I don't buy this nonsense conservative GenZ argument (which seems to be a product of the most internet poisoned discourse), but a fair counter to BRTD's argument would be that there could be an ever-growing divergence between Generation Z whites who go to college and those who do not.
Probably not, because regardless of education level the rate at which a demographic votes for a certain party is dependent upon their environment, i.e. where they live, their religion, the differing cultural experiences growing up in different points in time, etc. For example, a white, college educated Alabaman is far more likely to be a conservative Republican than a white Chicagoan with no college education. Hence it is more likely that the progressiveness in younger generations is due to the environment in which they were raised and the natural tendencies of people who are young thus a 25 year old with no college education is more likely to be democratic than a 65 year old with college education, despite your pseudo-elitist wet dreams about "Le enlightened liberals vs le conservative knuckledlraggers" which is the driving force behind many on this forum to make every demographic political disparity about education level.
What's with the deranged personal attacks at myself? I am very much opposed to the idea that conservative = dumb (and the fact that the Democratic party has become toxic in certain "uneducated" circles is a moral stain on the party). What I oppose more is generation theory, a totally pseudoscientific mantra that has become doctrine amongst amateur psephologists.
Your example suggests you don't understand my point or the nature of a scientific comparison. What I suggested is that with all other factors controlled, a college educated young white person is more likely to vote Democratic than a counterpart not in college, and this may account for why college towns are much more liberal than the crosstabs of the youngest voters in general.
