a cutoff?

This is why you aren't a Millennial.

Amend the statement to early life. Still stands. Gallup got around to defining Millennial/Gen Z before the Census Bureau, and their definition makes more sense.

Yes I am a millennial and the overwhelming majority of my peers call themselves that. One polling agency ain't gonna convince the millions of people my age to change their minds. Why are you so fixated on Gallup?

Hell I could claim that generation Z doesn't start til 2005 because the authors of the infamous 1991 book "Generations" coined the term millennials and defined them as being born from 1982-2004. Given that their work largely influenced the names of certain generations they would certainly have more credibility than one polling agency.
Logged
Steam Boat Willie
Rookie
**
Posts: 42


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2017, 03:54:20 PM »

Based on trends it won't be good for Democrats.  Clinton did worse than Obama in 2012 amongst younger voters.  Also Obama lost the 18-20 age range. Things are looking bad for Democrats with new voters.  Keep in mind Democrats don't really have kids anymore either.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2017, 04:30:31 PM »

Clinton did worse than Obama in 2012 amongst younger voters.

The results are more nuanced than this. Yes, Clinton got 5% less among 18-29 year olds, but Trump also did 1% worse than Romney, which was already awful. 55-36 Clinton is pretty bad for Republicans. Further, Clinton actually did better among 18-24 year olds than she did with 25-29 yr olds. Overall, a 5% drop for Clinton isn't that significant long-term. If you have 15-20 years' worth of voters voting 55-35 Democrat, that's a huge problem for Republicans.

The more interesting results were on a state-by-state basis, which seems to have aligned with education like the broader electorate. WCW white Millennials and college educated Millennials had a huge split, which is kind of bad for Republicans considering that Millennials are better educated than previous generations and more educated people vote more. I don't see why this would sharply change with gen z people. If Democratic support drops with them, it's likely to be a slow erosion over years, in large part due to the racial composition, which makes it hard for a Republican to win them outright.

Also Obama lost the 18-20 age range. Things are looking bad for Democrats with new voters.  Keep in mind Democrats don't really have kids anymore either.

And those voters would have played a big role in the 18-24 bloc in this election, which showed strong support for Clinton. This means that if they did break heavily against Obama in 2012, they came back to Democrats in 2016.
Logged
Steam Boat Willie
Rookie
**
Posts: 42


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2017, 04:48:48 PM »

Clinton did worse than Obama in 2012 amongst younger voters.

The results are more nuanced than this. Yes, Clinton got 5% less among 18-29 year olds, but Trump also did 1% worse than Romney, which was already awful. 55-36 Clinton is pretty bad for Republicans. Further, Clinton actually did better among 18-24 year olds than she did with 25-29 yr olds. Overall, a 5% drop for Clinton isn't that significant long-term. If you have 15-20 years' worth of voters voting 55-35 Democrat, that's a huge problem for Republicans.

The more interesting results were on a state-by-state basis, which seems to have aligned with education like the broader electorate. WCW white Millennials and college educated Millennials had a huge split, which is kind of bad for Republicans considering that Millennials are better educated than previous generations and more educated people vote more. I don't see why this would sharply change with gen z people. If Democratic support drops with them, it's likely to be a slow erosion over years, in large part due to the racial composition, which makes it hard for a Republican to win them outright.

Also Obama lost the 18-20 age range. Things are looking bad for Democrats with new voters.  Keep in mind Democrats don't really have kids anymore either.

And those voters would have played a big role in the 18-24 bloc in this election, which showed strong support for Clinton. This means that if they did break heavily against Obama in 2012, they came back to Democrats in 2016.

As for your numbers, they weren't a problem in 2016 and shouldn't be in 2020 unless the numbers change in the Democrats' favor.  You have to remember Trump won the election despite a poor showing amongst the youth.  My point was the Democrats' fascination with the youth vote and demographics and how it doesn't really do anything for them.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2017, 04:54:48 PM »

My point was the Democrats' fascination with the youth vote and demographics and how it doesn't really do anything for them.

I'd have to disagree. The best short-term age group to have on your side in politics is the 50+ year olds, but long-term the best people to win over are young voters (18-29). That is the age at which many people begin to build a foundation for future political views/allegiances. There is enough data to show that people who grow up influenced heavily by one party or the other, usually under a successful/unsuccessful president, tends to vote in a similar fashion for decades or more. Greatest Gen was still voting Democratic in their old age, the Boomers/part of gen x were heavily influenced by Reagan, and younger gen x/Millennials have all trended dem since at least Bill Clinton's 2nd term.

Point being, that at least imo it is best to lock in voters young. Voters can effectively switch parties later in life but it usually takes a huge shock to the system or a very reliable erosion over time. With this in mind, it's worth noting that in 2020 the GOP will have 4 years less of older 65+ year olds to rely on for votes, and more heavily Democratic Millennials will be entering middle age and voting more consistently. It's the slow turn of generational replacement.
Logged
Steam Boat Willie
Rookie
**
Posts: 42


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2017, 05:06:16 PM »

My point was the Democrats' fascination with the youth vote and demographics and how it doesn't really do anything for them.

