Younger generations and (large) cities - could this actually *hurt* Democrats?

[AN63093]

Good thread.  This is one of my biggest issues with the "demographics is destiny" theory, that it often fails to account for geographical dispersion, which is equally as important (if not more so), than what the raw % is in numbers of millennials, Hispanics, etc., voting D.

In short, I think that unless there is either a re-suburbanization trend among millennials, and/or unless millennials begin to move back into the interior US, then their voting power will not be reflected by the EC since the census/redistricting will lag behind population trends and there are still enough Boomers in the interior states.  By the time they are all gone, the next generation will have started voting and we don't know what their voting patters will be like yet.

At risk of repeating myself, I already posted lengthier thoughts on this in another thread which I will re-post here:

One trend that I'd like to see studied more in-depth (I've seen some articles here and there on this, but nothing as academically rigorous as I'd prefer), are migration patterns of millennials- is there a re-suburbanization trend?  Is there a trend of moving out of coastal states, and towards say, the mid-west or interior west or non-coastal South?

Because if the answer is "no," and most millennials live in large urban areas in half a dozen states, then it may become somewhat irrelevant how much of a edge Dems have in party identification among millennials.  Now, of course, the census and redistricting should correct for this over time, but it will still lag behind population trends and there will still be enough Boomers across the nation, at least for the next decade or two.  By the time that generation is finally all "gone," the post-millennial generation will have started voting as well, such that it's possible that the electoral college never really reflects the millennials' voting power.  In that case, I would imagine more elections like 2016 will happen, with a PV/EV disparity.

However, I have to imagine that the answer is "yes," and that eventually, a millennial that moved to San Francisco from.. I dunno, Omaha or something, and is paying thousands of dollars to live in what was once a utility closet, on the second floor of a warehouse with 20 other people that is in violation of building code and isn't zoned for residential use, finally decides that they aren't actually getting that much fulfillment from the local hipster brunch place, and that their parents at this point in their life had a 4 bedroom house, a yard, kids, two vehicles and no student debt.  Maybe that millennial then says "screw this" and moves back.

We are seeing some "interior" areas growing, and quickly... the Nashville MSA has one of the hottest growth rates in the country.  The Denver MSA obviously has been one of the fastest growing areas in the last 20 years, which is a big reason why CO has moved farther into the D category.  But even outside the usual suspects: OKC, surprisingly, is hitting almost 10% growth.  Des Moines is over 10%, and who would've guessed that?  Places like Indianapolis and Columbus are actually outpacing MSAs like NY, LA, and Boston.

Even IF (this is still a big "if" in my mind) there is a re-suburbanization trend and/or re-migration trend away from the coasts, then that begs the question of whether these millennials will bring their politics with them, or whether they will change/shift in political views as they age and life priorities change. 

And still, none of this could happen as well.  Birth rates are falling- slowly, but still quite noticeably since the early 2000s.  I think it's also plausible that millennials simply aren't as interested in family formation, which would tend to negate any of the trends I discuss above.  In which case, the millennials may stay geographically concentrated for years to come, and in my opinion, the EC would then tend to neutralize the advantage Dems would have in party identification.

[AN63093]

Well, there will always be some holdouts since there are some states that just won't have much millennial growth no matter what, such as LA and MS.

But I guess we could say "most," or at least, "a significant amount," since at the very least, I think AZ and GA will be problematic for the GOP in the future (I am including the greater Sun Belt, and not just the traditional South for the purposes of this point).  Though I think those states have more to do with minority growth than millennials, per se.  TX is also worth watching, though I don't think it'll ever become an outright D state, just because there are too many conservative whites there and the influence of the oil/gas industry.  Though it could be a swing state or even a toss-up.

A realignment could also open things up wide-open for the Dems, assuming such a realignment triggers less polarization, party lines drawn more on economic issues, and the Dems winning some whites again.  Almost every state in the South is up for grabs in that case, including states like KY and AR... see my maps here for more on that.

If, however, we just see increased polarization, particularly on racial lines, which is what I fear will happen, then a lot of the south will stay R, particularly if millennials don't sufficiently leave the coasts or re-suburbanize.  In this case, most of the states will stay the same and the only real toss up will be GA, which will be a bitter, intensely polarized turnout battle, like NC on steroids.  Maybe TX depending on Hispanic turnout.  In my link above, I have a map for that scenario as well.

FL is a toss up in all scenarios, I think, just because the blend of demographics there does not favor one party or another, and I don't think it will in the future either.

[AN63093]

Thanks for the link S&C.  If true, that would challenge a lot of assumptions I make in future projections, so I look forward to reading it.