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

[Virginiá]

I could post a summary of one I received at work later.

Could you? I'm rather interested.

What do you think the impact of their generation will be?

Can't say for sure since I don't really know what their views are. If I had to guess, though, maybe they will be more Republican due to growing up under the weight of the Great Recession with a Democratic president to blame.

[Virginiá]

Most Gen. Z-ers I know pay very little to no attention to politics. The ones who do are mostly center to center-left, with a few exceptions.

Well, given their age I didn't expect them too, but rather that people tend to associate the good times and bad, and their/their family's well-being with the top dog of the country. High school years would be the most formative for political views, I think, so there is a chance they might not see things so badly. However, given everything that has happened, it's probably still likely that they might lean more Republican, or at least 50/50, even if their views don't quite match up with the party. It really depends on how they see the US and what role they perceive Democrats as having in the current status of the country.

[Virginiá]

What do you define as "overwhelmingly Democratic"?  In 2012, millenials (age 18-29) voted 60-37.  I don't consider anything less than a 20-point margin to truly be overwhelming.  Do you think Gen Z will be 55-45, or 58-42, etc.?

I suppose under 55% - 58% may not be "overwhelming", but sustained losses among entire generations like that would leave Republicans, and any other parties at a severe disadvantage at every level of government going into the future. Sort of like how Democrats have sort of hit a wall at 39% - 43% for decades now among white voters (factoring in low support in the South, of course). That is more or less the result of entire generations of young voters aligning with the GOP at similar numbers during the Eisenhower, and later, Reagan/Bush Sr eras.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.