How will Iowa vote in the GE?

[Virginiá]

Setting aside the 2016 election and looking at the longer-term picture, this is a slightly silly attitude to take. Parties in America have always shifted in response to demographics so that the balance between them is roughly 50/50 -- over the past hundred years, no party has ever enjoyed more than a decade of unbroken control unless a war broke out at the end of the decade prolonging that timeframe, and parties that have had more than a presidential term of unbroken control have always seen factions align with the minority party on certain issues to presage the return of 50/50 (the way the conservative minority of Democrats aligned with the GOP after the 1938 midterms, to use the most obvious example).

So it seems doubtful that demographics will ever give Democrats a permanent majority, since the opposite party will always shift to ensure the 50/50 dynamic remains. Republicans now mildly embracing gay rights and moving slowly away from interventionism are just two very obvious examples of that sort of party shift. Parties in America stand for nothing beyond being half of society.

Come on, both you and Green Line are putting words in my mouth. I never said Democrats were getting a permanent majority. I simply stated that the Millennial generation in many critical states is much more Democratic than the older generations, and studies show they will carry those political leanings throughout their life, with some exceptions. He asserted Iowa would trend Republican, when the political leanings of the new emerging electorate in that state is clearly not pro-Republican.

That doesn't mean Democrats get a "permanent majority", it means that eventually Millennials will consist of a substantial portion of the electorate and will have outsized influence in critical states at various levels of government. This will not last forever, and if Gen Z trends Republican, the future pro-Democratic effects will be muted until another generation swings back.

Further, parties don't always dominate branches/levels of government concurrently. Dominance at the presidential level does not always equal dominance in Congress. This is due to many factors, and I'll gladly go into them but it's too long for this post. I can say that just like Republicans dominated the presidency from 1968 - 1992, but not Congress, they eventually lost that hold but gained Congress due to the aging of their base, which was strong due to many years of pro-Republican trends.

[Green Line]

Yes you say the same thing about every state. So in 3-4 elections democrats will be winning 48/50 states guaranteed because of the "age wave".  That's not the way elections have ever worked in America. Republicans won the youth vote in the 80's.  Did that lead to every single state trending Republican? No.

Ok, first, what is with this insulting post?

Second, I do not say this about every state. I say this about every state that has shown pro-Democratic trends at critical age levels. These include the vast majority of blue wall states and almost all the critical swing states. Before 2008, Colorado wasn't even a swing state, nor Virginia, nor North Carolina, and New Mexico was still on the map for some. The reason they are now is because of these trends. Do all states have this trend? No. For instance, West Virginia and Indiana's youth are majority Republican, and in WV's case, pretty heavily Republican. This is similar for a lot of red states. I mostly talk about states with interesting trends, which is why you see me mentioning this all the time. I'm not talking about "every state", I am talking about blue + swing states.

And yes, Republicans won the youth vote by large margins in the 80s - Part of this, in addition to the Truman/Eisenhower generation is exactly why Republicans began dominating the presidency from 1968 - 1992, then Congress from 1994 - though mostly just the House, then finally state legislatures. "Generational imprinting", or the political leanings developed in young adulthood are real and they are measurable. There are clear voting patterns and there are studies to back up these theories. Unless you've read some of that data and those studies, don't go off on me about this. I'm using legitimate theories and solid data when I put forth these ideas. I'm always glad to have a good discussion on this, but don't put words in my mouth and don't tell me "YOU'RE WRONG!" unless you want to back that up.

I actually look at the data Green Line, and I do a lot of research in my own time on this. You just threw in my face some random assertion I never made. Frankly, I have no record on this forum of going around making wild unfounded prognostications about states or regions without backing it up with a valid argument and data, if requested.

Oops, I got a little too dramatic, sorry. I disagree with your assertion that because Iowa youth have trended Democratic, that means the state will continue to move towards the Democrats. The 18-whatever group is very democratic in many republican states.  As people get older, their voting trends do not remain the same.  The oldest voter group, which Romney won by a large margin, was not a Republican group when they came of age. Things change from election to election.  You do assert this age thing about too many states though.

[Virginiá]

Oops, I got a little too dramatic, sorry. I disagree with your assertion that because Iowa youth have trended Democratic, that means the state will continue to move towards the Democrats. The 18-whatever group is very democratic in many republican states.  As people get older, their voting trends do not remain the same.  The oldest voter group, which Romney won by a large margin, was not a Republican group when they came of age. Things change from election to election

I don't have exit polls for Iowa back when 65+ year olds were 18-29, and I'm not sure if they even exist, so I can't comment. I can say that you can see clear generational trends in many states. Yes, you are right, they do not always stay the same. Iowa's electorate was abruptly shifted towards Democrats in the 80s due to the farming crisis (as I understand it, anyway), so that did probably alter the trend in ways no one could predict beforehand. This can happen to a state or even the whole country (eg; Great Depression), and it will definitely happen in the future at some point to some states, but it's not really possible to predict and so it's not good to base an opinion on.