I'd have to disagree. The best short-term age group to have on your side in politics is the 50+ year olds, but long-term the best people to win over are young voters (18-29). That is the age at which many people begin to build a foundation for future political views/allegiances. There is enough data to show that people who grow up influenced heavily by one party or the other, usually under a successful/unsuccessful president, tends to vote in a similar fashion for decades or more. Greatest Gen was still voting Democratic in their old age, the Boomers/part of gen x were heavily influenced by Reagan, and younger gen x/Millennials have all trended dem since at least Bill Clinton's 2nd term.

Point being, that at least imo it is best to lock in voters young. Voters can effectively switch parties later in life but it usually takes a huge shock to the system or a very reliable erosion over time. With this in mind, it's worth noting that in 2020 the GOP will have 4 years less of older 65+ year olds to rely on for votes, and more heavily Democratic Millennials will be entering middle age and voting more consistently. It's the slow turn of generational replacement.

That's what I mean you sound just like any Democrat with hopes of winning which doesn't give much credibility.  What about the trends in MO that have made their way into MN, IA, and WI.  I don't hear Democrats trying to repair this but instead try to convince themselves that everything will be fine in the future.  That might be good for a peace of mind but in the long run you'll be out of seats everywhere except for NY, MA, and CA.  In fact one-third of your congressional Democrats come from only those three states.  How about the WV trend?  There's a reason your party used to win there but can't anymore and it's because not a single Democrat is in touch enough with the heart of America to understand that their party is perceived as anti-white.  The WV trend should've been noticed last year as having made its way into PA, OH, and MI.  Ohio was never even competitive.  Neither was Iowa.  Four years less of 65+ sounds like your party is celebrating the deaths of the elderly for the sake of political power.  It's saying things like that Virginia which lead many to believe that the Democrats are supporting sanctuary cities because the more whites who get killed, the better your party's odds are at the ballot box.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2017, 05:39:19 PM »
« Edited: April 19, 2017, 06:35:46 PM by Virginia »

What about the trends in MO that have made their way into MN, IA, and WI.

I did allude to those states in my first response. I don't have exact data from those states but I'm willing to bet the divide among Millennials & educational attainment had something to do with the shift against Democrats among 18-24 year olds. In Wisconsin, Trump landed well among newer young voters but the older Millennials/gen xers, 25-40, more or less retained their deep Democratic support.

I don't hear Democrats trying to repair this but instead try to convince themselves that everything will be fine in the future.

I could easily say the same thing about you & Republicans. What I've said is what I see when looking at the data. I don't particularly care if others say I'm wrong because something something middle america. If they want to indulge a vision of America that somehow sees Democrats constantly losing still even despite a constant erosion of support for Republicans among the emerging electorate, then that's fine. I'm not trying to go on some sort of persuasion campaign here. I stated my views, and that's just about all I care to do.

How about the WV trend?  There's a reason your party used to win there but can't anymore and it's because not a single Democrat is in touch enough with the heart of America to understand that their party is perceived as anti-white.

What about it? That started a long time ago, and again is more more nuanced than you are letting on. In fact I'm not entirely sure what you're saying is the problem. That is a very vague statement you made.

Four years less of 65+ sounds like your party is celebrating the deaths of the elderly for the sake of political power.

I am not celebrating it, I am simply pointing out the inevitable political consequences. It's a natural part of life, and when talking about data and long-term trends, there is no way to avoid it. I don't even get why I have to state this. It's kind of a petty point to make from your end in such a debate.
Logged
The_Doctor
SilentCal1924
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,271


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2017, 06:15:33 PM »

I don't want to quote and all but aside to Virginia: the college educated vote will rise in this country as a neccesity of the economic trends thus accelerating Democratic gains. See Georgia, which is 50-50 college educated / non.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,641
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2017, 06:19:25 PM »

I don't want to quote and all but aside to Virginia: the college educated vote will rise in this country as a neccesity of the economic trends thus accelerating Democratic gains. See Georgia, which is 50-50 college educated / non.

I think the reason why we're seeing a fairly strong conservative streak in Gen Z (when compared to millennials; not the general populace) is because virtually none of them have gone to college yet.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2017, 06:50:14 PM »

I don't want to quote and all but aside to Virginia: the college educated vote will rise in this country as a neccesity of the economic trends thus accelerating Democratic gains. See Georgia, which is 50-50 college educated / non.

I think the reason why we're seeing a fairly strong conservative streak in Gen Z (when compared to millennials; not the general populace) is because virtually none of them have gone to college yet.

And not because the profs but because the exposure.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 11 queries.