I'm just saying that, based on the data, no one can say it's trending Republican. The pro-Democratic voters may be more concentrated, meaning Republicans would dominate the legislature, but statewide races would be more Democratic-leaning. Many state races being held during midterms also skews things a bit because midterms and presidential years consist of two different electorates, at least for right now, anyway. These factors, along with other more complex behaviors are why some states vote one way for state races and another at the national and/or statewide level.

[hopper]

Yes you say the same thing about every state. So in 3-4 elections democrats will be winning 48/50 states guaranteed because of the "age wave".  That's not the way elections have ever worked in America. Republicans won the youth vote in the 80's.  Did that lead to every single state trending Republican? No.

Ok, first, what is with this insulting post?

Second, I do not say this about every state. I say this about every state that has shown pro-Democratic trends at critical age levels. These include the vast majority of blue wall states and almost all the critical swing states. Before 2008, Colorado wasn't even a swing state, nor Virginia, nor North Carolina, and New Mexico was still on the map for some. The reason they are now is because of these trends. Do all states have this trend? No. For instance, West Virginia and Indiana's youth are majority Republican, and in WV's case, pretty heavily Republican. This is similar for a lot of red states. I mostly talk about states with interesting trends, which is why you see me mentioning this all the time. I'm not talking about "every state", I am talking about blue + swing states.

And yes, Republicans won the youth vote by large margins in the 80s - Part of this, in addition to the Truman/Eisenhower generation is exactly why Republicans began dominating the presidency from 1968 - 1992, then Congress from 1994 - though mostly just the House, then finally state legislatures. "Generational imprinting", or the political leanings developed in young adulthood are real and they are measurable. There are clear voting patterns and there are studies to back up these theories. Unless you've read some of that data and those studies, don't go off on me about this. I'm using legitimate theories and solid data when I put forth these ideas. I'm always glad to have a good discussion on this, but don't put words in my mouth and don't tell me "YOU'RE WRONG!" unless you want to back that up.

I actually look at the data Green Line, and I do a lot of research in my own time on this. You just threw in my face some random assertion I never made. Frankly, I have no record on this forum of going around making wild unfounded prognostications about states or regions without backing it up with a valid argument and data, if requested.

Colorado voted to the close to the national average in 1988 and Clinton won the state in 1992 40-35%-23%. Dole won CO in 1996 46-44%-7% over Bill Clinton with Ross Perot being a 3rd party candidate each time in 1992 and 1996. In 2004 CO voted close to the national average as well. I agree with you on NC, VA, WV, and NM though.

[Virginiá]

Colorado voted to the close to the national average in 1988 and Clinton won the state in 1992 40-35%-23%. Dole won CO in 1996 46-44%-7% over Bill Clinton with Ross Perot being a 3rd party candidate each time in 1992 and 1996. In 2004 CO voted close to the national average as well. I agree with you on NC, VA, WV, and NM though.

Sure. For some reason exit polls for 18 - 29 year olds are absent in Colorado surveys - At least the ones I've looked at, so again I can't comment except on macro-scale changes. Voting patterns of 18 - 29 year olds are, in my opinion, a coal mine canary for the future political landscape. Things can change before that comes to fruition, and sometimes it does, but I think it has been more reliable than not in looking at state trends.

That said, none of those states abruptly switch sides based on one election (Iowa's disturbance was an external factor). Each state had certain demographic / other population trends going on long before they were finally contestable. It would be very rare for a (semi) reliable red/blue state to suddenly switch over one election and remain competitive or even completely flipped from then out. Something pretty important would have to happen. Some states had domestic migration open them up, and/or some were overtaken by aggressive minority growth. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones right now.

Basically this. Saying that the youth vote is the only factor that determines whether a state is trending Republican or not is simply not accurate.

Well it's not the only factor, but it's one of the biggest ones. How they vote in one election isn't usually relevant, it is how they continue to vote over several elections. Human behavior isn't as random and unpredictable as some may like to believe, and this applies to voting as well. Millennials are arguably a 60% Democratic generation at this point, but they won't remain that way. Considering how high that is, Democratic support will likely drop over time if Democrats fail to adjust to the times and/or properly address their voters needs.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Probably Democrat.

Virginia understands the under-rated indicators like changing social demographics far better than any argument to the contrary.

[Redban]

Probably Democratic. Since 2004, it's always voted around 2-4% to the left of the nation --- Bush barely took it in 2004, McCain lost it by over 10%, and Romney lost it by over 5%.

If Trump takes this state, then he probably won the nation's popular vote by 2-4%.

[Badger]

Probably Democrat.

Virginia understands the under-rated indicators like changing social demographics far better than any argument to the contrary.

She certainly does.

[Downnice]

Right now I think Clinton will win this state by 3-5 points. Iowa has been leaning Democratic since 2008 and Trump does not mesh with Iowa IMO

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

On what basis?  Bush only carried it by about 10,000 votes in 2004 and probably would've carried it in 2000 if it weren't for the early Florida call.  But Obama carried it twice by decent margins.  That to me indicates that it's still a swing state.

[Virginiá]

This reminds me of when I was looking at some polling results from 1972 because of this very topic. Apparently, in 1976, the youngest demographic bracket voted for Carter by about 4 points- which would indicate they were 2 points more left leaning than the country. A group 46 years older tied in 2008, which would indicate they were about 7 points Right leaning.

Well one election isn't really predictive. Studies have suggested that voters are most open to new ideas and parties in young adulthood, or their mid-late 20s. That's about 10 years or so. That's why they say if young voters vote the same way for 3 elections, they are probably going to continue voting that way. It's because they maintained the same party support and probably similar views. People get a lot less open to changing their views/attachment as they age. Young voters have broken for Democrats in large margins in all elections since 2004, and either tied Republicans or led by slim/comfortable margins since at least 1992. That's really not good for Republicans long-term. Their inability to attract young voters in literally over an entire generation is not good at all.

As for your example, they may have broken decently for Carter due to the Nixon scandal, but Carter's presidency was not well-received come 1980. Reagan pretty much absorbed those young voters and they now help power the GOP coalition.

Current young voters (at least 18 - 25) are more or less up for grabs, just like back then.

[Virginiá]

I agree with that. For the reasons you discussed, there were probably a fair amount of McGovern/Carter voters that went on to basically become Republicans.

Many younger voters voted for Bush in 2000, but then switched to Kerry/Obama in the 2000s over Iraq and the recession. If a similar progression occurs over the next couple of decades, Obama will be viewed in retrospect as the Democratic version of Reagan. By 2040, the oldest group of Americans will be pretty left-leaning, with the millennial generation we have now as solid Democrats, and perhaps the youngest group of voters in the Republican corner, under a more libertarian-leaning GOP. Trump will be viewed in the same light as Mondale or Dukakis, as basically an electoral afterthought in national terms.  

So if that holds true, we are going to hit a "Democratic era" for the next 20 or 30 years, with maybe one or two Republican Presidents.

That's the way I see it. Millennials are gone for Republicans, and even though 18-20 year olds voted for Romney in pretty decent numbers, they aren't a lock yet. Trump may cost them that small group, assuming a Clinton presidency doesn't drive them away again. How they vote this election will give us some clues as to whether they are sticking with Republicans or not. Well, unless Trump loses in some sort of epic landslide, in which deriving meaning from the data is much harder, if not impossible.

The Republican party's future viability really boils down to one thing, imo: Can they finally begin to win over non-white voters? Millennials and the generations that follow are, or will be too diverse for a whites-only strategy to prevail. Who knows how bad the long-term effects of Trump will be, but seeing water Goldwater did, it could be significant. If Republicans cannot break the Democratic stranglehold on minority voters, then they will continue to be isolated to the political wilderness and they will slowly lose more and more power. The math does not lie.

Republicans have not won a majority of African Americans or Hispanics for many generations, and now they have lost Asians, so how are they supposed to win in a country that is rapidly diversifying? I legitimately want to know. Whites only? Good luck with that!

No party is entitled to power - they have to earn it, and Republicans have really been sucking at this in terms of long-term strategy. Here's a scary thought for conservatives: From 1860 - 1932, Republicans held the White House for 52 of those 72 years, and even then, Johnson's tenure was only because he was Lincoln's VP, and Woodrow's first win seems more due to a Republican split than a true desire for Democratic leadership. My point is, if Republicans continue to fail to attract new voters, they could suffer the same fate Democrats did during that period. It's probably not going to be the case, but it's possible. This whole 'people desire a change in parties after 8 years' is a myth. When you consider how many presidential elections we have had and the historical results, parties winning 3+ terms in a row is not as rare as people think.

[hopper]

I agree with that. For the reasons you discussed, there were probably a fair amount of McGovern/Carter voters that went on to basically become Republicans.

Many younger voters voted for Bush in 2000, but then switched to Kerry/Obama in the 2000s over Iraq and the recession. If a similar progression occurs over the next couple of decades, Obama will be viewed in retrospect as the Democratic version of Reagan. By 2040, the oldest group of Americans will be pretty left-leaning, with the millennial generation we have now as solid Democrats, and perhaps the youngest group of voters in the Republican corner, under a more libertarian-leaning GOP. Trump will be viewed in the same light as Mondale or Dukakis, as basically an electoral afterthought in national terms.  

So if that holds true, we are going to hit a "Democratic era" for the next 20 or 30 years, with maybe one or two Republican Presidents.

That's the way I see it. Millennials are gone for Republicans, and even though 18-20 year olds voted for Romney in pretty decent numbers, they aren't a lock yet. Trump may cost them that small group, assuming a Clinton presidency doesn't drive them away again. How they vote this election will give us some clues as to whether they are sticking with Republicans or not. Well, unless Trump loses in some sort of epic landslide, in which deriving meaning from the data is much harder, if not impossible.

The Republican party's future viability really boils down to one thing, imo: Can they finally begin to win over non-white voters? Millennials and the generations that follow are, or will be too diverse for a whites-only strategy to prevail. Who knows how bad the long-term effects of Trump will be, but seeing water Goldwater did, it could be significant. If Republicans cannot break the Democratic stranglehold on minority voters, then they will continue to be isolated to the political wilderness and they will slowly lose more and more power. The math does not lie.

Republicans have not won a majority of African Americans or Hispanics for many generations, and now they have lost Asians, so how are they supposed to win in a country that is rapidly diversifying? I legitimately want to know. Whites only? Good luck with that!

No party is entitled to power - they have to earn it, and Republicans have really been sucking at this in terms of long-term strategy. Here's a scary thought for conservatives: From 1860 - 1932, Republicans held the White House for 52 of those 72 years, and even then, Johnson's tenure was only because he was Lincoln's VP, and Woodrow's first win seems more due to a Republican split than a true desire for Democratic leadership. My point is, if Republicans continue to fail to attract new voters, they could suffer the same fate Democrats did during that period. It's probably not going to be the case, but it's possible. This whole 'people desire a change in parties after 8 years' is a myth. When you consider how many presidential elections we have had and the historical results, parties winning 3+ terms in a row is not as rare as people think.

What does Goldwater have to do with now? You think Trump will have the same impact at making Hispanic Voters a "D lock group" as Goldwater's candidacy did when Black Voters became a "D lock" group because Goldwater was against "The Civil Rights Act"?

[Gass3268]

Trump's personality really doesn't mesh well with this part of the country (IA, MN, WI). Clinton should win with relative ease.

[RaphaelDLG]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

[Desroko]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

Partisan identification has declined over the past few decades, but partisan polarization has actually increased.

[RaphaelDLG]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

Partisan identification has declined over the past few decades, but partisan polarization has actually increased.

Is the imprinting the result of an emotional attachment to a party or a mental attachment to a set of ideas?

[Desroko]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

Partisan identification has declined over the past few decades, but partisan polarization has actually increased.

Is the imprinting the result of an emotional attachment to a party or a mental attachment to a set of ideas?

Why not both?

But seriously, there is both more ideological polarization and fewer swing voters than at any point since the WWII, and maybe Reconstruction - though we lack robust ideological data for that timeframe. People like to call themselves "independents" and whatever, you do you, but they're consistently voting for one party over another at higher rates than in living memory.

[RaphaelDLG]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

Partisan identification has declined over the past few decades, but partisan polarization has actually increased.

Is the imprinting the result of an emotional attachment to a party or a mental attachment to a set of ideas?

Why not both?

But seriously, there is both more ideological polarization and fewer swing voters than at any point since the WWII, and maybe Reconstruction - though we lack robust ideological data for that timeframe. People like to call themselves "independents" and whatever, you do you, but they're consistently voting for one party over another at higher rates than in living memory.

I guess the point is if the parties undergo ideological realignment the ideological gulf might be jeopardized if the imprinting is based on ideology alone.

[Desroko]

@ Virginia - the Republican party is incontrovertibly incompatible in its current  formulation with the millennial generation on social issues.  but, assuming they eventually wise up and change, how strong do you think the effects of generational imprinting will be, given that partisan identification in general has drastically declined?

Partisan identification has declined over the past few decades, but partisan polarization has actually increased.

Is the imprinting the result of an emotional attachment to a party or a mental attachment to a set of ideas?

Why not both?

But seriously, there is both more ideological polarization and fewer swing voters than at any point since the WWII, and maybe Reconstruction - though we lack robust ideological data for that timeframe. People like to call themselves "independents" and whatever, you do you, but they're consistently voting for one party over another at higher rates than in living memory.

I guess the point is if the parties undergo ideological realignment the ideological gulf might be jeopardized if the imprinting is based on ideology alone.

It would, though there's scant evidence of that actually happening - and realignments happen slowly, not overnight.